<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	xmlns:creativeCommons="http://backend.userland.com/creativeCommonsRssModule"
>

<channel>
	<title>jumpy jumpy vitamins &#187; statistics</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.scrubnugget.com/tag/statistics/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.scrubnugget.com</link>
	<description>these statements have not been evaluated by the FDA</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 May 2009 18:59:18 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
<creativeCommons:license>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/</creativeCommons:license>
		<item>
		<title>Why energy efficiency is about more than just saving the planet</title>
		<link>http://www.scrubnugget.com/2008/06/06/why-energy-efficiency-is-about-more-than-just-saving-the-planet/</link>
		<comments>http://www.scrubnugget.com/2008/06/06/why-energy-efficiency-is-about-more-than-just-saving-the-planet/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jun 2008 17:19:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>jeem</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Geeky]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[house]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statistics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scrubnugget.com/?p=499</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The quick version of this post: energy efficiency saves you money, stupidhead. The long version: Look. We all know gas prices are ridiculous, and that market forces are going to be scrambling to catch up for a while, and that there are environmental reasons to be energy-efficient, blah blah blah. Much of our collective problem, [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<img style='float: left; margin-right: 10px; border: none;' src='http://www.gravatar.com/avatar.php?gravatar_id=5728389dc6d1267a86e5184603872744&amp;default=http://use.perl.org/images/pix.gif' alt='No Gravatar' width=40 height=40/><p>The quick version of this post:</p>
<p><strong><em>energy efficiency saves you money, stupidhead.</em></strong></p>
<p>The long version:</p>
<p>Look.  We all know gas prices are ridiculous, and that market forces are going to be scrambling to catch up for a while, and that there are environmental reasons to be energy-efficient, blah blah blah.  Much of our collective problem, is that <a href="http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2008/06/03/tomo/">it&#8217;s apparently pretty easy to forget about energy efficiency when energy prices are low</a>.  So let&#8217;s crunch some numbers.</p>
<p>To calculate the per-hour cost of running a particular electrical item &mdash; a light, a refrigerator, a TV, whatever &mdash;
<ul>
<li>Determine its electrical usage in watts.  Some items, such as light bulbs, list this outright; those are easy.  Other items, such as computers or refrigerators, list voltage and amperage; these use differing amounts of electricity depending on what they&#8217;re doing, but you can figure the theoretical maximum wattage by multiplying volts by amperes.</li>
<li>Divide usage in watts by one thousand to get usage in kilowatts.  (Americans: &#8220;kilo-&#8221; means &#8220;one thousand&#8221;.  It&#8217;s that icky metric stuff, I know, but stick with me.)</li>
<li>Find your local utility&#8217;s rate per kilowatt-hour.  It should be on their Web site, though you may have to wade through several types of rate.  (Right now, I would look at my utility&#8217;s summer residential rate, which comes to <a href="https://www2.ameren.com/ACMSContent/Rates/Rates_umbe28rt1M.pdf">7.92 cents per kilowatt-hour</a> [PDF].)</li>
<li>Multiply the per-kilowatt-hour rate by the usage in kilowatts.  Your result is the per-hour cost to operate this item.</li>
</ul>
<p>As an example, let&#8217;s discuss lighting in my kitchen, where there are five bulbs in a ceiling fan.  On an average day, we&#8217;re in there using those lights for about three hours total; those lights are typically off when they aren&#8217;t in use.  Throw in a thirty-day average billing cycle and here&#8217;s how much it used to cost to light that room, before we swapped incandescent bulbs for CFLs:</p>
<ul>
<li>Five bulbs, 60W per bulb = 300W total to use</li>
<li>Three hours of usage per day, 300W while in use = 0.9kWh per day</li>
<li>Thirty days in a billing cycle, 0.9kWh per day = 27kWh per cycle</li>
<li>27 kWh per cycle at the rates above ~= $2.14 per month in summer</li>
</ul>
<p>Using 14W CFL bulbs in the same pattern providing the same amount of light:</p>
<ul>
<li>Five bulbs, 14W per bulb = 70W total to use</li>
<li>Three hours of usage per day, 70W while in use = 0.21kWh per day</li>
<li>Thirty days in a cycle, 0.21kWh per day = 6.3kWh per cycle</li>
<li>6.3kWh per cycle at the rates above ~= $0.50 per month in summer</li>
</ul>
<p>And that&#8217;s just one fixture in one room, at rates that are relatively low for U.S. urban centers.  The savings are even more pronounced at higher rates: in Juneau, where rates recently hit <a href="http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/050508/loc_275624444.shtml">56 cents/kWh</a>, that one light fixture would have cost $15.12 per month with incandescents (ouch!), but only $3.53 per month with CFLs (much less ouch).</p>
<p>While it will cost around $10 to put five CFLs in that fixture (vs. $2.50 for five new incandescents, using multi-pack prices from a Home Depot near me), the extra up-front cost will be recaptured after about 4 months of average use at my house.  It&#8217;s also worth noting that CFLs last about five times longer than incandescents, so you can often come out ahead just on the cost of the bulbs themselves.</p>
<p>(Aside: What&#8217;s the heat source on the original Easy-Bake Oven?  An incandescent light bulb!  &#8220;Incandescent&#8221; means &#8220;glowing hot&#8221;, after all.  Think about that while your air conditioner runs up your utility bills.)</p>
<p>[And yes, LEDs are considerably more energy-efficient and longer-lasting than CFLs.  Unfortunately, their up-front cost is appalling at the moment ($60 for a single bulb?!), so until prices come way, way, way, way, way down I don't see LEDs replacing CFLs.]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.scrubnugget.com/2008/06/06/why-energy-efficiency-is-about-more-than-just-saving-the-planet/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
	<creativeCommons:license>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/</creativeCommons:license>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>20030303 #2</title>
		<link>http://www.scrubnugget.com/2003/03/03/39/</link>
		<comments>http://www.scrubnugget.com/2003/03/03/39/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Mar 2003 06:39:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>jeem</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Pre-Wordpress Posts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Links]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statistics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scrubnugget.com/jim-temp/?p=39</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Some silly person sent me near the Gallup site. hehe. For the record, kids, you NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER turn me loose near statistics. Anyway, their most recent &#8220;State of the Nation&#8221; data shows that 82% of the country has a fair-to-poor amount of confidence in the economy. Check out the dates on their [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<img style='float: left; margin-right: 10px; border: none;' src='http://www.gravatar.com/avatar.php?gravatar_id=5728389dc6d1267a86e5184603872744&amp;default=http://use.perl.org/images/pix.gif' alt='No Gravatar' width=40 height=40/><div style="clear:both;"></div>
<p>Some silly person sent me near the <a href="http://www.gallup.com/">Gallup</a> site.  hehe.  For the record, kids, you <b>NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, <u>EVER</u></b> turn me loose near statistics.</p>
<p>Anyway, their <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/stateNation/">most recent &#8220;State of the Nation&#8221; data</a> shows that 82% of the country has a fair-to-poor amount of confidence in the economy.  Check out the dates on their all-time low &#8211; when Daddy Bush was running the show, in late August 1992, <u>90%</u> of the country was pessimistic about the economy.  And how about those two samples that tied for highest rating?  Summer 2000.</p>
<p>Also, have a look at the &#8220;State of the Country&#8221; satisfaction rating.  58% are dissatisfied with the direction in which this country is heading &#8211; the most dissatisfaction since Carter in July 1979, and we all know how well he did on his re-election bid.</p>
<p>A war with Iraq could provoke new terror attacks.  So says <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/04/politics/04HOME.html?ex=1047358800&amp;en=7cf166302b5949dc&amp;ei=5062&amp;partner=GOOGLE">Department of Homeland Security</a>.</p>
<p>Oh, and apparently we&#8217;re now <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/03/04/spy/index_np.html">spying on the undecided member delegations of the U.N. Security Council</a>.  Why, pray tell?  <a href="http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,905954,00.html">Read the memo for yourself.</a></p>
<p>So.  Since I&#8217;m too pissed off at the entire Bush administration to sleep, maybe I&#8217;ll go find something productive to do.  (Like check into moving <a href="http://www.immigration.govt.nz/">someplace</a> where people are a little more rational.)
<div style="clear:both; padding-bottom: 0.25em;"></div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.scrubnugget.com/2003/03/03/39/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<creativeCommons:license>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/</creativeCommons:license>
	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.335 seconds -->
