[mdlug] I found a 20 inch monitor today

[Jeff Hanson]

On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 2:22 PM, Aaron Kulkis <akulkis3 at hotpop.com> wrote:
> Scott Webster Wood wrote:
>  > Yes, I knew it was coming the first time I saw that 'energy star'
>   > logo.  PC pc's!
>  >
>
>  It has nothing to do with political correctness, and
>  everything to do with the economics of paying for
>  electricity.

Also air conditioning costs in the summer.  It will also reduce
heating costs if the electrical energy costs are greater then other
heating energy costs.

>  This is why all of the various political "save energy"
>  measures are actually just ruses for some other agenda.
>
>  Truly energy efficient devices don't need to be subsidized.

Not permanently anyways.  It takes incentives to achieve enough demand
and get prices down though mass production efficiency.

>  Any time some group wants Congress to get involved to
>  mandate that people "use less energy"... there's some
>  other agenda at the roof of it.

The are usually hidden costs and benefits to any program.  Ethanol may
not be the answer to everyone's energy problems yet but if organic
sources other than corn can be converted with greater efficiency then
it may reduce total energy costs in the future when other sources like
oil are much more expensive.  It takes time to develop the technology
however and if companies in Michigan do it first then the state stands
to benefit from their growth.  It's also an economic benefit to small
family farm operations like ADM and will provide jobs for many people
in China or whatever third-world country is the outsource leader then.

>  Two years ago, we replaced a 1970's furnace with a new
>  high efficiency (98%+) furnace.  Last winter, our gas
>  bills were estimates based on the basis of consumption
>  over previous years.  We ended up accumulating so much
>  credit (due to overbilling) that despite a much colder
>  winter than the past several years, we still have
>  several hundred dollars of credit with the gas company.
>
>  If something is "energy efficient" but isn't being
>  used because of extremely high purchase costs, that
>  a very good indicator that there's a very substantial
>  energy input to make the thing in the first place.

It's also a time lag issue with the development of the technology.
Furnaces did not get that efficient overnight.  Prior to improved heat
exchangers you only option was to disconnect them from the chimney and
exhaust them inside.  That doesn't work very well with oil furnaces
because of the odor.  You end up spending more money on air fresheners
than you gain on improved energy recovery.

>  This is why photoelectric cells are not economical up
>  here in Michigan -- the energy input to make the wafers
>  is so high, and in operation, the energy output so
>  low, that it takes YEARS just to recover the energy
>  used to make the device in the first place.  And
>  if the thing breaks (they're quite fragile) before
>  lasting that long, then this so-called "energy
>  saving" device has actually consumed more energy
>  than it ever produced.
>
>  And that's why nobody here is going to use them
>  for power production unless government clods in
>  Lansing or Washington subsidize them.

That can be partially compensated for by building more energy
efficient homes and utilizing thermal energy from solar radiation in
addition to electrical conversion.  Adjusting the Earth's inclination
of rotation would also increase the available energy.

Another problem with CRTs is the amount of lead and other toxins in
them.  I'm not sure how they compare to LCDs though.  CRTs can't be
just dumped into landfills without causing major environmental
problems.  Reuse only delays the problem as all monitors will
eventually fail.  They need to be recycled properly in China where
their rivers seem to handle the toxins better than ours.