Thread Number: 41682
GE Takes On DOE/Energy Star |
[Down to Last] |
Post# 614782   8/5/2012 at 02:44 (4,254 days old) by Launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
|
Post# 614838 , Reply# 2   8/5/2012 at 07:15 (4,253 days old) by Launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
But electic power comes from three main sources in the USA; coal, hydro power (dams), and natural gas. To an lesser extent nuclear, wind, solar and whatever else can be dreamed up.
Problem is demand continues to grow as more and more things are powered by electric power. Computers, large screen plasma/LED/LCD television (some American homes have two or more), computer display, home office equipment and so on. This as more and more businesses also run more electric powered items. Until the shale gas/fracking revolution took hold natural gas prices in the United States were going upwards while treehuggers and some in government want to limit or totally phase out "dirty" coal burning plants. In the meantime to keep up with an ever increasing demand for electric power more generation plants must be built. So in order to help ease the strain on power grids and delay buidling new and expensive power plants the US government wants Americans to use less energy. Since until recently by and large Amercian washing machines do not heat water, Energy Star ratings refer to the amount of hot or warm water used since it must be heated. This is the other part of Energy Star. Depending upon where in the USA one lives water is heated by natural gas, oil or electric. The powers that be want to reduce energy use and imports so they limit water use by way of Energy Star |
Post# 614930 , Reply# 5   8/5/2012 at 16:06 (4,253 days old) by arbilab (Ft Worth TX (Ridglea))   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
1    
A little hard to tell just how serious we're going to have to get about water efficiency. But I'd say we outlaw lawns before we outlaw washing clothes. The amount of water it takes to keep a Texas lawn alive through summer would do a year's worth of laundry including REAL rinses.
So far low-water mechanical agitation hasn't been satisfactory. Poor at cleaning, worse at rinsing, rough on fabric. What about the possibility of making the WATER do the agitation instead of a mechanism? More like a dishwasher works. The lid would need a gasket and the detergent would need to be zero suds but those things are readily doable. Yeah, I'm thinking the same thing you are, how to achieve turnover. If I were younger with an inheritance I'd open a lab to work on it. Start with a self-rotating orifice plate beneath the tub. To allow water in and not allow clothes out, narrow concentric channels (plastic mold) the orifices spray up through under considerable pressure. The orifice pattern would produce the turnover. Or WOULD it? B-u-u-a-a-h-h! |
Post# 614961 , Reply# 7   8/5/2012 at 17:35 (4,253 days old) by Launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
To some extent both to deal with demand and via new federal laws that demand a certain amount of electric power be generated locally, new plants have been built. However building a power plant is an expensive thing, and the places with the most demand (near urban areas) have large numbers of persons who don't want *any* sort of power plant built in their "backyard".
Natural gas is rapidly replacing coal for new power plants, and indeed the US government and tree huggers are trying to get rid of all coal burning for electric power unless the plants are "clean". However for much of history coal has been much cheaper than natural gas, and even though at the moment prices for the latter have fallen off a cliff there is no promise they will stay that low. Dams are out of the question both for environmental reasons and the fast that nearly any body of water that can be dammed for hydropower has been done already. |
Post# 614988 , Reply# 8   8/5/2012 at 18:51 (4,253 days old) by arbilab (Ft Worth TX (Ridglea))   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
If we call those who don't want to inhale coal fumes 'tree huggers', what do we call those who DO? Mercury huggers? Soot sniffers? Sulfur dioxide gluttons?
I'd let them build a nuke 'in my backyard' but I don't want a coal plant even in the same county where my air comes from. All boiler plants take hours if not days to come online, unless they're kept hot even when they're not running. Natgas turbines on the other hand, can sit completely idle and come online in minutes. The current wisdom is building these turbine "peak" plants. They're cleaner than living by a freeway and need no cooling reservoir so can be put anywhere, run and stopped cold as needed. I propose turbine/electric for transportation. Not like Chrysler tried, with the turbine turning the wheels. Turbines like to run one speed which ideally drives a generator then THAT drives the wheels like in a Prius or Volt. Turbines have 2 moving parts. They're the most power/weight efficient engine. They can be made to run on almost anything. Kerosene (but that stinks), frenchfry oil (stinks too), natgas, LNG, propane, hydrogen. They'll even run on vodka. But not coal. |
Post# 615062 , Reply# 11   8/6/2012 at 05:51 (4,253 days old) by Launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 615142 , Reply# 12   8/6/2012 at 13:50 (4,252 days old) by arbilab (Ft Worth TX (Ridglea))   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
It's just "old coal", the grandfathered dirty plants, that are a big problem air-wise. New and retrofit coal plants can be made "acceptable" but they still need to be rural.
I spoze I'm smitten with turbines because (like frontloaders) they don't reciprocate. Can't claim to "know" the economics of them. But apparently the turbine peak plants make better economic sense than another fullsize steam plant, here/now. Turbine plants can be placed closer to load points. To the cost of fullsize plants we also have to add building largescale transmission from scratch. The philosophy could come back and bite us. We already pay fuel surcharges based on the monthly market price of natgas. Texas 'grows its own' natgas but we don't control market prices. If the market went to the moon, rates would go with it. |
Post# 615199 , Reply# 13   8/6/2012 at 19:28 (4,252 days old) by combo52 (50 Year Repair Tech Beltsville,Md)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
This letter is ancient history, Energy Star is a VOLUNTARY program implemented by industry and DOE, it has served the public good very well while allowing manufactures to build the appliances they want to. There has always been a give and take between manufactures and the DOE, this letter is probably one of thousands that have been circulated back and forth. I have at least a dozen customers that work for the ES program and it has saved US consumers an untold of amount of money and energy, every one of us reading this have benefited. |
Post# 615247 , Reply# 14   8/6/2012 at 23:32 (4,252 days old) by Launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 615276 , Reply# 16   8/7/2012 at 02:14 (4,252 days old) by arbilab (Ft Worth TX (Ridglea))   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
I think the companies want to qualify for the star for marketing reasons. But they also want the buyer to be satisfied with the results. Wasn't that what GE was saying 7 years ago? The same thing that we say now, that you can't wash clothes in insufficient water.
Or CAN you? The principle of forced water agitation I raised above has yet to be explored. I probably won't live long enough but if it ends up being used, you heard it here first. Everybody knows, right? Diesel locomotives are not like cars, where the engine rotation drives the wheels. The diesel runs a generator and motors run the wheels. Turbines are ideal for running generators. Every largescale generator in the world is run by a turbine, whether combustion or steam. Turbines are also ideal for transport, and they're not new. Titanic was 40% turbine and its Cunard competitors 100% turbine. The Navy has been turbine driven since WW2, including the Nuke Navy. All modern ships are turbine-electric. If turbines were inefficient, these mass transporters wouldn't be using them. |
Post# 615299 , Reply# 18   8/7/2012 at 06:37 (4,252 days old) by mrb627 (Buford, GA)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 615320 , Reply# 20   8/7/2012 at 08:28 (4,251 days old) by Jetcone (Schenectady-Home of Calrods,Monitor Tops,Toroid Transformers)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
thinking about slowing down any Ocean currents, that WILL lead to serious global warming.
I think this letter from GE is very current. Especially in light of the new SQ gray water rinsing for Commercial top loaders. I thought all this ES was Mandatory but it seems voluntary on the part of the manufacturer's, they don't get the Fed Dollar if they don't participate, isn't that how it works? If so then manufacturer's should offer the consumer two lines of product. I know I'm not tweaking down my water levels in the SQ ever! Rinsing is now the big problem and complaint out there, that's why we all need Rosalie's No Suds detergent. Thats no suds throughout the entire wash cycle (patent applied for) not just at the beginning -which is all that the current crop of HE detergents today can accomplish. |
Post# 615387 , Reply# 22   8/7/2012 at 13:17 (4,251 days old) by jetcone (Schenectady-Home of Calrods,Monitor Tops,Toroid Transformers)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 615409 , Reply# 24   8/7/2012 at 15:31 (4,251 days old) by Launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
Building non-Energy Star appliances would work only if the makers thought enough units would sell to justify production. Consumer groups such as CR magazine would probably vilify any such washing machine or dishwasher as "wasteful" and drag down it's ratings.
IMHO CR, the federal government and others need to start factoring in increased wear on textiles along with residue from poor soil removal/rinsing when thinking up these ES machines. |
Post# 615497 , Reply# 25   8/7/2012 at 21:57 (4,251 days old) by jetcone (Schenectady-Home of Calrods,Monitor Tops,Toroid Transformers)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|