Who's shutting down the Tank for Earth Hour Saturday

[lockrookie]

we should start a save the sheeps wool for an hour day and walk around nekkid in respect for all those sheep who go nekkid for us to have those warm sweaters on to reduce the heat to be energy efficient

[wolf_bluejay]

Originally Posted by StirCrazy

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.

[Tom R]

Originally Posted by christyf5

I might turn my lights off early that night but other than my fish tank I think I'm pretty energy conscious. I'll probably sit around in the dark on saturday night just cuz its fun. However convincing my husband to turn the tv off for an hour could be monumental

Ha Christy

Are you feeding him cold beans as well.

[christyf5]

Originally Posted by Tom R

Ha Christy

Are you feeding him cold beans as well.

I gotta feed him too?? Sheesh!

[StirCrazy]

traditionaly I turn on every light, TV, computer, and oven in the house during this. I think this year I will go out and weld for an hour also. 50amps of 220 for an hour should cancle out a whole town of lights

concidering that lights for one hour amounts to squat this is a joke of a campain.

A city cannot leagaly turn out the streat lights as was mentiond, just thing what would happen if some one got hit by a car or something in a normaly lighted intersection.

Steve

[hillbillyreefer]

Originally Posted by StirCrazy

traditionaly I turn on every light, TV, computer, and oven in the house during this. I think this year I will go out and weld for an hour also. 50amps of 220 for an hour should cancle out a whole town of lights

concidering that lights for one hour amounts to squat this is a joke of a campain.

A city cannot leagaly turn out the streat lights as was mentiond, just thing what would happen if some one got hit by a car or something in a normaly lighted intersection.

Steve

+1 and I think I'll kick the local enviro nazi in the nads while I'm at it.

Keep sipping the coolaid.

[OceanicCorals-Eugene-]

Originally Posted by outacontrol

this is completely untrue, an incandescent light takes no more energy to turn on than is does to run, an inductive light (metal halide or flourescent) takes a little bit of a peak in energy to start but this only comes into play in cycles of a minute or less. The energy saved in having a light off for 10 or more minutes is way more substantial than the energy to restart it.

and here is an article to support this: http://www.lightingdesignlab.com/art...luorescent.htm

thats quite interesting! thanks for straightening the fact for me, learning something everyday haha