Tuesday, September 8, 2009

Do Compact Fluorescent Bulbs really make a difference in your energy usage and cost?

The quick answer is "Yes", and I will describe my evidence of this in this brief article.

I moved into a newly-built house in April of 2006, so as of the time I'm writing this, I've been here about three and a half years. For the first year or so in my house, I wasn't really paying too much attention to my energy usage and thus, for example, all of my light bulbs were incandescent bulbs (the kind we have used for over a century). I had been aware of electricity usage issues all my life, so it had already been ingrained into my psyche to do things like turn off lights and appliances when not in use, and I've always done this as long as I can remember.

Of course the past few years have really brought energy consumption to the forefront of our national attention, and as such plenty of articles and news stories have focused on what we as consumers can do to reduce our energy usage. Many of the stories suggested purchasing and using "compact fluorescent" light bulbs as a quick and easy way to immediately reduce electricity usage. Compact fluorescents bulbs are fluorescent, but they work in "regular" light bulb sockets.

I didn't investigate these new bulbs too much other than to note that the packaging would indicate that the bulbs would cast as much light as incandescent bulbs, but would only use about a quarter of the electricity.

So over the course of a couple years I heeded the advice of these stories and, I gradually replaced many of the incandescent light bulbs in my home. I started with the bulbs I used most frequently, the main floor lamp in my living room, my bed's night light, and the bulbs in my garage. Over time, I'd pick up various sizes and styles of CF bulbs whenever I visited discount stores like Sam's Club or Walmart. As of September 2009, I have replaced 27 of the 47 light bulbs in my home with CF bulbs.

My electricity provider in Wyoming is Rocky Mountain Power. One of the features of their billing procedure is that they track your average daily electricity usage, and over time they give you a graph of this data for the previous 13 months. I recently collected enough of my bills with these graphs on them so that I could plot the past three and a half years (40 months), and I came up with this graph of my average daily electricity usage:



It doesn't take a math whiz to look at this graph and see a trend toward lower usage. At the beginning of my time in my house, I would average 12 or 13 Kilowatt hours of electricity usage with an occasional month of 14. But recently my daily averages have dropped to 10 or 11 Kwh's.

In fact, what I did is I averaged my daily usage over the first 12 months living in my house and compared that to the past 12 months. What I found is that for the first 12 months my average daily Kwh usage was 12.83 Kwh's, and for the most recent 12 months (September 2008 through August 2009), I have averaged 10.58 Kwh's of electricity usage per day. That's a difference of 2.25 Kwh's per day, or a reduction of about 17.5%. In real dollars, this adds up to a savings of between $32.00 to $81.00 per year depending on how you calculate the price of a Kwh. I have very likely already paid for all the CF light bulbs I have purchased over the past couple years, and this is an annual savings I will continue to enjoy as long as I continue to use CF light bulbs.

One important question to ask is whether or not the decrease in average daily Kwh usage is due exclusively to replacing incandescent bulbs with CF's, or whether there might be another explanation. The answer to this is that as far as I can remember, my electricity usage is about the same today as it was 3.5 years ago in terms of my major appliances (have not replaced any). So my conclusion is that the savings I have achieved can be attributed almost exclusively to replacing incandescent bulbs with CF's.

Not everything about Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs is perfect. In fact, here are a few items that are on the negative side of using CF's:

  • When you first turn on a CF bulb, some light comes on immediately, but not 100% of the light capacity of the bulb. In fact, depending mostly on the temperature of the surrounding air, a CF can take up to 2 minutes to light to its full capacity. At first this is rather distracting, but you get used to it over time.

  • During the first few seconds of operation, a CF bulb uses MORE electricity than a standard incandescent bulb. In fact, according to the television program Mythbusters, it takes about 23 seconds for a CF bulb to match the electrical usage of an incandescent. Therefore, for example, if you were to measure the electricity used in a CF versus an incandescent bulb such that you turned on both bulbs simultaneously for 10 seconds, then turned them off for a minute and kept repeating the procedure over and over, the CF bulb would very likely end up using more electricity in the long run. However, this example is extreme and one that you are not likely to encounter during everyday human usage.

  • CF's contain a small amount of mercury (I've heard about 5 milligrams). Therefore you need to be more careful not to break them and release the mercury into the environment. If you do break one and the detritus ends up all over your house you may need to have an expensive mercury cleanup done. (I broke a CF bulb once, but it was entirely contained in a light fixture so I did no cleanup.) And, because of the mercury, burned out or broken CF bulbs should be taken to a recycling center, not dumped in the garbage.
Conclusion: Despite these few potential negatives, the answer is "Yes", simply replacing incandescent bulbs with CF's will produce real savings in electricity costs over time.

Friday, August 14, 2009

FUCKING Windows Operating Systems bites us yet again

DAMMIT I can hardly believe how brain-dead once again, after nearly 30 years in operation, the Windows Operating Systems are. They have fucked us hard up the ass YET AGAIN. You'd think that after 30 years the richest company in the world might actually get a few things right. Unfortunately, NO, this asshole company continues to screw us.

First, I'm FORCED to run the Windows operating systems at home. You can't be an IT professional without knowing at least rudimentary things about Windows, and there are ubiquitous programs that most folks like me need to run that are ONLY available on Windows.

I'm complaining about just a couple things today about Windows Vista. Now, I've been running Windows Vista for almost two and a half years as of today, and I have to admit that is the most advanced, logical, and user-friendly Windows Operating System that I've seen to date.

And yet, it still falls short concerning the most simple and mundane tasks that allow a user to work effectively on a computer. In particular, the methods and practices that allow a user to search for file names is and has forever been completely broken.

Here's the situation: As part of my most recent desktop computer purchase, I bought a secondary internal hard drive and installed it myself (thank you, Dell, for making such things relatively easy to do). The hard drive serves primarily as a secondary disk on which I can make a copy of my important files ("back them up on a secondary device"). Yes, I do also periodically copy all my important files to removable DVD's and store them in a separate place, but as a first line of backup defense, a second internal hard drive is an excellent start.

So the first thing I do after transferring my data from my older computer to my current one is I make a backup copy of everything important to this secondary disk. No problem--for every folder I want copied just open the main folder, open a backup disk folder and do a drag 'n' drop and viola everything copies just fine.

Now a couple week go by, and I've just created a couple important Excel files that I want to make sure I have backup copies of. OK; no problem--I just do a search for the file names that I want to back up, right? WRONG. I search for these files, and Vista tells me "No items match your search". Yikes. Did I mis-type the file name? Did I accidentally delete the file before I even had a chance to back it up? NO NO NO. Guess what? As it turns out, the search function will only search for "indexed" files and won't include that new excel document you just spent 6 hours creating.

Fine. So I piddle around a bit and find "search tools", which leads me to "Advanced Search". Good. So now I can refine my search a bit. So I do a search for every file that has a date more recent than the date I did my last full backup so that I can for sure include every file that has been created or modified since then. Wait a few seconds, look at the list of files that have been found. YIKES--my excel files are not included in the list! What the FUCK is going on?

I piddle around a bit more, then I notice a checkbox that says: "Indlude non-indexed, hidden, and system files (might be slow)". Oh, crap. Had I not noticed that my file had not been included in the search list, I might not have even noticed that it wouldn't have even been backed up! So this time I actually check the box and press the "Search" button yet again. This is now the THIRD time I've actually done a search for the file that I wanted to back up, and FINALLY I find that it's included in the list. And guess what? If I create another new file and want to back it up, I have to go through the same procedure again, because new files are not automatically "indexed".

This entire problem is just not acceptable. In UNIX, I go to a top-level directory and type a fairly simple "find" command and am able to find every file matching the criteria I'm looking for, not just "indexed" files or files that I would need to do an "advanced" find for. In Windows, not only does the "advanced" search command difficult to access, it also does not give you the results you're expecting. Argggghhhhhhh. This can potentially lead to folks believing that they've backed up a file when they actually haven't. Yikes.

So someone reading this post might be thinking: "Why not just use the Windows backup utility?" I'll tell you why. In my experience with windows backup utilities, there has been a single instance where I have actually wanted to restore a lost file that presumably existed on multiple backup devices (tapes, in this instance). The result I got trying to restore any copy of the file was something like "File was in use and was not backed up" or something similar to that. Fine. That's really freaking incredibly useful. The utility I was trusting to bail me out when I really needed a file restored doesn't work. That's great. Wow what a useful thing. I'll tell you that in UNIX over the past 3 decades I have restored probably dozens if not hundreds of files from backup tape. The number of problems I've had doing this? ZERO. Yet the one time I really needed a windows backup utility to work, it failed multiple times. Yeah; great GREAT operating system.

OK. So tonight, I decide that I haven't done a full backup even to my secondary internal disk in awhile, so I do so. Not a huge amount of data; maybe 35GB or so. Most of the items I need to back up are fairly trivial--just open current and backup windows and do a drag 'n' drop and I'm all set. And it works fine. But then I see that I want to back up my mail folders as well (I use Thunderbird for email). I see that the last full backup I did of my mail folders was a main folder called "Mail" with sub-folders called "Local Folders" and my main domain name. But I have no idea where these folders are on my hard drive. So I open my main "C:" hard drive and do a Windows Vista search for "Local Folders". After waiting 10 minutes or so, the result comes back as "No items match your search". I do another search for the name of one of the actual mail folders and again it comes back with "No items match your search". This time I cannot remember what I did to discover where this folder exists. It turns out that in Thunderbird I can right-click on a folder and do a copy of the folder location, then paste that location into a text file. So I do this, thereby figuring out what folder I need to copy to back up my mail files.

It turns out that the mail files reside under the "My Documents folder" in a hidden directory called "AppData" under several subdirectory levels under "Roaming". Fine. So I've discovered the actual directory where my mail folders exist and I'm able to copy them to my backup drive.

Some readers might be thinking: "why not just back up your entire 'My Documents' directory, or at least the hidden directory ''AppData' directory?" I'll tell you why. The "AppData" directory contains three folders: "Local", "LocalLow", and "Roaming". There exists little obvious information about what these folders actually mean and why they're important, but the gist is that they're mysterious for ordinary users like myself. Not only are they mysterious, but they're not even common-sense-obvious. I mean, this is a desktop computer. Why on earth would anything at all be stored in the "Roaming" directory on a desktop computer? God and Bill Gates know why, apparently. Furthermore, upon further investigation, I discover that large amounts of gigabytes exist in these directories that are actually *cached* browsing data for Internet Explorer. Why on earth would I have any reason at all to regularly back up cached browsing data?

I'm certain that there are thousands and perhaps millions of system administrators who have been told or have learned that under Vista they should be regularly backing up the entire "My Documents" directory of all of their users. And likely 90% of them don't even realize that the bulk of what they're backing up is gigabytes upon gigabytes of essentially useless cached browser data. What a freakin' waste of: (a) administrator time; (b) disk space; (c) backup time & bandwidth. This is a concept I luckily caught early on and therefore was able to determine I should store my "real" data under a completely separate folder instead of "My Documents". Imagine a typical office worker who has maybe a few megabytes of actual useful data stored under the "My Documents" folder who has their hapless administrator back up gigs and gigs of worthless cached web browsing data every night.

30 years. That's how long Microsoft has had to "get it right". What's the problem?

--SDP

Friday, July 31, 2009

Being a quitter: Jesse James, Sarah Palin, and me.

I know when I'm beat, I know whem I'm tired and can't continue. Whether it's whacking weeds, biking, walking, playing tennis, lifting weights, or in a good job with a bad boss... when the time comes and I just don't think I can physically or mentally continue, I have no problem calling it quits and retreating to my couch to recover.

But what I do have a problem with is folks who say "I'm not a quitter", then in a seeming adrenaline-motivated show of "heart" they continue on... but then quit anyway. That's what happened on the most recent episode of "Jesse James is a Dead Man". I've only watched a couple espisodes and it's mildly interesting. Tonight, the most significant quote from the star of the show was "I'm not a quitter". Then about 20 minutes later he quit. I'd rather have heard him say: "Look; I tend to be a brave guy, but I know when it's time to quit and that time is now" when he was in a pit stop. Instead, he pushed himself possibly to the point of permanent injury. Wow how brave. Now if I was tappin' his wife, I'd have decided that my back was too important to me to show bravado past the first pit stop.

Anyway....

And then there's Sarah Palin... [paraphrased]: "I'm doing what's best for the state of Alaska by leaving office now so I'm not a lame duck my final 15 months". Well, guess what? Nearly EVERY other politician has served their last 15 months as a lame duck. But YOU quit! Cripe. I guess your book deals and/or other $$ offers were too good for your greedy mind to wait just a little longer. Now we'll see whether the Republican party will ever even think about putting you up for Pres. Oops; nearly forgot: they got George Bush, possibly our *dumbest* President ever, in... TWICE. Looks like you do have a brilliant future career in the Republican party after all, Sarah. WAY TO GO!!!

Like I said, I'm not afraid to be a quitter when I'm at my limit. I just hate when people (a) claim to not be a quitter, then quit; (b) quit at a point when few have ever quit before for greedy or stupid reasons.

Friday, July 10, 2009

Jay out; Conan in

Like most late-night-talk-show fans, I watched the last of Leno's show on May 29, 2009 and Conan's first show on 6/1/2009.

I noticed that my ReplayTV DVR, which is about 8 years old now, rather uncerimoniously listed the transition on those two nights so I snapped a couple pics which I'm posting here: