OT - Going green and energy efficiency

Tim Woodall wrote on 01/04/2007 21:54 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Unfortunately, I don't remember exactly when I did this. It was in time
for last years winter. I also don't have an accurate meter reading for
April 2006 so I've taken the average of the 2007 and 2005 readings which
is why the 2006 and 2007 figures are identical.

April kWh Average Watts
2002-2003 14033 1602
-2004 13263 1514
-2005 12392 1415
-2006 8836 1009
-2007 8836 1009

So I've managed at least a 30% gas consumption reduction.

Maybe, maybe not. This winter has been exceptionally mild which would
lead to less fuel consumption even if you had changed nothing.

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

"Tim Woodall" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

So, turning your computer on and browsing usenet is remarkably ungreen.

Or you could subscribe to a company that provides 100% renewable
electricity.

On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 20:54:02 +0000 (UTC)

Tim Woodall said:

I thought this might be of interest to some here.

Have you seen the recent meme in blogland? My entry on it was at
http://bahumbug.wordpress.com/2007/03/20/sustainable-living/

Quoted message said:

Step 1 of going green:

Presumes you were non-green to start with.

Quoted message said:

Checking in my records, I cancelled my car insurance effective
16/05/03 because I'd got rid of my car, I was never using it, cycling
8 miles each way to work instead.

Zigackly. "I'm able-bodied. Why should I want a car?"

Quoted message said:

April kWh Average Watts
2002-2003 14033 1602
-2004 13263 1514
-2005 12392 1415
-2006 8836 1009
-2007 8836 1009

I moved here in March 2005. The building was newly converted to flats,
so the meters were new and had next to nothing on them. Total gas
consumption since then: 2641 kWh. You're still profligate there, mate!

Quoted message said:

Step 3:
My next target is going to be electricity.

February kWh Average Watts
2002-2003 4600 525
-2004 4888 558
-2005 5138 586
-2006 4541 518
-2007 4654 531

Electricity consumption in two years: oh dammit, the bills don't
specify what the "unit" is, and hence the conversion to kWh.
The meter reads 2391, whatever the unit happens to be.

And I plead in mitigation: I work from home, so my figures
include both home and office use.

Quoted message said:

Fortunately, instantaneous electricity usage is much easier to
measure.

Better just to turn things off when not in use.

Quoted message said:

So, turning your computer on and browsing usenet is remarkably
ungreen. Turn it off and get out on your bike instead ;-)

Alas, my attempt at a green computer failed. I bought a low-energy
mini-itx as desktop, but had so much serious hardware trouble I
had to abandon it for a normal-energy-consumption sempron box.

As for why I regard using it as *very* green, see for example
http://www.regdeveloper.co.uk/2007/01/09/alice_business/

Quoted message said:

Hope this was interesting and hasn't bored you to tears.

no, it's a hook to hang a mini-soapbox:-)

--
not me guv

"I'm able-bodied. Why should I want a car?"

Adam Lea said:

"Tim Woodall" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

So, turning your computer on and browsing usenet is remarkably ungreen.

Or you could subscribe to a company that provides 100% renewable
electricity.

Which would still leave it being ungreen.

Of course, if you are browsing usenet from a mobile phone, then your
electricity consumption is very very low.

I'm guessing that my computer's using a lot less energy than the lights
in this room. Also a lot more than (non-food energy) I would be using if
I were in bed, like I may as well be.

A

On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 22:47:27 +0100,

Tony Raven said:

Tim Woodall wrote on 01/04/2007 21:54 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Unfortunately, I don't remember exactly when I did this. It was in time
for last years winter. I also don't have an accurate meter reading for
April 2006 so I've taken the average of the 2007 and 2005 readings which
is why the 2006 and 2007 figures are identical.

April kWh Average Watts
2002-2003 14033 1602
-2004 13263 1514
-2005 12392 1415
-2006 8836 1009
-2007 8836 1009

So I've managed at least a 30% gas consumption reduction.

Maybe, maybe not. This winter has been exceptionally mild which would
lead to less fuel consumption even if you had changed nothing.

I do have readings for July 05 and October 06. Between these two dates I
used almost exactly 10000kWh. (Both the last two winters have been mild
which I agree will probably have helped.) However, going by my estimated
bills - which were remarkably accurate from 2002-april 2005 being out by
55 units (600kWh) in total over that period before suddenly they
diverged - July 05 had a difference of 323 units when I then gave them a
corrected figure. Unfortunately, while I usually write the correct
number on the bill if it's out by more than about 10GBP - hence why I
have the correct april 04 figure - I was obviously lulled into a false
sense of security because I haven't written another figure on a bill
until oct 06 where I've got an accurate bill (and I was 5000kWh below
the July 06 estimated reading)

Unfortunately I have no readings at all between july 05 and oct 06
except the original estimated readings that are way out and the
recalculated estimated readings which would have me using less gas
2005-2006 than 2006-2007. (This can't possibly be anything to do with
gas 2005-2006 being cheaper than gas 2006-2007)

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 00:03:16 +0100,

Nick Kew said:

On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 20:54:02 +0000 (UTC)

Tim Woodall said:

I thought this might be of interest to some here.

Have you seen the recent meme in blogland? My entry on it was at
http://bahumbug.wordpress.com/2007/03/20/sustainable-living/

Quoted message said:

Step 1 of going green:

Presumes you were non-green to start with.

I suppose so. I would define non-green as unnecessarily wasting energy
and by that measure I've so far managed to reduce my energy consumption
with no discomfort at all. If I'm cold I go and turn the heating up -
and conveniently that temporary higher setting gets reset automatically
when the timer moves into the next period so I don't forget to put it
down again.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

April kWh Average Watts
2002-2003 14033 1602
-2004 13263 1514
-2005 12392 1415
-2006 8836 1009
-2007 8836 1009

I moved here in March 2005. The building was newly converted to flats,
so the meters were new and had next to nothing on them. Total gas
consumption since then: 2641 kWh. You're still profligate there, mate!

Hmmm. I don't know how you manage that. I suspect being in a flat must
help. I must have at least 100m^2 of external, non-cavity, wall on this
house. To my benefit, a large proportion (66%?) of that is approximately
south facing

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Step 3:
My next target is going to be electricity.

February kWh Average Watts
2002-2003 4600 525
-2004 4888 558
-2005 5138 586
-2006 4541 518
-2007 4654 531

Electricity consumption in two years: oh dammit, the bills don't
specify what the "unit" is, and hence the conversion to kWh.
The meter reads 2391, whatever the unit happens to be.

I'd guess kWh.

I don't know how you manage that either. The only light I use regularly
that isn't a CFL is the kitchen light.

Although I don't know exactly where my electricity usage is going.

Quoted message said:

And I plead in mitigation: I work from home, so my figures
include both home and office use.

Quoted message said:

Fortunately, instantaneous electricity usage is much easier to
measure.

Better just to turn things off when not in use.

Unfortunately, I haven't worked out how I can easily do that with my
computers. I do backups every night and only one of my computers is
sufficiently modern to be able to power itself off, let alone power
itself on automatically.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So, turning your computer on and browsing usenet is remarkably
ungreen. Turn it off and get out on your bike instead ;-)

Alas, my attempt at a green computer failed. I bought a low-energy
mini-itx as desktop, but had so much serious hardware trouble I
had to abandon it for a normal-energy-consumption sempron box.

:-( That is my next idea. Although my first requirement is that it is
silent. I'm going to try the EPIA-ME6000-LVDS-RS motherboard which
claims 22W under load

Quoted message said:

As for why I regard using it as *very* green, see for example
http://www.regdeveloper.co.uk/2007/01/09/alice_business/

While my immediate boss is all for being able to work from home, and I
do ALL my work on servers that live in the US so I'm working remotely
anyway (OK, I write the odd document locally) TPTB in the US will not
even consider allowing people to work from home. Only very recently was
it agreed to allow people who could not get to work due to failed trains
etc to work from home that day instead of taking a days holiday. :-(

I actually enjoy going into the office. I worked from home for three
years and part of the reason for going back to working for someone else
was so I had the work cameraderie. But just because I enjoy the office
environment doesn't mean that I wouldn't prefer to work from home some
of the time.

I think I'm either going to have to change jobs or wait until the
transport infrastructure is so creaking at the seams that it's made
compulsory to allow workers who can work from home to do so.
Unfortunately (fortunately), I really enjoy where I work. I'm working
with the smartest bunch of people I've ever worked with and I think I'm
unlikely to ever find such a group anywhere else (where I would want to
work)

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

Den 2007-04-01 22:54:02 skrev Tim Woodall <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Step 2:
As the next part of my going green initiative I turned down the heating
in my house from 20C to 17C.

Being green shouldn't have to mean being uncomfortable. Fine if 17C is
enough for you, but I think it would be more effective to use fewer rooms
in the house, and so needing less volume to heat. For instance, if you
have a room which you only use for, say, three hours a day, it might be
greener to have an electric heater for those three hours.

Compact living can also save you money if you end up moving to a smaller
place. Wall cupboards swallow a lot of stuff, but still look tidy with
nice doors.

Quoted message said:

I had new windows 07/2004 although I already had double glazing which
might account for the 04-05 figure being as low as it is compared to the
two previous years. Even if I assume the windows saved me 2000kWh/year
and I'd bought the cheapest possible option it would still have taken 50
years for the windows to pay for themselves.

Could also mean the walls are not insulated well enough.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house

Erik Sandblom

--
Oil is for sissies

On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 08:00:34 +0200

Erik Sandblom said:

Den 2007-04-01 22:54:02 skrev Tim Woodall <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Step 2:
As the next part of my going green initiative I turned down the
heating in my house from 20C to 17C.

Being green shouldn't have to mean being uncomfortable. Fine if 17C
is enough for you,

"Winter. That time when people spend vast amounts of energy heating
their surroundings to the temperatures they complain of in the summer."
(can't remember the attribution; sounds like Mark Twain or somesuch).

What were you brought up with? I've never been *that* rich, and to me
the comfortable temperature most of the time is whatever is natural.
So 17 or 20 is comfortable, but so is 12 when wearing a pullover.
Most importantly, keep the fresh air circulating. If you close
all the windows then you also close down the body's natural heating
(and its disease-resistance, which is why you catch colds).

The UK has a climate that should make us very low energy users,
as we have neither hot summers nor cold winters.

Quoted message said:

fewer rooms in the house, and so needing less volume to heat. For
instance, if you have a room which you only use for, say, three hours
a day, it might be greener to have an electric heater for those three
hours.

A computer is an electric heater. For two or three days this
(exceptionally mild) winter, I used the old 19" CRT monitor to
generate a bit more heat where I was working. But normally a bit
of healthy exercise each day, and switching from showers to a
daily hot bath when it's colder outside, are ample for the
english so-called winter.

Quoted message said:

Compact living can also save you money if you end up moving to a
smaller place. Wall cupboards swallow a lot of stuff, but still look
tidy with nice doors.

Heh! I'd move to a decent-sized place if I could afford it.
I want space to store bikes, as well as myself.

--
not me guv

"I'm able-bodied. Why should I want a car?"

in message <[email hidden]>, Erik Sandblom

(') said:

Den 2007-04-01 22:54:02 skrev Tim Woodall <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Step 2:
As the next part of my going green initiative I turned down the heating
in my house from 20C to 17C.

Being green shouldn't have to mean being uncomfortable. Fine if 17C is
enough for you, but I think it would be more effective to use fewer rooms
in the house, and so needing less volume to heat. For instance, if you
have a room which you only use for, say, three hours a day, it might be
greener to have an electric heater for those three hours.

17C seems very warm for winter to me. It's only 18C in the lab now - with
all eight computers running - and I'm in shorts and, for the first time
this year, not wearing a jersey. Our domestic indoor temperature in winter
probably averages 10C. That's fine; it means you wear a good jersey, but
then if you're going out of doors you'll need that jersey anyway, so
where's the problem?

In winter we run our central heating if we have guests and sometimes at
weekends or if it's really cold.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Fortunately, instantaneous electricity usage is much easier to measure.

My first measurement today:
10 flashes (10Wh) on the meter 74s=486W

Now turn off all the computers in my office and the loft (actually they
are all on a UPS so this is just a case of pull out the plug)

5 flashes (5Wh) on the meter   71s=254W

So my computers are using 231W (and actually I have one more not
accounted for by this that is on all the time so guess another 50W).
Ouch! This is half my annual electricity consumption. And all these
computers run 24/7

This is our big problem. We need, at minimum, one live and one test server
outside the firewall, and at minimum the live server has to be up 24/7.
However we currently have four live servers (and currently no test server,
because a lot of services got moved onto the test server while debugging a
problem and then never got moved back). Together they're between three
quarters and four fifths of our annual consumption. I think the solution
is to get just one server with a bit more horsepower than our current
166MHz and 233MHz boxes, shift all the live services onto that, and keep
the best of the current lot as a test box.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I had new windows 07/2004 although I already had double glazing which
might account for the 04-05 figure being as low as it is compared to the
two previous years. Even if I assume the windows saved me 2000kWh/year
and I'd bought the cheapest possible option it would still have taken 50
years for the windows to pay for themselves.

Could also mean the walls are not insulated well enough.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house

We don't have a lot of choice there. This building is listed, so we can't
fit double glazing. The walls are too massive for much thermal leakage,
and we've got the lofts well insulated, but I don't have a good solution
to the thermal efficiency of the windows.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

... a mild, inoffensive sadist...

Tim Woodall said:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Hope this was interesting and hasn't bored you to tears

Very, and not at all :-)

I guess I saved 15% of our heating bills by adjusting the timer. We had
the heating on for one hour in the morning while we shower and dress and for
four hours in the evening. All I did was reset the timer to 45 minutes in
the morning and for it to switch off half an hour earlier at night. I can't
say that I've noticed any differance (which must be a good thing)

Tom
--
Return address is dead. Real address is at
http://www.happy-penguin.info/address.jpg

in message <[email hidden]>, Adam Lea

(') said:

"Tim Woodall" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

So, turning your computer on and browsing usenet is remarkably ungreen.

Or you could subscribe to a company that provides 100% renewable
electricity.

I pay 10% extra to ScottishPower to get '100% renewable electricity'. I do
this voluntarily, but I know it's something of a scam. Firstly, Galloway,
where I live, is a net exporter of 'green' electricity - our
hydro-electric power stations exceed in capacity our total usage. So, in
practice, even if I didn't pay extra the electricity I get would almost
certainly be renewable anyway. And secondly, the grid doesn't work like
that. There isn't a special, separate, 'green energy' grid. ScottishPower
put energy into the grid (some of which is green), and ScottishPower's
customers draw energy out of the grid (some of them paying a premium for
green energy).

The only way you can be sure of using 'green energy' is by having your
own 'green' generator - and more of us should have just that.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they
;; do it from  religious conviction."          -- Pascal

Tom wrote on 02/04/2007 10:02 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Tim Woodall <[email hidden]> wrote:
<snip>

Quoted message said:

Hope this was interesting and hasn't bored you to tears

Very, and not at all :-)

I guess I saved 15% of our heating bills by adjusting the timer. We had
the heating on for one hour in the morning while we shower and dress and for
four hours in the evening. All I did was reset the timer to 45 minutes in
the morning and for it to switch off half an hour earlier at night. I can't
say that I've noticed any differance (which must be a good thing)

Tom

I zoned our heating so that the bedrooms are only heated for getting up
in the morning and going to bed a night. Similarly the living areas are
heated only during the times we are usually using them. It is a waste
to heat unused space for the same time period as used space.

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

Adam Lea wrote on 02/04/2007 00:00 +0100:

Quoted message said:

"Tim Woodall" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

So, turning your computer on and browsing usenet is remarkably ungreen.

Or you could subscribe to a company that provides 100% renewable
electricity.

Is there such a thing?

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

Tony Raven said:

Quoted message said:

Or you could subscribe to a company that provides 100% renewable
electricity.

Is there such a thing?

This was mentioned to me the other day:

http://www.npower.com/at_home/juice-clean_and_green/about_juice.html

I haven't had a chance to look in detail yet.

Anthony

Simon Brooke said:

17C seems very warm for winter to me. It's only 18C in the lab now - with
all eight computers running - and I'm in shorts and, for the first time
this year, not wearing a jersey. Our domestic indoor temperature in winter
probably averages 10C. That's fine; it means you wear a good jersey, but
then if you're going out of doors you'll need that jersey anyway, so
where's the problem?

While I can sit at my desk and type with the temperature significantly
below 17C, I also play the piano and 17C is the lower limit at which I
can play. My fingers just don't move properly below that temperature
and while I can force them to respond I'm pretty sure I'd quickly do
myself an injury. The two downstairs rooms have been knocked through
into one. I could put that wall back, reinstate the missing doorway
and only heat half the space but at the moment I'm merely trying to
eliminate my unnecessary energy usage without cramping my lifestyle. I
don't need to save money.

I don't think I'd be comfortable with my living space at 10C. Fingers
and toes would complain. Toes I could probably manage with careful
chosing of shoes and socks.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I had new windows 07/2004 although I already had double glazing which
might account for the 04-05 figure being as low as it is compared to the
two previous years. Even if I assume the windows saved me 2000kWh/year
and I'd bought the cheapest possible option it would still have taken 50
years for the windows to pay for themselves.

Quoted message said:

Could also mean the walls are not insulated well enough.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house

We don't have a lot of choice there. This building is listed, so we can't
fit double glazing. The walls are too massive for much thermal leakage,
and we've got the lofts well insulated, but I don't have a good solution
to the thermal efficiency of the windows.

My house is a brick built Victorian end of terrace with no cavity so I
have a lot of outside wall with not a lot I can do about it. However,
the end wall is approximately South facing so I do at least get some
solar heating - I should probably paint the wall black for the winter
and white for the summer!

Tim.

Simon Brooke said the following on 02/04/2007 09:44:

Quoted message said:

We don't have a lot of choice there. This building is listed, so we can't
fit double glazing.

Hmmm... We're all being nagged at to save energy, but a bit of
bureaucracy means that you can't do that in your building.
Double-glazing doesn't have to be all glaring white PVC, and it's not as
if you're changing the structure of the building.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Tim Woodall said the following on 01/04/2007 21:54:

Quoted message said:

So, turning your computer on and browsing usenet is remarkably ungreen.

Yup - a colleague was complaining about his electricity bill a few
months ago, and it came up in conversation that he has two or three
computers that are left on continuously. A quick bit of maths gave him
a shock!

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 10:21:27 +0100 someone who may be Tony Raven
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Or you could subscribe to a company that provides 100% renewable
electricity.

Is there such a thing?

Yes, according to the definition which is used by regulators which
is an annual balance of supply and demand.

http://www.good-energy.co.uk/ is the most well known example.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 10:09:17 +0100 someone who may be Simon Brooke
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

I pay 10% extra to ScottishPower to get '100% renewable electricity'. I do
this voluntarily, but I know it's something of a scam.

Though perhaps not in the way you think. The large companies are
forced to get a (rising) percentage of electricity from renewables.
As long as the number of customers opting for renewable electricity
remains below this percentage the company can charge them extra for
doing what they would have to do anyway, put their other customers
on "brown" electricity and sell the surplus "green" electricity to
others.

The difficulties of understanding precisely what people are getting
out of the various "green" tariffs was what caused Friends of the
Earth (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) to give up trying to
work it all out for consumers. The effort was too great.

One of the ways to push the amount of renewable electricity up more
than government is doing is to retire some of the ROCs every year,
which is what a few of the smaller suppliers are doing.

An alternative to "green" electricity is to use a supplier that
doesn't aim to provide "green" supplies, but does aim to help the
poorest. http://www.ebico.co.uk/ are the supplier that does this.
Provided that one agrees with their clear aims and objectives this
gives people another option for social responsibility.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54