So Much For 'Energy Star' Ratings
Erik
looks like I was right.
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/03/26/2322208
Erik
pyotr filipivich
2010 17:21:39 -0700 did write/type or cause to appear in
rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
>Always had a feeling 'Energy Star' ratings were a mostly bogus hype...
>looks like I was right.
>
>http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/03/26/2322208
I like the gasoline powered pencil sharpener. Dang if I don't
wish I had thought of that.
pyotr
-
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!
Wes
Larry Jaques
<clu...@lycos.com> scrawled the following:
The exact opposite should happen. Fire the gov't and keep the GAO.
--
"Not always right, but never uncertain." --Heinlein
-=-=-
Richard J Kinch
> Always had a feeling 'Energy Star' ratings were a mostly bogus hype.
I documented this years ago:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.home.repair/msg/cfdb11dd714d3ce8
Wild_Bill
seem
to be worthwhile anymore. The DOE isn't a consumer product testing agency,
so there probably isn't any data that's related to real-life applications.
In the end, the consumers are the ones expected to do the actual testing (as
with most products today).
I realized that ES energy star ratings for new windows was very poor when I
was looking a the acceptable air leakage specifications found at the DOE
website about 12 years ago.
The permissable amount of air leakage for new windows was very bad, IMO. The
acceptable amount of leakage for 1 common sized window was enough leakage to
allow all of the interior air to be exchanged in a 12x12x8' room in about 8
hours, IIRC (when weather conditions were a little windy). I'm not sure now,
about the amount of time required for the complete exchange to take place,
but it was a somewhat alarming rate, considering that many rooms have more
than 1 window (or more than 1 large window).
Most likely, the air leakage is based on design data submitted by the window
manufacturer, and any manufacturing defects, improper installation or design
changes could lead to even more alarming leakage levels.
Certainly, most windows will likely leak more air after they've been used
(worn seals, improper alignment of seals, etc).
The ES ratings generally exploit the public's ignorance of basic science
(about 7th grade science), but this is true for many ratings.. horsepower
ratings, for example.
Most consumers can't actually measure a window's air leakage, or many of the
other values/specs printed in manufacturers' literature or ratings numbers.
Leakage and air infiltration of windows are significant factors in energy
usage, or more accurately as energy wasting.
--
WB
.........
"Erik" <sp...@this.com> wrote in message
news:spam-3B4617.1...@news.dslextreme.com...
Jim Wilkins
> ...
> > Always had a feeling 'Energy Star' ratings were a mostly bogus hype...
I'm waiting for the same expose of "green" and "organic".
The media was rather quiet about the connection between E. Coli,
Salmonella and organic fertilizer.
jsw
who cooks everything thoroughly
Jim Wilkins
> ...
> usage, or more accurately as energy wasting.
Air infiltration is a compromise between energy loss and "proper"
ventilation:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-change-rate-room-d_867.html
Like police vs fire recommendations for ease of access they conflict
wildly.
jsw
Larry Jaques
<kb1...@gmail.com> scrawled the following:
>On Mar 30, 7:43 am, "Wild_Bill" <wb_wildb...@XSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>> ...
>> > Always had a feeling 'Energy Star' ratings were a mostly bogus hype...
>> > looks like I was right....
>
>I'm waiting for the same expose of "green" and "organic".
Ayup. Theoretically, both are good things, but reality often differs.
>The media was rather quiet about the connection between E. Coli,
>Salmonella and organic fertilizer.
I watched the movie _Food, Inc._ the other day and discovered that the
existence of E. coli O157:H7 was brought about by feeding corn to
steers. It existed nowhere else until then. I don't eat hamburgers
any longer, but that movie would have scared me out of them if nothing
else had. The burger meat is rinsed in ammonia several times which may
kill up to 80% of the E. coli. Feeding the cows grass for a couple
weeks eliminates even more of the bacteria, but that's too expensive.
If I do buy burger in the future, it'll be organic, grass-fed beef.
--
Everything I did in my life that was worthwhile I caught hell for.
-- Earl Warren
Wild_Bill
suggested, seem like kite flying conditions.
The ductwork for such air handling volumes would probably take up a large
portion of a building's structure.
I would think that imbalances would be very annoying to eardrums, maybe
sinuses, too.
--
WB
.........
"Jim Wilkins" <kb1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a23d6368-ef3c-4efa...@q23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Steve Ackman
Tue, 30 Mar 2010 05:44:02 -0700 (PDT), Jim Wilkins, kb1...@gmail.com
wrote:
> On Mar 30, 7:43 am, "Wild_Bill" <wb_wildb...@XSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>> ...
>> > Always had a feeling 'Energy Star' ratings were a mostly bogus hype...
>> > looks like I was right....
>
> I'm waiting for the same expose of "green" and "organic".
"Organic" since the National Organic Program (NOP),
means that you've paid a certification agency for a
stamp of approval.
Without going to look it up, there are two simple
salts, IIRC. One is organic if it comes from seawater,
but not if it's mined from the ground, while the other
is organic if it's mined from the ground, but not if
it's extracted from seawater.
There's one chemical that can be used only every
24 months on rice paddies... so if you accidentally
use it after only after 23 months and 28 days (oops,
this is leap year, isn't it) your field is
"contaminated" for the next 24 months as far as being
able to be certified.
There are certain chemicals which, if used
independently by the farmer, negate any possibility
of certification. However, IF the certifying agency
says there is an actual need, then the same farmer can
apply the same chemical in the same amount, and now
his produce is organic because he paid the certifier
to verify the "need" for it... like most farmers just
go out and spend money on chemicals they don't need?
Let's say I was a bigtime coffee roaster...
We start out with coffee grown on a certified
organic finca. All transportation and intermediate
links in the chain to the US warehouse must also be
certified. The coffee is still organic at the
warehouse. I order some, (includes the full
certification paper trail) which is then put on a
certified organic trucking company. The coffee is
still organic as it pulls up to my loading dock. The
SECOND the coffee comes off the truck, it becomes NOT
organic. Even though I have all the paperwork that
says it's organic, I'm not allowed to use the word
"organic" anywhere on the web, order forms, menus,
etc., and I'd even be breaking the law by hanging the
burlap bag on the wall that it came in if the word
"organic" was visible.
Now... I'm a small time coffee roaster doing less
than $5000 per year in organics. NOW, I can use the
word "organic" as long as I comply with all the
criteria required to be certified were I larger...
IOW, I'm on my honor that I'm in compliance, but as
soon as I hit $5000, my honor becomes meaningless, and
I need to pay a certifier.
Really, the use of the word "organic" is defined by
payola, and ridiculous and illogical criteria. In
reality, a lot of food without the "organic" label can
be more "pure" than the certified organic stuff.
I don't think it could be described any better than
the National Organic Program (NOP) does itself, in
characterizing the Organic label as a "marketing
scheme."
I'm just perverse enough that if I see two products
side by side, I buy the one without the federally
approved marketing scheme label attached.
--
☯☯
Jim Wilkins
wrote:
> ...
>
> I'm just perverse enough that if I see two products
> side by side, I buy the one without the federally
> approved marketing scheme label attached.
But, but, you haven't been empowered to feel smug and superior. You'll
have to do it entirely on your own without permission.
Larry Jaques
<kb1...@gmail.com> scrawled the following:
>On Apr 3, 5:48�pm, Steve Ackman <st...@SNIP-THIS.twoloonscoffee.com>
Doesn't the Organic label also allow you to charge quadruple the price
for the same stuff anyone else sells without the label, all while
feeling smug and superior and sustainable and LoCarbon?
I'm checking for wheat allergies so I bought a loaf of wheat-free
(rice) bread in the local organic place today. When I got to the
checker, I just about crapped my pants when it rang up at $5.19.
I bought it, 'cuz I'm out of bread, but I sure as hell won't be back
for more.
--
It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent,
but the one most responsive to change.
-- Charles Darwin
Wes
>>But, but, you haven't been empowered to feel smug and superior. You'll
>>have to do it entirely on your own without permission.
>
>Doesn't the Organic label also allow you to charge quadruple the price
>for the same stuff anyone else sells without the label, all while
>feeling smug and superior and sustainable and LoCarbon?
>
Only if you drive to the store to buy it in your Prius. Southpark had a great episode on
Smug.
Wes
Jim Wilkins
The disconnect between the people who demand that stuff and those who
provide it is really funny. If you met the crew who built these you
might mistake us for a biker gang:
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/g-m-en-v-sharpening-the-focus-of-future-urban-mobility/
jsw
rangerssuck
How would you like it if you were really allergic to wheat products -
and I mean REALLY allergic, anaphylatic shock kind of allergic - and,
due to lack of government regulation, food producers were able to put
anything they want on labels, or NOT put anything they want on labels,
including the fact that the rice cakes you bought were produced in a
factory that also handles wheat?
Food could be a lot cheaper if we'd just get rid of those pesky USDA
meat inspectors. Damned government.
Larry Jaques
<kb1...@gmail.com> scrawled the following:
>On Apr 4, 3:57 am, Wes <clu...@lycos.com> wrote:
Meanwhile, Obama Motors unveils the economical, new Cadillac wagon.
"The Sport Wagon comes with all the things that make the CTS-V sedan
one of the world’s fastest four-doors, including a 556-horsepower
supercharged V-8, available 6-speed manual shifter, magnetic computer
suspension, Recaro seats, Brembo brakes – and now, a power lift-gate
to go with a top speed of roughly 185 miles per hour. The CTS-V wagon
should reach dealers at the tail end of 2011. With the sedan starting
at $61,545, the wagon version should stay below $65,000, about $30,000
less than the new Mercedes-Benz E63 wagon, if Benz ever decided to
import it here."
<http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/29/cadillac-reveals-550-horsepower-cts-v-sport-wagon/>
Damnit, the effin' NYT wouldn't let me shorten that url.
Just what most Cadillac owners want: a manual trans and a clutch.
--
In order that people may be happy in their work, these three things are
needed: They must be fit for it. They must not do too much of it. And
they must have a sense of success in it.
-- John Ruskin, Pre-Raphaelitism, 1850
dca...@krl.org
> I'm checking for wheat allergies so I bought a loaf of wheat-free
> (rice) bread in the local organic place today. When I got to the
> checker, I just about crapped my pants when it rang up at $5.19.
> I bought it, 'cuz I'm out of bread, but I sure as hell won't be back
> for more.
>
It is worse than that. When you make a sandwich using your rice
bread, be sure to hold it in both hands when you eat it. Rice bread
has no strength, so if you do not hold it carefully, it will fall
apart.
There used to be a soy carob bread that was much superior to rice
bread. But the company that made it stopped manufacturing it.
Dan