View Single Post
  #27  
Old 03-27-2010, 08:39 AM
wolf_bluejay wolf_bluejay is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Kamloops, BC
Posts: 84
wolf_bluejay is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by StirCrazy View Post
I think looking beyond price is a load of *&^*&

yes it is a valid statment given the two objects are equal in every other way, but unless there is something very compelling besides energy use I will pick the cheeper object every time.

the example you gave below the reeflo is the one I would pic despite the increased rating, as it actualy uses less than it states, but that asside the amp master is loud, prone to seal leakage and generaly a lower quality pump.

as for TV's well there is a whole different game. whats the resolution and the quality at that resolution.. hows the color quality, contrast, ect.. I would pick a TV that uses 10X the power if it was betting in the other aspects. now if they were the same quality and one used less energy.. I would pick the cheeper one. now if price was also the same I would pick the one that uses less power.

Steve

Grumble, grumble -- I always hear this a lot. Part of what I do for a living is calculating the "overall" cost of electronics and we do buy a lot (7000+ computers running at a time, tv's, projectors) and the cost of power is HUGE in the long run and especially over many items.

Example -- a $20 CRT computer monitor is MORE expensive than a $200 LCD after 3 years of 9-5 work. CRT's use 30 watts in standby and 60 while on. Automating our computers to turn off and back on again in the morning amount to about $20 per computer per year.

And it is really, really important on TV's -- Large Plasma's can be upwards of 600 watts to run and the same size LCD 200 watts. Add in A/C cost to the heat and you get about 500 watt difference -- or about $.04 per hour. Over 2000 hours per year, is $80 a year more expensive to run. So saving $100 bucks on a TV that cost $80 a year more to run is just silly.


The same stuff applies to our reef tanks. I think the most common debate is always "what give the most light vs. power" initial cost is only a small part of the debate. Of course it works out nicely the the greenest way to do things is usually the cheapest
How many reefers have a kill-a-watt kicking around?

Now, just don't get me started on the governments way of calculating how a crown corp. or agency is carbon neutral or not.. that is really really silly.

Last edited by wolf_bluejay; 03-27-2010 at 08:45 AM.
Reply With Quote