It's working, it's working!
 

Seen this yet?

Home electricity use in US falling to 2001 levels - CenturyLink

Maybe because 46 million Americans are living in poverty. :eek:

Wow, thats very good news. 10,000 kWh seems like a lot still! I used ~3,400 kWh in 2013. If you convert my natural gas usage to kWh its a lot higher than 10k though...

So I need to buy a new 40" TV to help out?

I am going to wait until 80s use less energy than current 40s, then I will save the world.

Actually, I hope to purchase a flatscreen for my parents for next Christmas, since I cannot imagine convincing them to actually turn off the television.

Depends on your definition of poverty. You also may notice that by & large the 'poverty by government definition' class tend to be more profiligate in their energy use than a lot of more prosperous folks.

Take for instance me vs my neighbors. While we're not poor by any means, they live paycheck to paycheck, while I have a comfortable sum in investments & retirement accounts. They complain of $200+ power bills, high heating costs, idle their SUV for 10-15 minutes before leaving for work... My power bill hasn't been over $50 for several years, heating & gas are similarly a fraction of theirs...

It gets even better when they're renters- in the bitter cold of winter they'll have the stat at 80 then open a window.

The comment on poverty is spot on, there is no better motivator than insuffient money to keep lights and power on to conserve, if your too stupid they get shut off.

There is a lower level of "ownership" and property rental today than there has been in many decades, the number of persons per residence is higher, plain english people can't afford their own places and this saves money as it IS much more efficient to live communally than individually.

122.6 kwH/mo average for me since I replaced my 45 year old fridge; or 1471/year. Average family uses 10,000/year now after they've "cut back"?!? :eek:

45 years WOW!

To think my refrigerator has only been in use for 26 yrs. It is actually older but was in storage for several years because it wasn't big enough for two people and we are talking about a full size.

"People can't afford their own places" I don't buy into this. This is a choice. While many maybe priced out many more choose to spend their resources in other areas cell phones, cable, new cars, dinning out and the list goes on. My neighbors are such a family ( multi-generational ) 3 ford f-150s and a mustang, only one economy in car the bunch ( Fiesta) it's new and driven like an F1 on race day.

There is also the trend that ever one must start out with a Mc Mansion and start renovating it the day after they move in.

She was an Avocado Green GE beauty that matched the green GE range and green linoleum (not to mention the green shag in the living room), all from 1968. I'd still have it if I would have caught on sooner to the failing circulation fan (which I finally did figure out and replace but too late) which caused the compressor to run constantly and eventually burn out. :(

True that. ^

The media- drama queens that they are- constantly run hard luck stories about the jobless, the homeless, the dwindling standard of living, the paltry retirement savings rate, the decline in Social Security retirement benefits, etc., etc., and they all have one thing in common: they focus on INCOME while barely- almost in passing- mention people's EXPENDITURES. Yes some people really did do the right things and still had bad outcomes, but the vast majority of the time when they interview the bozos for these stories, it is clear that said bozo was living for the moment and spent their way into oblivion. Gives me schaudenfreude every time. :thumbup:

Oh, poor, poor Uhmericans. Everybody has a new SUV (with an overused Autostarter), a big screen TV with cable or satellite, wireless service, cell phones, the McMansion (all 4000 sq ft of it perfectly climate controlled), and every free moment is spent tearing around in that SUV to malls and restaurants. Waaaaah, poor, poor Uhmericans.

P.S. I am working on an itemized accounting of my expenses for '13- even though I've always kept a close eye on my expenses, this is something I've never done before. I can say one thing now: I spent $98 on groceries in '13.

I'm doing pretty well for living individually not communally.

In an economy that is built upon consumerism, that is expected of you, both by our government (which prints the "money" that you think you have) and media, the handmaiden of government. It's the great government + media mind f---.

The rich are unaffected.

The middle class will pay. (They will pay dearly IMHO, to pay for both the rich above them and the poor below.)

The poor (those who have saved nothing and have nothing) will be subsidized to buy their allegiance to subsidies, and their votes to grant them continued sustinance. To quote president Clinton, (IMHO the most astute politician of recent times) in his comments about welfare, he said: We have ended welfare "as we know it".

The working poor are hit the hardest - because they have few or no subsidies and are considered idiots for continuing to work.

One big problem is that we do not only have "the rich" purchasing smart phones, it is nearly everybody, as well as the aforementioned televisions, cars, and everything else.

Somebody explain to me why college students have new cars? If they can afford new cars, why do they "need" college?

How many people keep lights on in unoccupied rooms? Both of my roommates, and one gets upset when the porch light is off, even during the day.

You probably already know the answer. Because it is now the expectation throughout society (that is promoted by our government controlled economy) that mommy and daddy would do so. This is relentlessly reinforced by the media. Can you turn on your TV or radio without hearing a commercial touting the purchase of a new car? Mommy and daddy were/are brainwashed into doing whatever the media promotes - and so they did. What used to be done by governments with bullets and bombs is now done with suggestions. It is much cheaper, easier and more highly effective to control people that way. Once programmed to do so, the targeted audience will even pay money to watch commercial advertising. The medium is the message.

We can say NO to this. We have the power to say NO. But most of us can't, and most of us don't. That demonstrates the power of suggestion and mass persuasion over the masses. No more bullets. No more bombs. Just 82 channels of the latest version of PRAVDA - that we now willingly pay to receive, and cannot resist watching and hearing.

Admittedly, unlike bullets and bombs, this government and business sponsored media affront does not do any physical or immediate harm to people. It just sets them and their children back economically and mentally. It's hard to make rational decisions in your best interest, once you have lost the ability to do so.

I think you might know the answer to that question, too.

Once you have been programmed to pay and participate in the cultural milieu, you will be willing to pay even more, for the brainwashing of your children.

Can they actually afford new cars while in college, or are they spending their money before they earn it?

Cheap and easily-available credit is too tempting for weak-minded folks.

incandescent 60 watt
halogen 43-watt
CFL 13-15 watts
LED 8-12.5

Is this an example of good government intervention or just the free market being trampled? Changing of bulb in my house has led to a decrease in consumption.


Reference
Production of 60- and 40-watt incandescent light bulbs will cease in January » Business » The Norman Transcript

I had the same question 500 years ago when I was in college and it was the same then as now: row upon row of new chariots in the college parking lots. I wondered what they knew that I didn't??? Because all I could ever do was work really low paying jobs that in no way, shape, or form could support a new car purchase. So it was from the very beginning that I had beaters that were at the very end of the hand-me-down list.

It was much after graduation that it was revealed to me that not only were Mommy and Daddy buying many of these cars (my suspicion all along) many were funded by student loans which at that time were defaulted upon with amazing regularity and minimal consequence to the borrower. But that's OK, the taxpayer is always there to suck it up.

Often mommy and/or daddy buy the kid a new car. The parents can't break the habit of buying everything for their child, even though the child is now an adult. Being a perpetual provider after it is no longer appropriate can be due to an ego trip or a guilt trip by the parent. Unfortunately it can lead to the cultivation of perpetual dependency and expectation in the recipient.

Guess who signed that bill into law?

Well it's undeniable that the bulbs are more costly, although they use less power. Purchasers soon forget the initial cost paid for any item. What you used to pay to the power company you now will be paying to the bulb manufacturer in the up front cost.

I have the dimmable ones in one fixture. If the bulbs are lit on a low setting, when I turn on the stereo, the light goes out. Then I have to turn up the dimmer. Then I smile and say "How wonderful. Seven dollar light bulbs with third world performance". As with wireless phones, we have traded reliable technology for less reliable technology. That's someone's idea of progress.

I buy fluorecent bulbs from the dollar store for a dollar. They last 1-3 years typically. So I am making more toxic trash that gets tossed at some store but I spend less on electricity.

I agree that we are constantly making less reliable technology, even landline phones are less reliable, whether I have cordless or corded phones they only last about a year before they fail, also the landline phones have as much static as the cellphones have cut outs.

Ah well

No, because CFLs and especially LEDs last much longer, on average. So you'd have to buy maybe 6 incandescents over the life of one CFL, and maybe 40 to match an LED.

Why? I mean why a dimmer? Even with incandescents, you're taking an already inefficient technology and making it even more inefficient.

Landline phone was $32/month when I dropped it. Pay-as-you-go cell is $7/month. Haven't noticed any difference in reliability myself.

So, I have dated various and diverse women, some of whom I have mentioned here. I dated one a year ago with a Mercury Sable that I was trying to keep running. Her roommate, who was on food stamps, kept saying "You don't understand! I need..."

While I dated her roommate, just a few months, she bought two flatscreen televisions, furniture, a 300m or something, from a buy-here, pay-here dealer, extensive tattoos, and a fair amount of clothing. Both were enrolled in community college and receiving student loans. The other one neither attended classes nor did any schoolwork. She certainly never worked.

There are some men like this as well, they seem to believe that the loans are free and that they need all sorts of useless crapola. My best friend was that way (he eventually wised up), not much you can say to someone like that, if they want to piss away money it seems impossible to stop them.

Sponges of society :(

Sadly this is the type of people corp america wants, lots of debt, lots of sales, too bad its not sustainable or usefull in any way.

I realize that. But (as I mentioned) the initial coast of the item offsets the future gains - so you are not recouping as much as you might like to believe (or are perhaps being led to believe) that you are.

Because it's a cooking and dining area and I want a variable control to be able to regulate the level of lighting, as desired.

I did the same. The reliability of my current wireless home phone system is about 95% of what my land line was. I find that acceptable. However, when someone calls me and they are on a cell phone, sometimes their signal breaks up. Then I need to say repeatedly "repeat what you said, your cell is breaking up." It's annoying. :(

Incandescent light bulbs were designed to fail after x number of hours.See the package.
The glue used to seal the bulb dries at a known rate then cracks and lets air in to destroy the filament.
Florescent bulbs are now produced to do the same.
L.E.D. bulbs will probably go the same route when they figure out how to engineer the life of the bulb.
This is designed obsolescence and it is legal?

Phil

Everything wears out or dies, eventually. Nothing lasts forever - including all of us who are living, as we too will die, someday. But you can sell more products by obsoleting whatever has been in use the longest, and government can hasten the process along by restricting production or prohibiting whatever product they wish to curtail or eliminate, at their will. That power is virtually unlimited.

It's not just "legal". The "new" bulbs have been legally mandated to replace the older ones.

Translation (not that it's needed): Now you no longer have any choice. Your ability to decide and choose what bulbs you might want to buy has been taken away. That action was taken to benefit someone other than you. It was supposedly done to benefit society, for the good of us all...:rolleyes:

Not so. I have a number of incandescent bulbs (in places like closets, where replacing them wouldn't be cost-effective). They were here when I bought this place 15 years ago, and who knows how long before that.

Can't speak for current production, as I've not had to buy new CFLs in maybe 5 years. However, I do have several that date back to maybe the early '90s (before the twisty shape became standard), which have been used pretty much every night, and are still going strong.

I almost wish a few would fail, so I'd have an excuse to replace them with LEDs.

I have a great aunt in law who has an incandescent bulb in a lamp in her house that she says she installed in 1968. Not kidding. 1968.

This is not true. Some of your choices are LED, CFL, LED, and Halogen-Incandesent What was mandated was how many watt can be used to create a certain level of light output. Some bulbs were exempted for the standard like 3 way and rough service.

http://cdn1.sbnation.com/assets/3793...01-01_1053.png

It's kind of like the Corporate Average Fuel Economy of lighting. I am for CAFE as it drives efficiency which we all know is good yet unfettered market forces don't reward efficiency until it's too late, yet I'm opposed to the lighting standards.

The main difference between this and CAFE is that with CAFE you still have all the choices available to you.

"CALF" (Communist Authoritarian Lighting Fail) fails to recognize that there are other efficiencies than lumens per watt. I have applications for lights where the heat is a desired "byproduct" in fact so much so that the heat is the product and the light is the byproduct.

And the price of the traditional bulb is but a fraction of the new junk.

Yes I say junk- as noted earlier, we are paying more for less. Flip a CFL on outside or even in a room as cold as those in my house and chances are you will be ready to go back into a different room by the time the damned thing warms up enough to work. In fact in rooms that I tend to be "in-n-out" of quickly, I've gone back to incandescent. And the "dimmable" CFLs are a joke. Those were even more expensive than the regular CFLs and they're such a fail that I don't use the dimmer any more.

So the point of CALF is to reduce electricity use, huh. There are about 1,000,000 better ways to get people to reduce electricity use. First off would be real progressive rate structures, that reward the small user... quite the opposite of the retarded regressive Midwestern model where the small EFFICIENT users subsidize the SLOBS by paying far more per kwH.

And of course the government could stop paying people to reproduce. A billion less consumers should alleviate the pressure on resources of all sorts.

I understand nothing like sitting under my mom reading light in the winter up there in cold country. Here I have the opposite I don't want any thing to generate heat.

True for the initial cost.

Have the same problem here with some of them and the rooms don't get below 78F.

Progressive rate might work for some other would just pay thinking the couldn't do anything to affect it. Just like at the pump. One that bother me on my bill is the account fee. It adds between 5% and 15% to my bill.

The tax structure is in favor of families as opposed to individuals while families use more resources.

No argument here.

Uh, that would be a high-wattage resistor (sorry, no light byproduct, however)...found at your local Radio Shack (wink,wink)

Can I buy a standard incandescent bulb any more? No, I can't because effectively it's been outlawed.

You are saying I have other choices, but in actuality my choice has been eliminated. I don't mind there there are other types of bulbs now available (as I said, I do use them in other applications). But let's not pretend that my personal preference for a standard incandescent bulb hasn't been taken away by governmental action.

I'm with Frank on this one. I too am in a cold climate and when I sit at my desk I use a 60W incandescent work lamp for several reasons: not only does it give warm light but I use it as a hand warmer in winter. The light from a fluorescent gives me eye strain when doing close work. It will literally give me headaches.

For me, the technology of a standard, old-fashioned bulb that was doubly useful to me has been eliminated. It was done to promote an ideological and political ideal, not to mention the benefit to producers of the higher costing new bulbs.

When I heard of the forthcoming ban on incandescent bulbs, I bought several cases of them while they were still available. Fortunately, stored light bulbs don't go bad. Forewarned is forearmed. ;)

When 100W bulbs became outlawed, I thought "So, instead of having three 100-watt bulbs in a room, I will need four 75-watt ones?"

I also wonder about people who visit Mexico. Might I as well pick up a case of light bulbs to go with my jug of vanilla?

Or you could talk to someone like me. I have a box of old incandescents sitting on a shelf in the garage, from when I replaced all my frequently-used lights with CFLs. Mostly 60W, but I'd let them go at a reasonable price...

Here's a funny story. I asked one of the guys at the local hardware store how long he thought it would be before incandescents would be off the shelves. He said it would still be a while because although the standard wattage bulbs had been banned(100W,60W, etc.) Wattages such as 95W and 58W are not banned. That may have changed with the New Year. But as far as I know incandescents have not been completely banned.

JJ

Stopped by Home Depot, and there are still plenty of incandescents on the shelves.