June 14, 2011 at 9:18 am · Filed under Energy, Miscellaneous, Utilities
I haven’t done a survey on how green home products present savings to consumers, but my guess is they are generally doing it wrong. Granted, this might be some mandate from some industry group or governmental body, I don’t know, but it is key that consumers see the difference.
Here is an example, but first some background.
I recently picked up a Kill-a-Watt and have been measuring different devices in the house while on standby. I want to get a handle on how much vampire power is being wasted.
It turns out that around 60 watts is bleeding from our main home entertainment system when on standby. That is about 60 watts * 8760 hours = 525 kWH per year.
Aside from a classic power strip with a switch, there are solutions now that supply controlled outlets that only make power available when some master component is on. One solution is the Zuni Digital smart powerstrip. Another is the is the Belkin Conserve, though the latter doesn’t have enough outlets (disclosure: those our Amazon links).
So what am I on about? If you look at the Belkin information, they present a very similar scenario as mine and conclude that the Conserve power strip can save up to $67 / year! Unfortunately, they are using the wrong price:
Dollar figure based on US Department of Energy average retail price for residential electricity of $0.1132 per killowatt-hour.
Residential electricity rates are often more complex than that, though, and here in the PG&E territory, such a low rate only applies to your baseline usage. The rates go up based on your usage. The top rate is actually $0.40352.
If you are a consumer making a decision on saving 525 kWH per year, you should be looking at your top rate — i.e., the top rate you are actually paying to your utilty based on your circumstances. Because if you shave off kWH, you are saving the money on the top rate, not on the bottom rate. I’m embarassed to admit it, but our rate is 40-cents. If I save 526 kWH that saves me $212. (Of course, if your energy savings drop you to a lower rate, the calculation changs).
The Zuni sells for $39 — that pays for itself in just over two months. Now, granted, our entertainment system is actually used sometimes, but I estimate it is unused 94% of the year, so that still nets nearly $200.
So, what is the marginal rate you pay?
Tags: Efficiency, Energy, Utilities, Vampire
June 6, 2011 at 9:52 am · Filed under .NET
Jason Hiner from ZDNet gives some credit to Microsoft for the new approach, but shares my opinion that the one-size fits all approach is a tried and failed:
I would have thought Microsoft learned its lesson here. It has already tried to take the full version of Windows 7 and run it on tablets. These “slates” — as Microsoft calls tablets — have gotten trounced by the iPad. Now, Microsoft has decided to take the full version of Windows and make sweeping UI changes so that it’s much more tablet-friendly and then apply all of those changes to the standard desktop/laptop version of Windows as well. Say what?
My comparison to the old Windows Mobile world, although not technically “One Windows to rule them all”, covers similar ground.
As a developer, I love the idea of write once and run everywhere, but in today’s world that applies to only one technology HTML5 and JavaScript. It just doesn’t apply to the OS.
The users have already spoken on this. And they are right on so many levels.
Tags: HTML5, Windows7, Windows8
June 3, 2011 at 3:45 pm · Filed under Miscellaneous
Here are various thoughts I have about Windows 8:
On the name:
- I hope this “codename Windows 8″ stuff is just a joke. Just call it Windows 8. Every other OS that I can think of has first and foremost a number associated with it. In fact, I think this must just be a joke, because Microsoft is more and more coming around to the “Windows” name as the brand. Calling it Windows Flambe or Windows Azule or Windows Enchilada doesn’t help with the brand. 8.
- Now, of course, this ignores the fact that Windows 7 is a name, not a version. So implicit in my plea for Windows 8 is that it actually be version 8, not just named 8. Sorry if that is confusing, but I’m not the one who decided that Windows version 6.1 would be called Windows 7.
On the new interface:
- Looks kind of interesting, but I’m concerned about the “one interface to rule them all” approach. Remind anyone of the original Windows Mobile? Just a small form-factor Windows machine with Start menu. That seemed logical, but it turned out that it was nearly unusable. The Windows Phone 7 Metro UI is pretty cool for a phone. It would work well for a tablet. It seems wierd for a desktop/laptop, but maybe not.
- The bigger problem is that I hope Microsoft gets that standard Windows applications don’t become productive tablet applications with the addition of touch. I have a convertible laptop. It would be interesting to have Metro on it, but that will only solve one piece of what makes it nearly unusable in tablet form.
On Silverlight:
- So, unlike Windows Phone 7, Windows 8 won’t use Silverlight for the Metro UI. This isn’t surprising. Microsoft has eschewed .NET for core Windows development from day 1. OK, from day 2, because on day 1 they said .NET would be the new Windows API. It never happened. And this is just another indication that it never will.
- That said, I think it makes total sense for them to use HTML 5 and not Silverlight for Windows.
- This begs the question: if HTML 5 and JavaScript are good for Windows 8, then how long until these replace Silverlight for Windows Phone?
- Which begs another (future) question: what will Silverlight be good for then?
A little snarky, but I’m feeling snarky today.
Tags: .NET, Silverlight, Windows7, Windows8, WinFx
About me
Main feed
Email subscriptions
