Idea – Tankless Water Heater.. with a tank

Tankless Water Heaters for most uses are more efficient than tanked water heaters because they don’t heat water until it’s used. It occurred to me that a tank could help boost the efficiency of an electric tankless water heater further. Sounds strange, but this contraption would be different from a normal water heater.

For the most part the on-demand water heater would work like a tankless water heater. Water would be heated directly in the pipes as it runs through. The difference is a side-tank would be installed to buffer power usage. The most obvious use of this capability would be to warm up the tank water overnight when excess electricity goes unused. That way, during shower time when electricity usage is higher the heating elements wouldn’t need to do as much work.

Another theory which I’m unfortunately unable to test is it would require less energy to gradually keep the tank water lukewarm and then raise it up to shower temperature on demand than to on-demand increase cold water to shower temperature.

The idea works far better with electric than gas for some obvious reasons.

CFL Recycling

If you’re just starting to purchase CFL bulbs, then it’s likely years off before they’ll need to be disposed of.  4 hours per day usage would give the average bulb a 5 year life.  24 hour a day usage will give you 1 year.

The amount of mercury in each CFL is very small and not dangerous individually.  It’s also less than the amount of mercury released by power plants that would have supplied the excess electricity to power a set of equivalent incandescent bulbs.  But since recycling is not difficult it is a shame to pass up the opportunity to reduce the mercury impact further.

Many cities, like Chicago, offer “Household Hazardous Waste” collection centers, where any non-commercial, non-industrial waste can be dropped off for free.

Another solution is to order a bulk recycling container  LampTracker sells containers for 106 bulbs for $69.95, or EASYPAK for up to 90 bulbs for $74.95.  That includes the container, the shipping charges and the recycling fees.  That’s less than $1 per bulb.

In some states, another option is Wal-Mart occasionally takes bulbs back for free.  There are no promises there, but considering the lifetime of the bulbs a few months wait for disposal isn’t a great hassle.

If you’re still worried about whether you’ll be able to recycle your bulbs, you can buy low CFL bulbs.  Neolite bulbs have only 1mg of mercury per bulb, rather than 5mg.  That is less than the amount of mercury a CFL bulb will produce through electricity consumption (2.4mg), and a tenth of what incandescents will produce (10mg).  Normal, unrecycled CFL bulbs reduce mercury production by 33% compared to incandescent bulbs.  An unrecycled Neolite reduces production by 66%.  A recycled CFL, of any type, reduces production by 75%.

Neolite is a bit ahead of the other manufacturers, but most, if not all, plan to follow suit next year by reducing average mercury per CFL by 3.6mg per bulb.

Personally, the mercury content in my bulbs isn’t a concern as I plan to recycle them no matter how much is present, and it’s years before I’ll even be doing that, but it shows honest pragmatism about consumer activity for manufacturers to insure no matter what happens less mercury will be released, adding further to the environmental benefit of CFLs over the incandescent.

Letter to CFL doubter

Sean, from Is It Getting Warmer recently let me know of his doubts about CFLs., through a comment here.

Sean, I appreciate your concern, but many of your sources are wrong.  Wikipedia is unfortunately not a good source of facts on controversial topics.  You can learn something there if you double check everything you read, but otherwise you’re in trouble.

Truth is yes, mercury is a toxic substance, but the amount of mercury in a CFL is actually quite small.  Multiplied by millions it does have a negative impact, but for the near future that is balanced by the amount of mercury produced by power plants that power incandescents.  Maybe five or ten years in the future these plants will be cleaner, but by then we’re likely to be using LED light bulbs.  In the meantime a CFL will contribute less mercury to our environment than the alternative.  If you looked through my site you would have found that the EPA authoritatively states this fact.

As far as the idea of a CFLs manufacture consuming more power, I have no data, but unless the laws of economics have inverted themselves it is impossible.  Over the course of a 100 watt CFLs lifetime it will save $80 in electricity.  If the CFL costs $3, then it is unlikely $80 of electricity was invested in it’s production.  The U.S. has some of the cheapest electricity worldwide so even if you produced all bulbs at the cheapest location where you get 6 cents a kwh, it would still be $60 of electricity.

This alone should make you doubt the truth of every claim made by that source of yours, Sean.  You’re not uncommon in being confused by the FUD that is bouncing around the Internet concerning CFLs.  The other common claim is that one broken bulb will cost $2000 to cleanup.  I and other bloggers have shown this to be clearly mistaken through both scientific analysis and plain old common sense.

I won’t bother trying to refute each of your other claims because you failed to provide any background analysis or links that could be validated.  Due to the association with your other claims I have very little confidence in their validity, however.

Plug-in Hybrid as Household UPS?

It’s almost exciting when you come up with what sounds like a really ingenious but crazy idea, and after a bit of research find you’re not alone.  On one hand you start to feel a bit less crazy, on the other you realize you’ll never make billions of dollars of that idea.  Of course you probably didn’t have the capital to productize it anyhow.

That’s how I felt when I found out about the PG&E project to use plug-in hybrids as battery backups.  My thought was really just as a battery backup for homes, but PG&E has a bigger idea of using the hybrids as battery backups for the entire power grid. 

The second idea has a number of tricky points, like how to compensate the vehicle owner (flat monthly rebate, per kwh, or both?).  Also if it’s used for more than just blackout/brownout backup there is the question of the tradeoff between risking more gas usage by the hybrid’s, and the cost of turning on an extra peaker plant. 

I’ll let PG&E figure those out, and instead just think how you might use a plug-in hybrid at home.  I wonder how long a hybrid could power an electric heater and a light or two?   A stock Prius is only 1.5kwh.  A plug-in version would likely be at least 6kwh (some mods have given more than 16kwh).  An average space heater is 1000-1500 W, meaning you’d get 4-6 hours of heat from a plug-in’s battery if you can manage to seal one room off enough to make the heater efficient.  Or you might use it to power a fridge for 8 to 10 hours.

If we’re talking about things like freezing to death, maybe we should consider more than just the battery.  It is a hybrid right?  You’d need to find a way to run the ICE without killing yourself from carbon monoxide poisoning.  If so, you can run the ICE at 13.5 hp with an efficiency of 34% to recharge the batteries, and then draw electric power from the batteries.  I have no idea what the power loss from charging and discharging the batteries is, but lets guess at 20%.  Gasoline has about 35MJ/L, and the Prius gas tank is 12 gallons but could shrink to 10 gallons in cold weather.  That’s around 38 liters, or 100kwh (38L x 35MJ/L x 1kwh/3.6 MJ x 0.34 x 0.8).

If you could survive on a 1000 W space heater (don’t know!), that would give you 4 days of power, which is a lot more than you’re average generator.

One Billion Bulbs

I forgot to mention in my last post about the new sidebar element.  I found this on Matt’s Free CFL site and thought it was a great idea.  OneBillionBulbs.com allows you to track your CFL replacements and the impact.  It’s simple and easy, so I thought it was worth sharing.  I even created a group for the readers of this blog at http://www.onebillionbulbs.com/group/technorabble that anyone can join.  Give it a try!

Success Stories

Matt from freecfl likes the idea of a warning label for incandescent bulbs.  I’m glad to have his support and he pointed out an oversight in the original text which I’ve corrected.  The $12.00 savings was a yearly estimate, which I think consumers will connect with more than a per bulb estimate.

Matt also has an interesting idea where he plans to give away a CFL to interested Philadelphians to get them past the initial skepticism.  I think this is a great idea.  I’ve done a little bit of it myself.  At work I split up a 3 pack of GE bulbs.  I just ordered 12 CFL flood lights for my father.

Results from work are a bit mixed, 1 bulb came back with the comment that it didn’t fit any fixtures in the house (I’ve since decided it’s a better idea to do these tests with 60 watt bulbs, since their more likely to fit).  1 bulb never got installed.  But 1 coworker is in the middle of moving and plans to install CFLs in all his new apartments fixtures.  The only discouraging aspect is that I think he was planning to anyhow, but was just unsure enough that he wanted a test first.

The most encouraging success so far is my mother, who was in the middle of renovating a New Orleans home and has used CFLs for all of the lights there.  Also my grandfather has mostly CFLs though unfortunately his main lamp uses 2 100W bulbs that are arranged such that all the 100w replacements I’ve seen wouldn’t fit.  I’ll keep looking though.

I’m trying to convince my apartment building to stop using incandescent bulbs in the lobby.  All the upper floors use plug-in CFLs, but for some reason they haven’t replaced the screw-ins on the first floor.  That would be about 40 75w bulbs which run 24 hours a day.

Light bulb labeling petition

I’ve created a petition to ask for incandescent light bulb packaging to be required to explain the benefits choosing a CFL light bulbs instead.

You can find it at:  http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/warning-label-for-incandescent-power-costs

If you want to read more about why labeling is a good idea, try: “Educating Consumers on the Benefits of Compact Fluorescent Lightbulbs”.

CFL Buying Guide

It’s not uncommon for consumers to become confused when first purchasing CFLs. You can find a CFL replacement for most incandescents, but it may not be obvious. In order to simplify the process, here are some tips and recommendations to get started.

Where TO BUY?

For basic bulbs, my recommendation is GE bulbs from Wal-Mart. In store you can find standard 40, 60, 75 and 100w replacements for $2.50 per bulb in packs of 3. There are also various speciality bulbs from other brands. For 150w, 3-way or flood light replacements you can order online at walmart.com, and pickup in the store. Prices are very good, and it’s easy to handle.

For more variety, go the CFL Section of 1000bulbs.com. Prices are good, variety is extensive and the site is well organized. Replacements up to 500w are available. Flood/Reflector lights are available in numerous sizes. Dimmable are available, also in different sizes and wattages. 3-way replacements are available.

An honorable mention goes to GreenLights because I respect their strategy. It’s an easy site to navigate and decent prices, though not as good as 1000bulbs.com. Mostly I appreciate that they are trying to simplify things as well.

What to buy

To get the same light as you do today, buy a “warm-white” bulb. These may also be referred to as soft-white or 2700K. Replace based upon the “equivalent wattage”, which is always listed. You shouldn’t need to inspect lumens, but if you want to be precise you can. The chart below is a good reference (from EnergyStar).

If you’re more adventurous you can try a “full-spectrum” or 5100K bulb. You might like them better, or you might not. They will be different then the bulbs you use today. It’s up to you to decide what your preference is. I plan to try one soon but haven’t yet.

As far as brands go, I’m currently comfortable with GE, Sylvania and N:Vision. I only have about 15 bulbs in my entire apartment so I haven’t had the chance to test many brands.

How to Buy

Start with reading lamps. These lights are on for long periods (when used) and are easy to get to (no ladders). Also they generally use standard size bulbs which a CFL spiral replaces easily. Go to Wal-Mart and buy a 3-pack of 60w replacements and 100w replacements.

Try spirals wherever they fit. Spirals are cheapest and easiest to pickup at a local store, so take your first set and test where they work. Find out which fixtures don’t fit.

Identify dimmable’s. Do not replace these with standard spirals. My advice is to replace them last, once you’re comfortable with a brand.

Replace flood/reflectors second. These bulbs are more expensive (as incandescent or CFL) and less accessible. Most likely is you have one you 30 of them too, and the “can” may not accommodate all varieties of bulb. I’d recommend trying a spiral first, just to see how it works. Some cans are deep enough that the effect with a CFL may be identical to a flood.

If a spiral doesn’t work, buy a single flood and insure it fits. Flood’s depth and width is specified by their type (R30, etc), but the bases are different, so be careful you don’t buy 30 bulbs that won’t fit. Try one first.

Save and Enjoy

Sounds like a hassle? Here’s some good points:

1. Longer life – You won’t need to bring the ladder out a third as often.
2. Lower electric bill – A spiral will repay it’s cost within 1 to 4 months, depending on frequency of use and wattage.
3. Sense of accomplishment – It will feel good to know you did something good for your pocketbook and good for the environment.

HELP OTHERS UNDERSTAND

If you like CFLs, maybe you’d like to help spread the word.  Sign the light bulb labeling petition, so that everyone knows how much money they can save while helping the environment. 

The Great Mercury Cleanup – Bullshit

There is a story circulating on the Internet about a lady in Maine who broke a single Compact Fluorescent Lightbulb and ended up spending $2,000 to get a hazmat team to clean it up.  Untold numbers of pundits and reporters are holding this up as proof that CFLs are not cost effective.

There are a number of things outrageous about this story, but it’s not the danger from CFLs.  First off, take a moment and think about this.  Fluorescent lightbulbs have been used in offices, industrial spaces, apartment buildings, etc. etc. for decades.  The 4ft fluorescent bulbs used here are similar to CFLs, just bigger.  Being bigger they contain even more mercury.  Today they average 12mg or 2.5 times the average CFL, and 12 times low mercury CFLs.  Further decades ago these contained as much as 50mg of mercury per bulb.

Yet in all these decades has an office ever called in a hazmat crew to cleanup a broken bulb?  I suspect they’ve broken one or two of the millions (or billions?) used.  Even without the proper scientific knowledge to understand that the amount of mercury in a CFL is not lethal nor even poses a long term health hazard (unless possibly you snort it like cocaine) it should be obvious that the $2,000 hazmat crew is merely evidence of a single person getting swindled.

Or, you could just read the whole EPA CFL Fact Sheet where they state

The amount of mercury in a CFL’s glass tubing is small, about 4mg

and

If a CFL breaks in your home, open nearby windows to disperse any vapor that may escape, carefully sweep up the fragments (do not use your hands) and wipe the area with a disposable paper towel to remove all glass fragments.  Do not use a vacuum.

Ooooh, sounds bad.  Compare it with the SWOSU Safety Manual’s advice on dealing with normal bulbs.

When changing a broken light bulb, or when changing a burned out light bulb in a hazardous area, the circuit must be de-energized and eye protection should be worn. Avoid handling broken bulb fragments. Burned out bulbs should be properly disposed of.

 Caution is justifiable in both cases; paranoia is not.

Educating consumers on the benefits of a Compact Fluorescent Lightbulb through legal action

Update: I’ve created a petition at http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/warning-label-for-incandescent-power-costs.

Not long ago I floated the idea of an incandescent bulb warning label as a way to encourage CFL usage. I’ve thought about it a bit more since then and the more I think, the better the idea sounds. In a political sense it’s a slam dunk, and I’m convinced it would have real and immediate benefits.

On the political side, I can only see one constituency that might object: Incandescent bulb manufacturers who aren’t also CFL manufacturers. I suspect that’s a pretty small group. GE, Sylvania and Phillips and their understandably excited about the opportunity to shift consumer power costs to CFL bulb revenues.

It should, rationally, be supported by those opposed to an outright ban too. An outright ban does admittedly have complications, because of odd-size fixtures or special needs. A warning label would reduce the need for an outright ban. The main justification for an outright ban is that consumers are making irrational decisions everyday and a ban seems a simple way to fix that.

For environmentalists it should be attractive too. Sure, it might take some of the wind of the ban movement, but the upside is every ban proposed or passed has a long adoption period of 5 to 10 years. During this period manufacturers and retailers will prepare, but consumers won’t be affected or influenced. A warning label regulation could realistically take full effect within a single year and return immediate benefits.

I expect to hear the anti-mercury argument, but that argument isn’t rational because the facts clearly show that a EPA CFL Fact Sheet.

I’m certain a label would be effective. There is a reason all CFL packaging highlights the lifetime savings, because it works. But it only works when the consumer first picks up the CFL package, reads it, and believes it. Put that same information on an incandescent package in a conspicuous manner and you’re assured consumer will see it even if they don’t know what a CFL is.

Lastly, if the label is on the incandescent packaging, it will be ten times more believable. If the “smoking kills” warning only appeared on gum wrappers would it be as believable as the one on a package of cigarettes?

So in the light of all of this, I’d like to formally begin a warning label movement.

Dear Representative/Senator,

CFLs contribute less CO2, mercury and other pollutants than comparable incandescent bulbs and save money, yet many consumers are not aware of CFLs or their benefits. CFL manufacturers attempt to educate consumers through packaging labels but consumers either don’t see the CFL products, or don’t believe these facts.

I therefore strongly feel regulations should require these facts to appear in a conspicuous location of incandescent bulb packaging. Additionally the same facts should appear in incandescent bulb product catalogues and advertisements either electronic or print.

While exact wording is an appropriate matter for debate, I offer the following starting point (for 100 watt bulbs).

“WARNING: Each bulb in this package will cost $12.00 more in energy bills per year than a Compact Fluorescent Lightbulb of equal or superior light output (based on average use of 4 hours per day). The EPA recommends against the installation of this bulb in fixtures used more than 15 minutes per day.”

Manufacturers would be allowed and encouraged to suffix this label with a list of suitable replacement bulbs. I would expect them to choose from their product line, and the only restriction would be that all listed bulbs must consume at least a 70% less energy.

I believe it is reasonable to ask all retailers to perform the necessary changes within a 9 month period following the approval of these regulations.
Thank you,

Take this letter and send it to your state representatives, as well as your U.S. congress representative and senator.

Of the two, I expect the state representatives are more important. If a regulation is passed in just a few states it is likely the major manufactures, like GE will place the warning label on all packaging in the United States. Even if some smaller manufacturers don’t follow suit, and comply only in the states with regulations, consumer visibility will be high enough as to be effectively the same.

All the same, let your U.S. representative know as well, although I fully expect results to take longer at this level it provides the benefit of publicity. If just one U.S. representative or senator publicly backs a regulation every state effort benefits significantly.

As well, this is a small site, so I strongly encourage you to spread the word.

Share this post :