Electricity cost breakdown in average USA home
Don Klipstein
exceeding 16%.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/brochure/electricity/electricity.html
This means that if you have this "average home", then you cannot achieve
a really big reduction in electricity cost unless you reduce consumption
of more than one item or class of items.
Many people have homes with lack of electricity consumption of at least
one of the shown categories. For example, many people do not have
separate freezers. Some live in apartments without any heating costs
billed to the tenant's electric meter. Some live where air conditioning
is not much of a need, or otherwise do without air conditioning. Many
have gas water heaters. Many do not use electric home heating, whether
homewide or for smaller space heaters.
This means that some homes have a standout item or item class or two
that may be an easy target for major electrid bill decreases even if the
"USA average home" does not.
Homes with more devices powered by electricity (such as heating of the
entire home and hot water heating) are located disproportionately where
electricity costs are higher. So homes in areas with average or
above-average electricity costs are more likely to have little or no
electricity cost for home/space heating or water heating, and other items
(such as refrigerators, lighting and TVs) become bigger slices of the pie.
If you have an old refrigerator and residential electricity rate near or
above the national average, it probably pays to have an itchy trigger
finger to replace it.
Also, allow heat to easily escape from your fridge. If it has exposed
coils, give it a few inches of "breathing room". If the heat is kicked
out from any particular side, give that side plenty of breathing room, as
well as breathing room for cool air from the house to come in and replace
the kicked-out heated air. Consider where warmed air will go and where
cool air will come in to replace it when shopping for a new fridge to
minimize heat from the fridge's condenser from warming the fridge.
If you have an old air conditioner, then replacing it can easily be a
good investment.
Many homes have a lot more than 8.8% of their electricity cost being
used for lighting - and more still will when other doable things are done
to decrease electricity consumption. Use compact fluorescents instead of
incandescents where CFLs are workable. (They are not workable everywhere.)
Where CFLs are not workable, see if the latest improved-efficiency HIR
halogen incandescents are good. Philips has a 70 watt one that replaces a
100 watt conventional lightbulb and a 40 watt one that replaces a 60 watt
conventional lightbulb. (Availabe at Home Depot - "Halogena Energy
Saver".) Although the savings are much less than with CFLs, it usually
pays to replace ordinary incandescents with these where residential
electricity cost is close to or above USA's national average.
If you don't pay for electric heat but use air conditioning that you pay
for, there is some compounding of electricity cost for refrigerators,
lighting, TV, etc. because electric devices produce heat that your air
conditioning must pump out. Only if you don't need air conditioning and
also have resistive electric whole-house heating do inefficiencies in your
lighting and appliances not increase your climate control bill.
Most TVs, video recorders, computers, computer accessories, and
everything with a clock display or "ready light" that is on when the
device is "off" consumes power when it is "off". Often only about 1-2
watts, but my TV consumes 12 watts when "off" and my computer consumes a
few watts when "off".
All too often in areas with average or above-average residential
electricity rates, it pays to add a power strip to make it convenient to
turn such devices "actually off" except for ones that need reprogramming
when re-powered, also excepting printers that automatically execute a
cleaning procedure upon power restoration. Power strips that have a light
generally consume about 1/4-1/2 watt.
If you have any incandescent nightlights, consider replacing them with
LED models. Incandescent nightlights mostly consume 2.5-7 watts, with
replacement bulbs usually being rated 4-7 watts (A few incandescent
nightlights have diodes that reduce power consumption by about 40-42%).
LED nightlights mostly consume .3-.5 watt. They are generally dimmer
than incandescent ones, but incandescent ones often need shades and the
LED ones mostly produce a spectrum more favorable to night vision than
incandescents do.
I prefer green and blue LED nightlights over white ones because white
ones often fade over several months to a few years, and the few remaining
options (yellow and red) tend to be dim, especially to night vision.
Although this usually only nibbles at electric bills a little, this is
worthwhile to do where residential electricity cost is near or above the
USA national average. Replacing an incandescent nightlight with an LED
one can easily save a couple bucks a year, and *often* $7/year in NYC,
Chicago and Philadelphia. Doing without is even better when that is not
much sacrifice.
Electroluminescent nightlights ("Indiglo" and "Limelight" and the like)
consume even less power than most LED ones, but in my experience they
usually only last a few years and are often hardly an improvement over no
nightlight at all where lack of a nightlight is tolerable.
=================================================================
Unplug your cellphone charger when you notice the phone's battery being
fully charged.
Keeping the charger plugged in 24/7/365 may only waste 3-4 KWH per year
worth 30-50 cents per year, but I pick up quarters that I notice on the
street and I favor postponing need to build more power plants as our
population grows.
Along these lines, I favor energy efficiency standards for all those
"wall warts" - many would consume a watt or two less if it was tolerable
to increase their manufacturing cost enough to increase their retail cost
about $1-$2. (Most modern slim cellphone chargers I find to be the
exception for already having good energy efficiency.)
When you reduce electricity consumption in ways applicable 24/365, that
disproportionately reduces need for electricity from coal-fired power
plants. Burning of coal is so pulluting that replacing incandescent lamps
with CFLs normally reduces transfer of mercury from ore to elsewhere in
the environment even though CFLs have mercury.
When you reduce electricity consumption at times when demand is greatest
(usually afternoon and early evening during air conditioning season), the
fuel usage reduction shifts at least somewhat to oil and natural gas -
items that we sorely need to reduce our consumption of!
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Rod Speed
> In the "average" USA home,
I think its silly to talk about an average home, because there is a
very big difference between a house that uses JUST electricity
and one that uses other sources of heat particularly as well.
> electricity cost breaks down with no items exceeding 16%.
Thats just plain wrong if electricity is used for heating.
> http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/brochure/electricity/electricity.html
> This means that if you have this "average home", then you cannot
> achieve a really big reduction in electricity cost unless you reduce
> consumption of more than one item or class of items.
Wrong with a house that uses just electricity.
> Many people have homes with lack of electricity consumption of at
> least one of the shown categories. For example, many people do
> not have separate freezers. Some live in apartments without any
> heating costs billed to the tenant's electric meter. Some live where
> air conditioning is not much of a need, or otherwise do without air
> conditioning. Many have gas water heaters. Many do not use electric
> home heating, whether homewide or for smaller space heaters.
So its silly to lump all those together.
> This means that some homes have a standout item or item
> class or two that may be an easy target for major electrid
> bill decreases even if the "USA average home" does not.
So the average house is completely irrelevant and it is in fact
just those houses that arent average in the sense that they use
electricity for everything, that can benefit most from a redesign.
> Homes with more devices powered by electricity (such
> as heating of the entire home and hot water heating) are
> located disproportionately where electricity costs are higher.
Too obvious to be worth mentioning.
> So homes in areas with average or above-average
> electricity costs are more likely to have little or no
> electricity cost for home/space heating or water heating,
Ditto in spades.
> and other items (such as refrigerators, lighting and TVs) become bigger slices of the pie.
Duh.
> If you have an old refrigerator and residential electricity
> rate near or above the national average, it probably
> pays to have an itchy trigger finger to replace it.
Mindlessly superficial. The only thing that makes any sense
is to calculate whether it makes sense to change it, not to
attempt some mindlessly superficial pontification like this.
> Also, allow heat to easily escape from your fridge.
Unlikely to be a significant use of electricity in
a house which uses electricity alone for heating.
> If it has exposed coils, give it a few inches of "breathing room".
> If the heat is kicked out from any particular side, give that side
> plenty of breathing room, as well as breathing room for cool air
> from the house to come in and replace the kicked-out heated air.
Even less likely to be a significant user of electricity.
> Consider where warmed air will go and where cool air will come
> in to replace it when shopping for a new fridge to minimize heat
> from the fridge's condenser from warming the fridge.
Ditto.
> If you have an old air conditioner, then replacing it can easily be a good investment.
Depends on how much it is used.
> Many homes have a lot more than 8.8% of
> their electricity cost being used for lighting
That percentage is irrelevant, what matters is the percentage of the
total energy cost and there arent that many houses where thats true.
> - and more still will when other doable things
> are done to decrease electricity consumption.
It isnt electricity consumption that matters, its total energy costs.
> Use compact fluorescents instead of incandescents where CFLs are workable.
Or dont bother if the use of non CFLs isnt significant.
> (They are not workable everywhere.) Where CFLs are not workable,
> see if the latest improved-efficiency HIR halogen incandescents are good.
Or dont bother if those lights arent used much time wise.
> Philips has a 70 watt one that replaces a 100 watt conventional
> lightbulb and a 40 watt one that replaces a 60 watt conventional
> lightbulb. (Availabe at Home Depot - "Halogena Energy Saver".)
And if those lights arent used much, its a complete waste of time replacing those.
> Although the savings are much less than with CFLs, it usually pays
> to replace ordinary incandescents with these where residential
> electricity cost is close to or above USA's national average.
Not of those particular lights arent used much time wise.
> If you don't pay for electric heat but use air conditioning that
> you pay for, there is some compounding of electricity cost
> for refrigerators, lighting, TV, etc. because electric devices
> produce heat that your air conditioning must pump out.
Only if they are used much when the airconditioning is used much.
> Only if you don't need air conditioning and also have resistive
> electric whole-house heating do inefficiencies in your lighting
> and appliances not increase your climate control bill.
Againm what matters is the total ENERGY cost, not just the cost of the electricity.
> Most TVs, video recorders, computers, computer accessories,
> and everything with a clock display or "ready light" that is on
> when the device is "off" consumes power when it is "off".
> Often only about 1-2 watts,
In which case its not worth worrying about.
> but my TV consumes 12 watts when "off" and
> my computer consumes a few watts when "off".
Again, that last isnt going to matter much when compared with the other energy costs.
> All too often in areas with average or above-average residential
> electricity rates, it pays to add a power strip to make it convenient
> to turn such devices "actually off" except for ones that need
> reprogramming when re-powered, also excepting printers that
> automatically execute a cleaning procedure upon power restoration.
It hardly ever pays in the sense of the hassle being worth it.
> Power strips that have a light generally consume about 1/4-1/2 watt.
Completely irrelevant to house energy consumption.
> If you have any incandescent nightlights, consider replacing them with LED models.
Or focus on much more important consumers of energy first.
> Incandescent nightlights mostly consume 2.5-7 watts, with replacement
> bulbs usually being rated 4-7 watts (A few incandescent nightlights
> have diodes that reduce power consumption by about 40-42%). LED
> nightlights mostly consume .3-.5 watt. They are generally dimmer
> than incandescent ones, but incandescent ones often need shades
> and the LED ones mostly produce a spectrum more favorable to
> night vision than incandescents do.
> I prefer green and blue LED nightlights over white ones because
> white ones often fade over several months to a few years, and the
> few remaining options (yellow and red) tend to be dim, especially
> to night vision. Although this usually only nibbles at electric bills a
> little, this is worthwhile to do where residential electricity cost
> is near or above the USA national average. Replacing an incandescent
> nightlight with an LED one can easily save a couple bucks a year, and
> *often* $7/year in NYC, Chicago and Philadelphia. Doing without is
> even better when that is not much sacrifice.
> Electroluminescent nightlights ("Indiglo" and "Limelight" and the
> like) consume even less power than most LED ones, but in my
> experience they usually only last a few years and are often hardly an
> improvement over no nightlight at all where lack of a nightlight is tolerable.
More obsessing about trivia.
> =================================================================
> Unplug your cellphone charger when you notice the phone's battery being fully charged.
Or get a clue and use a switch mode charger and leave it plugged in all the time.
> Keeping the charger plugged in 24/7/365 may only
> waste 3-4 KWH per year worth 30-50 cents per year,
And much less than that with a switch mode charger.
> but I pick up quarters that I notice on the street
Your problem.
> and I favor postponing need to build more power plants as our population grows.
And phone chargers are a trivial part of the national electricity
consumption which is completely dominated by air conditioners
as far as the peak demand which is what determins the need
for new power plants is concerned.
> Along these lines, I favor energy efficiency standards for all those
> "wall warts" - many would consume a watt or two less if it was
> tolerable to increase their manufacturing cost enough to increase
> their retail cost about $1-$2. (Most modern slim cellphone chargers
> I find to be the exception for already having good energy efficiency.)
And anyone with a clue can work out which is the efficient ones
from the lack of a transformer in them thats obvious from the weight.
> When you reduce electricity consumption in ways applicable 24/365,
> that disproportionately reduces need for electricity from coal-fired
> power plants. Burning of coal is so pulluting that replacing
> incandescent lamps with CFLs normally reduces transfer of mercury
> from ore to elsewhere in the environment even though CFLs have mercury.
And any country that cares about pollution from burning coal uses nukes instead.
> When you reduce electricity consumption at times when demand is
> greatest (usually afternoon and early evening during air conditioning
> season), the fuel usage reduction shifts at least somewhat to oil and
> natural gas - items that we sorely need to reduce our consumption of!
And if nukes are used, you dont need to consume any of that for electricity generation.
Tommy
lot different. Now with most belts being tightened, people are waking
up, and getting a good dose of reality.
So with that old incadescent bulb in the attic that is rarely used can
wait to be replaced when burns out. Or maybe----oh crap honey, I left
that 100 watt incadescent light on since sometime back in the spring.
Tommy
Don Klipstein
If you have any lights that are prone to being left on once a room is
unoccupied, and there is little hope of getting the offenders to change,
there are those windup light timers that some apartment building laundry
rooms have.
Back when suntanning lamps used to be more available, many of those also
had such timers. I would think that electrical supply shops of the kind
that contractors go to have them.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
George
> In article <15012-486...@storefull-3113.bay.webtv.net>, Tommy wrote:
>> Why split hairs on this? Yea, every home has something in it a little or
>> lot different. Now with most belts being tightened, people are waking
>> up, and getting a good dose of reality.
>>
>> So with that old incadescent bulb in the attic that is rarely used can
>> wait to be replaced when burns out. Or maybe----oh crap honey, I left
>> that 100 watt incadescent light on since sometime back in the spring.
>
> If you have any lights that are prone to being left on once a room is
> unoccupied, and there is little hope of getting the offenders to change,
> there are those windup light timers that some apartment building laundry
> rooms have.
Or use occupancy sensor switches. No one has to fumble to find and
figure out how to operate a timer switch and it will keep the lights on
as long at it "sees" someone.
Rod Speed
> Why split hairs on this?
It isnt splitting hairs, its concentrating on what uses the most electricity,
particularly not bothering about the stuff that uses very little like cellphone
chargers and nightlights.
> Yea, every home has something in it a little or lot different.
But his emphasis on the 'average' house is just plain silly.
What matters is what uses the most power in the particular house being configured.
> Now with most belts being tightened, people are
> waking up, and getting a good dose of reality.
Irrelevant to what isnt worth worrying about like cellphone chargers.
> So with that old incadescent bulb in the attic that is rarely used can
> wait to be replaced when burns out. Or maybe----oh crap honey, I left
> that 100 watt incadescent light on since sometime back in the spring.
If you're that stupid, thats easily avoided with lights with a timer.
Rod Speed
> Don Klipstein wrote:
>> In article <15012-486...@storefull-3113.bay.webtv.net>, Tommy
>> wrote:
>>> Why split hairs on this? Yea, every home has something in it a
>>> little or lot different. Now with most belts being tightened,
>>> people are waking up, and getting a good dose of reality.
>>>
>>> So with that old incadescent bulb in the attic that is rarely used
>>> can wait to be replaced when burns out. Or maybe----oh crap honey,
>>> I left that 100 watt incadescent light on since sometime back in
>>> the spring.
>>
>> If you have any lights that are prone to being left on once a room
>> is unoccupied, and there is little hope of getting the offenders to
>> change, there are those windup light timers that some apartment
>> building laundry rooms have.
>
>
> Or use occupancy sensor switches. No one has to fumble to find and
> figure out how to operate a timer switch and it will keep the lights
> on as long at it "sees" someone.
Yeah, I prefer that approach myself, much more convenient.
Tommy
directed at Rod speeds comment about you advising us to use CFL's where
ever they will work. He said" or don't bother if the use of non CFL's
isn't significant"
So if a non significant 100 watt incandescent light was accidentally
left on a couple of months straight would use something like 2/3's more
power than the CFL. Anything that is that much cheaper, and cooler to
run is significant. Yea peoples forgetfulness to turn the power off
including me is where motion sensors, and timers of various functions
help us make the most our electrical power. I use 3 mech. timers, 1 dig.
timer HVAC, 1 60 min. crank timer, and 1 motion sensor.
I pretty much know all the energy saving tips you was giving, and I
didn't dissect them negatively like some people. So the tips you gave is
very useful to the many Americans now searching these groups, and forums
for this type of info.
I'm on a attic cooling project right now over in the alt solar thermo
group, which is coming along very nicely.
Tommy
Rod Speed
> That bit/example about the incandescent 100 watt bulb in
> the attic was directed at Rod speeds comment about you
> advising us to use CFL's where ever they will work. He
> said" or don't bother if the use of non CFL's isn't significant"
> So if a non significant 100 watt incandescent light was
> accidentally left on a couple of months straight would
> use something like 2/3's more power than the CFL.
Makes a lot more sense to use a motion sensor light there for the
convenience and no possibility of the light being accidentally left
on all the time. That saves a lot more power than a CFL will do.
> Anything that is that much cheaper, and cooler to run is significant.
But it makes a lot more sense to use a motion sensor light
to save much more power again than to use a CFL and
waste the power by leaving that on for a couple of months.
> Yea peoples forgetfulness to turn the power off including
> me is where motion sensors, and timers of various
> functions help us make the most our electrical power.
And if you use those, there is no need to fart around
with CFLs with lights that hardly ever get used.
> I use 3 mech. timers, 1 dig. timer HVAC, 1 60 min. crank timer, and 1 motion sensor.
So your original silly stuff about leaving the light on accidentally missed the point completely.
> I pretty much know all the energy saving tips you was giving,
But were stupid enough to miss the point completely about the
only way that makes any sense with lights that can get left on
accidentally where they wont be noticed if left on accidentally.
> and I didn't dissect them negatively like some people.
You did just that yourself with my comment.
catalpa
"Don Klipstein" <d...@manx.misty.com> wrote in message
news:slrng6tfn...@manx.misty.com...
> In the "average" USA home, electricity cost breaks down with no items
> exceeding 16%.
>
> http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/brochure/electricity/electricity.html
>
>
The 2003 average cost for PA is shown as 9.55 cents/KWh. How wonderful to be
way above average and live in here in PECO land (Philadelphia area) where we
pay 15 cents/KWh. Must be nice to live in KY and TN and pay less than 6
cents/KWh. Must be that cheap TVA power.
clams_casino
>>
>>
>>
>
>The 2003 average cost for PA is shown as 9.55 cents/KWh. How wonderful to be
>way above average and live in here in PECO land (Philadelphia area) where we
>pay 15 cents/KWh. Must be nice to live in KY and TN and pay less than 6
>cents/KWh. Must be that cheap TVA power.
>
>
>
>
>
Actually, TVA gets its cheapest power via coal -
http://www.tva.gov/power/fossil.htm - The eleven fossil plants generate
about 60 percent of the electricity TVA produces for its customers.
When I lived in the area, the local power companies (primarily coal)
were actually much cheaper than TVA.
Being grandfathered to antiquated coal burning facilities keeps the
pricing low.
Tommy
dissected the crap out of Dons helpful post. You must be a regular here,
theres one or ten in every group like you.
Tips, and positive remarks from people like Don has helped me out allot.
With a June electric bill of a wopping $76.74 at 920 kwh in a all
electric 1675 square foot air conditioned summertime home.That includes
a environmental surcharge of $3.45 Next bill usage is around 650 KWH
somewhere. NOT DONE YET with the electrical savings that is.
Heck Rod let me ship you a dozen CFL's @ 13 watts each. They will be
free to you, and be significantly cost effective.
Tommy
snapped a pic of 3 mile Island flying out of there a few years ago.
Beautiful country between there, and Lancatser.
clams_casino
>With a June electric bill of a wopping $76.74 at 920 kwh in a all
>electric 1675 square foot air conditioned summertime home.
>
>
I'm envious. I just got my June bill - $78.54 for 512 KWh (15.3
cents/Kwh).
Tommy
Rod Speed
> You say I'm stupid, and silly.
You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist silly stupids ?
> That is you talking.
You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist silly stupids ?
> You absolutely dissected the crap out of Dons helpful post.
You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist silly stupids ?
> You must be a regular here,
You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist silly stupids ?
> theres one or ten in every group like you.
And plenty of fools like you, too.
> Tips, and positive remarks from people like Don has helped me out allot.
Your problem.
> With a June electric bill of a wopping $76.74 at 920 kwh in a
> all electric 1675 square foot air conditioned summertime home.
House, actually.
> That includes a environmental surcharge of $3.45 Next bill usage is around
> 650 KWH somewhere. NOT DONE YET with the electrical savings that is.
Irrelevant to the point I made that it makes no sense to be farting around
with trivial stuff that consumes very little power like cellphone chargers.
> Heck Rod let me ship you a dozen CFL's @ 13 watts each.
No thanks, I get free ones locally.
> They will be free to you, and be significantly cost effective.
Nope, because I spend bugger all on powering my lights.
clams_casino
>Dang you have done real well on your KWH's. Any details???
>
>
>
Air hasn't been a big factor..... yet (RI climate - was relatively cool
in June). Cut off date was 6/26.
We do tend to keep lighting under control & don't cook all that much
anymore. Most usage is probably the frig, washer / dryer and
computer. Gas hot water / No freezer / No kids (at home).
I installed a number of the low wattage bulbs last year, although I'm
not sure our usage has significantly dropped (not really showing up in
the monthly averages).
clams_casino
I should have added that we have 2x6 construction (extra insulation) and
the south side (back) is well shaded from noon on.
clams_casino
and this power company is requesting a 21% rate hike.
Tommy
your book cover, and they filled in the pages.
How many groups do you screw up???
Tommy
coming soon. Super insulating is order for me, along with the other to
do's.
We also have had a cool June. No record lows, but upper 50's in June a
few days ago is almost unheard of here.
catalpa
"Tommy" <jeepp...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:15012-486...@storefull-3113.bay.webtv.net...
> I'll take that cheap coal power. Your power come from Harrisburg? I
> snapped a pic of 3 mile Island flying out of there a few years ago.
> Beautiful country between there, and Lancatser.
>
Harrisburg is PPL territory.
Rod Speed
> Chatted with some people today that knows you.
Been having those pathetic little drug crazed fantasys long, child ?
William Souden
as unemployable.
Evelyn C. Leeper
$151.04 (down from $254.83 last year) and for 851 KWh (down from 1443
last year and 1232 the previous year!).
Some may be due to differences to outdoor temperature, but we also
raised the temperature on the A/C to 79 and swapped out most of our
bulbs to CFLs. We also power off the monitor and printer when the PC is
not in use for a while, have powered off our second PC altogether, and
switched the dehumidifier to a 3 hours on/3 hours off cycle.
--
Evelyn C. Leeper
A great many people think they are thinking when they are
only rearranging their prejudices. -William James
Seerialmom
Personally, if they weren't so expensive to begin with, I'd prefer the
sensors that turn the light on when you come into a room (only use in
rooms that don't get general day time ight, of course).
Seerialmom
Considering I'm in California and we're in the middle of a heat
wave...I'm not looking forward to next month's bill (the meter reader
will be by in the next 2 days, too). You'd think with as much sun as
we have here the various utilities would be putting solar panels and
windmills everywhere to offset the cost. Luckily where I am we are a
little less expensive than the norm for the state though.
Rod Speed
> clams_casino <PeterGrif...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote
>> Tommy wrote:
>>> With a June electric bill of a wopping $76.74 at 920 kwh in a all
>>> electric 1675 square foot air conditioned summertime home.
>> I'm envious. I just got my June bill - $78.54 for 512 KWh (15.3 cents/Kwh).
> Considering I'm in California and we're in the middle of a heat
> wave...I'm not looking forward to next month's bill (the meter reader
> will be by in the next 2 days, too). You'd think with as much sun as
> we have here the various utilities would be putting solar panels and
> windmills everywhere to offset the cost.
Nope, they cost more for the power they produce.
> Luckily where I am we are a little less expensive than the norm for the state though.
And it would be more expensive if they did what you want them to do.
Rod Speed
> d...@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote
>> Tommy wrote
>>> Why split hairs on this? Yea, every home has something in
>>> it a little or lot different. Now with most belts being tightened,
>>> people are waking up, and getting a good dose of reality.
>>> So with that old incadescent bulb in the attic that is rarely used can wait
>>> to be replaced when burns out. Or maybe----oh crap honey, I left that
>>> 100 watt incadescent light on since sometime back in the spring.
>> If you have any lights that are prone to being left on once
>> a room is unoccupied, and there is little hope of getting
>> the offenders to change, there are those windup light
>> timers that some apartment building laundry rooms have.
>> Back when suntanning lamps used to be more available, many
>> of those also had such timers. I would think that electrical
>> supply shops of the kind that contractors go to have them.
> Personally, if they weren't so expensive to begin with, I'd prefer
> the sensors that turn the light on when you come into a room
> (only use in rooms that don't get general day time ight, of course).
The good ones only turn the light on when its dark enough in the room.
Seerialmom
> Seerialmom <seerial...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> - Show quoted text -
Agree completely!