# Being Energy efficient: Are there little things the people just don't do? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 16, 2006, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-energy-efficient-are-there-little-things-the-people-just-dont-do/340220 "2006-01-16T14:56:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Quercus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/7ab992/32.png) [@Quercus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quercus)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2006, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-energy-efficient-are-there-little-things-the-people-just-dont-do/340220/41 "2006-01-17T20:36:51Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > … > My husband and I share the bathwater every day (and I always get “first dibs”) > … Good job on your list Kalhoun. Just wanted to mention, for the record, that even two showers would probably use less hot water than one bath. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2006, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-energy-efficient-are-there-little-things-the-people-just-dont-do/340220/42 "2006-01-17T21:04:13Z")
> [@Una Persson](#): > > By “efficient” I mean “net plant heat rate”. Gas turbines have a much lower NPHR than a typical coal unit does, even a supercritical coal unit. A poor simple-cycle might compare with a great supercritical, but per MW generated, I know of no gas plants in the US, or the world, which are cheaper than a typical coal plant. Do you have any cites as to any gas plant which has a lower net generation cost than a typical coal plant? The average delivered coal cost to coal plants in the US is roughly $1.37 per MBtu right now, versus about $5.96 per MBtu. Even neglecting that gas can burn with a lower efficiency (due to higher latent heat losses) than low to medium-moisture coal, the difference in typical NPHR for a coal and gas plant (say, 9200 Btu/kWh for coal and 8000 Btu/kWh for a gas plant) is not near enough to make up that 4:1 fuel cost difference. Even applying all consumables and externalities I can’t see it approaching any closer than 2:1. I said coal was cheaper than gas. > [@](#): > > Coal and nuclear are cheaper than Natural Gas at the moment So I agree 100% with what you are saying. Lower NPHR is essentially lower cost. BTW, last I checked Henry Hub was trading at about $9.00/MBtu. Either way flattening the load curve will allow a utility to use more efficient resources, generally, whether it is gas or coal or whatever. Note they are not necessarily cleaner, I understand that. You would agree, I assume, that a kWh consumed at four in the morning is going to be produced at lower cost than a kWh consumed and produced at four in the afternoon. > [@](#): > > I’m not sure what you mean by “not all gas is created equal” - in the US major hubs, there is not that huge of a variation in gas quality. True, Rocky Mountain gas supply can be somewhat poor, but it’s just about as expensive as the good quality gas. Unlike coal, gas trading is sorely limited by pipelines and transport. Unfortunately my loose language was not very clear. I meant, “Not all gas burning generation is created equal.” Obviously, they have many different heat rates as well as how clean they burn. Not so much for **UNA** , but for anybody else that hasn’t been bored into unconsciousness by this. Just like newer cars tend to be more fuel efficient and run cleaner than older cars, the same is true of natural gas generation (and coal generation for that matter). ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2006, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-energy-efficient-are-there-little-things-the-people-just-dont-do/340220/43 "2006-01-17T21:23:42Z")
> [@Gangster Octopus](#): > > So I agree 100% with what you are saying. Lower NPHR is essentially lower cost. Here’s where our difference is - that only applies if the fuel is the same. You had said this: “To me efficient is cheaper, not cleaner.” in reference to me saying “The electric company will NOT “use the most efficient resources first”, they will use the cheapest resources that fit within their fuel supply and emissions strategy first.” If you were talking only about the utility using the most efficient resources within a given fuel type, well, I agree with you in most cases, but even that may not be true for all. Coal cost is so variable, and SO2/NOx emissions limits so tight in some markets, that sometimes the first to be dispatched is actually more expensive than the cheapest resource. Sometimes the least efficient power plant of all is dispatched first because it burns the cheapest coal (coal making up 50-85% of the total busbar cost). > [@](#): > > BTW, last I checked Henry Hub was trading at about $9.00/MBtu. Sure, but what I was looking at are deliveries under existing contracts mainly. Few of my clients purchase spot gas. You know, one of my clients in September actually was running some of his GTs off of diesel, natural gas was so expensive… > [@](#): > > You would agree, I assume, that a kWh consumed at four in the morning is going to be produced at lower cost than a kWh consumed and produced at four in the afternoon. Almost always, yes. > [@](#): > > Not so much for **UNA** , but for anybody else that hasn’t been bored into unconsciousness by this. Sorry to be a bother. We should discuss supply-side electric strategies in another thread I reckon. ---
**Author:** ![Joey\_P](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/919ad9/32.png) [@Joey\_P](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joey_P)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2006, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-energy-efficient-are-there-little-things-the-people-just-dont-do/340220/44 "2006-01-17T21:30:00Z")
> [@Carnac the Magnificent!](#): > > Consumer Reports recently studied on-demand water heaters and its evaluators weren’t impressed. CR is perhaps too contrarian at times, but these systems typically require extremely beefy electrical service (100+ amps), professional installations (generally speaking), and are not inexpensive. The break even takes many, many years for the typical family and these systems don’t work particularly well if two people, say, run the shower/tub water at the same or run it with the dishwasher or washing machine or hottub. That said, I know people who have them and some are satisfied. My wife’s grandfather has a ‘holding tank’ in his basement. (I’ve never seen it, but from what I understand…) It’s a big tank, the size of his water heater that is between the main water supply and the water heater. The idea is that water that enters the heater will be at the ambient temprature instead of as cold as it is when in comes into the house. I don’t know that I would go out and buy a separate tank, but if one water heater dies, I could see putting the new one inline with the old one and maybe stripping the insulation out of the old one. ---
**Author:** ![Joey\_P](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/919ad9/32.png) [@Joey\_P](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joey_P)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2006, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-energy-efficient-are-there-little-things-the-people-just-dont-do/340220/45 "2006-01-17T21:34:40Z")
Oh, and an energy saving idea with the water heater that I’ve heard of is to put a trap on it. That is, on the outlet pipe, a section of pipe that comes off it, goes down, back up and then reconnects. This way when no water is moving the hot water can only rise as high as the trap instead of all the way up to the next high point in the plumbing. The higher the heat can rise the more pipe it has to act as a heat sink. (Does that make sense) ---
**Author:** ![Anne\_Neville](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Anne\_Neville](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anne_Neville)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2006, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-energy-efficient-are-there-little-things-the-people-just-dont-do/340220/46 "2006-01-17T22:00:27Z")
> [@zoid](#): > > [Fluorescent light bulbs](http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=cfls.pr_cfls) are now available that fit in a standard socket. They cost more but last much longer and use far less energy. Unfortunately, they won’t fit in all lamps. I have some lamps in my living room where the shades are too low for one of those spiral-shaped fluorescent bulbs to fit under them. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2006, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-energy-efficient-are-there-little-things-the-people-just-dont-do/340220/47 "2006-01-17T22:20:11Z")
> [@Joey P](#): > > This way when no water is moving the hot water can only rise as high as the trap instead of all the way up to the next high point in the plumbing. The higher the heat can rise the more pipe it has to act as a heat sink. True, but this means that the hot water pipe only contains hot water up to this trap. The rest of the pipe going to the shower, etc. has only lukewarm water, as it eventually will cool to the house temperature. (That heat isn’t wasted, it radiates into the house, so reducing the amount of fuel used by the furnace. Or, in summer, _increasing_ the work for the air conditioner.) The result of this is that the water isn’t hot when the user first turns it on, so they let it run longer to get the hot water from that trap to their shower. And usually it’s wasted, as they ‘let it run’ right out the drain. Meanwhile cold water is being drawn into the water heater to be heated. So this can cause dissatisfaction in the residents: “hot water takes too long to get hot”. (There have been several threads about this on the SDMB over the years.) Which may result in them doing things like turning the water heater temp up, thus negating the savings. * * * Also, I wonder about your wife’s grandfathers technique of having a big holding tank before the water heater. The water in that tank will be warmed (up to room temp, if left long enough). But this will be done by absorbing heat from within the house, which was generated by running the furnace. So you are effectively using the furnace to warm the water in that tank. Is this indirect heating via the furnace more efficient than the water heater? I would wonder about that. ---
**Author:** ![Imasquare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Imasquare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Imasquare)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2006, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-energy-efficient-are-there-little-things-the-people-just-dont-do/340220/48 "2006-01-17T23:38:19Z")
> [@Gangster Octopus](#): > > Run appliances like dishwashers and washer/dryers after 6 pm. Or wash the dishes by hand and retire the dishwasher. Hang your clothes out to dry and retire the clothes dryer. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2006, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-energy-efficient-are-there-little-things-the-people-just-dont-do/340220/49 "2006-01-17T23:49:48Z")
> [@Imasquare](#): > > Or wash the dishes by hand and retire the dishwasher. Hang your clothes out to dry and retire the clothes dryer. Also, use a manual typewriter, send letter via the USPS instead by email, read a book instead of watching TV, get a hand crank record player, and candles, lots of candles. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2006, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-energy-efficient-are-there-little-things-the-people-just-dont-do/340220/50 "2006-01-18T00:11:45Z")
> [@Imasquare](#): > > Or wash the dishes by hand and retire the dishwasher. Generally, the studies I’ve seen indicate that washing dishes by hand takes _more_ energy than running a dishwasher. A dishwasher cycle uses less hot water than hand washing. This is based on washing dishes the way most people do it (rinsing them under running hot water). And assumes that you only run the dishwasher with a full load, and don’t use the heated drying cycle. You can make hand washing more efficient than a dishwasher, if you’re willing to work at it. But most people don’t. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2006, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-energy-efficient-are-there-little-things-the-people-just-dont-do/340220/51 "2006-01-18T01:26:36Z")
> [@Joey P](#): > > My wife’s grandfather has a ‘holding tank’ in his basement. (I’ve never seen it, but from what I understand…) It’s a big tank, the size of his water heater that is between the main water supply and the water heater. The idea is that water that enters the heater will be at the ambient temprature instead of as cold as it is when in comes into the house. I don’t know that I would go out and buy a separate tank, but if one water heater dies, I could see putting the new one inline with the old one and maybe stripping the insulation out of the old one. I had this set up for a few years. I was given a 20 gallon hot water heater. I hooked it up in line to my 40 gallon. Since the water coming out of the ground is just above freezing here, the water from the 20 would feed the 40. It was a pre-heater (ambient temp of the house). And If I needed a lot of hot water, I would just plug it in. Not sure how well it worked in the long run. But it seemed like a good idea, my mechanical room looked like the engine room of a U-boat. ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2006, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-energy-efficient-are-there-little-things-the-people-just-dont-do/340220/52 "2006-01-18T01:35:52Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > Also, I wonder about your wife’s grandfathers technique of having a big holding tank before the water heater. The water in that tank will be warmed (up to room temp, if left long enough). But this will be done by absorbing heat from within the house, which was generated by running the furnace. So you are effectively using the furnace to warm the water in that tank. Is this indirect heating via the furnace more efficient than the water heater? I would wonder about that. It seems like it’s just the opposite side of arguments for turning down the temp of the water heater. If the water heater temp is high, you are in essence using the water heater to heat the house. Obviously bad if you’re running the AC or leaving windows open, but in the winter when the heater is running anyway, it seems like it’s a wash. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2006, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-energy-efficient-are-there-little-things-the-people-just-dont-do/340220/53 "2006-01-18T02:22:21Z")
> [@iamthewalrus(:3=](#): > > it seems like it’s a wash. Water in the holding tank is moderating the temperature in the house. Either removing or adding heat from the tank causes the heat or AC to run longer and stay off longer, saving the energy it takes to run the fan and start motors. Whether or not this is noticable is a wash. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Rhubarb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/59ef9b/32.png) [@Rhubarb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhubarb)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2006, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-energy-efficient-are-there-little-things-the-people-just-dont-do/340220/54 "2006-01-18T05:20:12Z")
Re: the original problem (setting the water heater thermostat high to avoid running out of hot water), adding a timer to the water heater will help offset the energy losses from the higher setpoint. Simply turn it off when you don’t need it. For most water heaters, it only takes about 30 minutes to generate enough hot water for a shower or load of laundry and people tend to use hot water at near the same times every day. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2006, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-energy-efficient-are-there-little-things-the-people-just-dont-do/340220/55 "2006-01-18T19:43:42Z")
> [@jjimm](#): > > …recently I’ve taken to not leaving appliances on standby any more - I turn them off at the socket (or unplug where necessary). It’s a minor pain in the arse that wastes about 3 seconds of my viewing/computing pleasure every day, but saves a small amount of energy. It’s also a good idea to unplug any sensitive electronics when you’re not using them–especially in the midwest. There was a lightning strike on a power line that caused a big surge and fried one of my computers. _sigh_ ---
**Author:** ![Jet\_Jaguar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jet_jaguar/32/3562_2.png) [@Jet\_Jaguar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jet_Jaguar)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2006, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-energy-efficient-are-there-little-things-the-people-just-dont-do/340220/56 "2006-01-18T23:21:42Z")
> [@Al128](#): > > I just bought a dirt cheap $1,500.00 four-stroke 150cc motor scooter - and run the better part of my 6 miles comute/errands/whatever with it … (southern hemisphere if you wonder 😛 ) > > its fun, i get 80mpg and it still does 50+mph… and did I mention that its fun 😃 > I never was too fond of the idea of moving 3000 lb of metal and rubber just to move my 140lb of flesh and bones … no I got 200lb of metal and rubber doing this > > cheers > alfred I was going to mention motorcycles/scooters, but I wasn’t sure if they would be considered something “easy” in the spirit of the OP. Riding is definitely a skill which may be non-trivial to learn depending on your ability and licensing requirements of your area. Some climates preclude all but the most die-hard from riding much of the year also. There is one easy way motorbikes can help. In America, the vast majority of motorcyclists are recreational weekend riders. These riders, who already have a bike in the garage and the necessary skills and permits to operate them, could help by riding to work even just a few days a week. There is no doubt that motorbikes have a much lower environmental impact than cars. Scooters even more so than motorcycles, but they’re more limited in capability. Not only for the fuel savings, but also a lesser impact on the transportation infrastructure as a whole. A 400 lb. bike takes less of a toll on the road surface than a 4,000 lb. car. They take up less space than a car (you can easily fit 4 in a parking space meant for one car), and can alleviate traffic congestion by splitting lanes (where legal). They are simpler machines with fewer contaminants (no A/C means no leaking refrigerants, smaller crankcase and brakes mean less oil and hydraulic fluid, and an air-cooled bike does away with the need for antifreeze), and with fewer parts to wear out the entire maintanance support infrastructure is smaller also. ---
**Author:** ![dtilque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d6d6ee/32.png) [@dtilque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dtilque)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2006, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-energy-efficient-are-there-little-things-the-people-just-dont-do/340220/57 "2006-01-22T19:34:59Z")
> [@YWalker](#): > > 10 months for a fluorescent lamp is WAAAY too soon, however. Are we talking a 4’ linear fixture here, or a compact fluorescent lamp? It’s a 2 foot linear fixture. > [@](#): > > If it’s the linear fixture, it should have a rated life of 24,000 hours or so (3 years), and a CFL usually has a rated life of around 10,000 hours. Also, if it’s a linear fixture, I would wonder if you have a bad ballast, or if you’re using a lamp that’s not matched appropriately with the ballast. Replaced the ballast. Then 10 months later, replaced the entire fixture when I broke one of the plastic parts that held the tube in place when changing the tube again. After I changed the tube again, some ten months later, someone suggested that I was turning the light on and off too much. So I trained myself not to shut the light off when done using the kitchenette area (which took a while – habits die hard) and just shut it off when I’m going to be out of the house for a while. This was two years ago and I haven’t had to replace a tube since. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-energy-efficient-are-there-little-things-the-people-just-dont-do/340220.md?page=2)