| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration will allow you to join in the discussion which is amazingly free of personal rancor and trolls! We are currently looking for posters from both the left and the right who have a demonstrated capacity to discuss fervently without letting personalities get in the way. Is that you? We need more staff. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Another green mandate that just doesn't work; First toilets, now bulbs | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Dec 22 2007, 11:30 AM (503 Views) | |
| Post #1 Dec 22 2007, 11:30 AM |
|
|
We have low-flows at work. I have to flush at least three times to get them to work. However, I have discovered a flaw in this particular design. If I press and hold the handle, until the same amount of water has passed as used to pass in the old (working) toilets, even these low-flows can work! Now, the old Thomas Edison stand-by, the incandescent bulb is being flushed with the high-flow! They will be illegal in a few years. We will have to buy the more expensive (but, it is argued, cheaper in the long-run) CFBs. I have already been making the switch. I have run the numbers myself, and believe they will pay off in the end. But, that's how the free market works. Come up with a good idea, and people will voluntarily go along. With full information, there would be no market for low-flows. There would be one (and is a growing one) for CFBs. They are just plain a good idea. Unfortunately, that good idea is being encumbered with a mandate. Shame on the Democratic Congress. Get off our backs! As an aside, there was a story on the TV news the other day. Some town had offered to replace every incandescent with a CFB, for free. The offer was widely accepted. Electricity usage went up an average of 7%. |
Administrator
  ![]](http://z2.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)
|
 
|
 |
| Post #2 Dec 22 2007, 01:33 PM |
|
|
Water conservation is just as important as energy conservation. It takes lots of energy to treat water, so whatever measures we can take to reduce water consumption also helps reduce energy consumption. I agree that lots of low-flow toilets don't work as well as they should. I think that part of the issue might be with the installation and maintenance of the flush valve. Water pressure can also affect the flush quality. Do you know what the rated flowrate is for the WC you're talking about? Is it the standard 1.6 gallons per flush from the National Energy Policy Act (1995)? You might consider those "low-flow" compared to the 5 -7 gallons/flush that toilets used in the 1950s and even as recent as the 1970s. Is this a residential "tank" style toilet or is it one with a flushometer? We've had lots of good luck specifying waterless urinals for many of our projects. I did a post about them on my blog. http://rabbitramblings.blogspot.com/2006/1...ss-urinals.html They now have no-flush, composting toilets that use an "eco-friendly" foam to wash the bowl. I don't have any experience with those though. http://www.clivusmultrum.com/products_foam_flush.shtml We've done a handfull of projects with large greywater systems. They capture rain water and waste water from lavatories, treat the water to teritary standards, and then reuse the water for flushing toilets and for site irrigation. I think with all technologies, each design iteration improves upon the previous ones. |
Civilian
|
|
|
|
| Post #3 Dec 22 2007, 09:37 PM |
|
|
1 gallon. I've never seen a 1.6 gallon toilet. Just 1-gallon low-flow and the old toilets that work. Water does not get "used." It merely moves from one place to another. Whether you use 1 gallon or 4 gallons (as with my current toilet at home from the 70's--which works), no water gets "used." It simply moves, along with the same amount of waste that has to be processed in either case. Anyway, the point is that mandates are stupid. The bureaucrats rarely have all the necessary information to make the best decisions and invariably make stupid ones. Don't mandate (that's the Dem way). Encourage useful behaviors using free markets (the GOP way), but allow choice, just in case the encouraged-instead-of-mandated behavior turns out to have been really stupid. Put a tax on high-flow toilets or on water bills. I'll pay the tax for a toilet that works. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #4 Dec 23 2007, 02:20 PM |
|
|
I switched to fluorescent bulbs back in 2001 when I lived in San Jose, CA and Governor Gray Davis was having a field day with the electricity prices - my bill went up $90 a month for three months and each month I was turning something else off - pool pump, bulbs all fluorescent, no light left on that was not actually being used, etc. If I could have unplugged my refrigerator I would have. My bill was something like $400 a month in the summer with no one home during the day and no HVAC or window A/C unit. And that was with a gas water heater and dryer. The only problem with these bulbs is that you're not supposed to just through them in the trash can - you have to dispose of them is a "special way". I don't think I've had to replace one yet. But I don't remember all those details. I have no problem using them. I just don't want to be FORCED to use them. |
Civil Servant
|
|
|
|
| Post #5 Dec 23 2007, 08:45 PM |
|
B-12! My son (O'Malley) just alerted me to another unintended consequence of this mandate. Dimmer switches don't work with CFB's. Everybody pay to yank those switches out! Go Government! Yay, Government! Get on my back! |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #6 Dec 24 2007, 01:24 PM |
|
|
This is true. And if you have lights that come on automatically - such as an office restroom - you have to have a special something (forgot the name) in the light (fluorescent) to make it work automatically. Dimmer switches are easy to replace - even me who hates dealing with electrical stuff can put in or take out a dimmer switch. :P I even put in a thermostat while my dad gave me instructions over the phone. |
Civil Servant
|
|
|
|
| Post #7 Dec 24 2007, 03:39 PM |
|
Having an occupancy sensor does not require any special modifications to the light (no matter what type it is). An occupancy sensor works as a switch just like a switch on the wall. The current code requires occupancy sensors pretty much everywhere now. And really, for a lot of this "green" stuff, you should be blaming the International Code Council. They're the ones that wrinte the code. The government just adopts the code. I don't want to go back to the old days when every locality had its own code. |
Civilian
|
|
|
|
| Post #8 Dec 24 2007, 03:41 PM |
|
|
What about all these incandescent bulbs for which there are no CFB replacements: flashlight bulbs, chandelier bulbs, Christmas lights? Do we have to toss the appliance that we plug them into and buy new? Yay, government! You go, bureaucrats! Control every small detail of my life! |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #9 Dec 24 2007, 03:45 PM |
|
No. I blame the elected officials who wrote the specific laws that contain the specific mandates, such as CFBs. Your point simply illustrates the true danger of radical environmentalism: That we are giving away our sovereignty to anonymous bureaucrats whom we don't even know, let alone democratically influence! It's all a power grab. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #10 Dec 25 2007, 05:04 PM |
|
| The market will create replacements for all those items listed. Most good flashlights these days used LEDs. LEDs are the real future of lighting. |
Civilian
|
|
|
|
| Post #11 Dec 25 2007, 05:18 PM |
|
|
Yes, I realize that the price is expensive, but the point is to counter that you will need to throw out your chandelier. The prices will come down as LED lights become more mainstream and the laws of supply and demand drive down prices. http://www.ledlight.com/detail.aspx?ID=235 LEDs are great because they are very efficient. Remember that lights give off heat which has to be removed by the AC unit. Increasing the efficiency of the lightbulbs reduces the amount of heat generated which means the AC unit doesn't have to work as hard. And regarding dimmers and fluorescent bulbs, I'm no electrical engineer but I know that I can dim the fluorescent bulb that serves my cube at work. It's attached to an occupancy sensor so the light turns off after 15 minutes of inactivity. |
Civilian
|
|
|
|
| Post #12 Dec 25 2007, 05:29 PM |
|
|
I think you're mistaken about the 1.0 gpm/flush toilets. Urinals are frequently 1.0 gpm/flush. You probably mean the 1.6 gpm/flush I referenced earlier. For tank style WCs, the best I see (that isn't a really specialized fixture) is 1.1 gpm/flush. http://www.us.kohler.com/onlinecatalog/pro...subcategory=120 I contend that the performance of the toilet has as much if not more to do with the installation conditions and how well the toilet is maintained than the design of the fixture itself. Maybe we should go with the vacuum assist toilets that we sometimes specify in prisons! |
Civilian
|
|
|
|
| Post #13 Dec 25 2007, 09:02 PM |
|
The market often recovers from stupid mandates. Mandates are an attempt to control something that cannot be controlled. The market will break free. In the meantime, though, people will be forced to spend money and trash otherwise perfectly good consumer products. That doesn't make the mandate OK. CFBs made sense. Their use was one green idea that saved money. People were moving to them. The mandate just created additional problems--and a bit more trash. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #14 Dec 25 2007, 09:05 PM |
|
Again, no one is disputing the wisdom of LEDs and CFBs. The problem is the stupidity of the mandate. People are moving to the greener technologies. They make sense. The market is doing the job. But, that isn't good enough for greens. The change has to be on their terms. They have to be in control. It's a power grab. Oh, and on the CFB: Auto-off is not a dimmer. Unless a whole new type of CFB has been designed, they either have sufficient power and are on, or they don't and are off. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #15 Dec 25 2007, 09:28 PM |
|
I wondered why, but BOTH the urinals and the toilets where I work are labeled 1.0 gpf/3.8 lpf. Both. Maybe we should realize that flushing does not USE water. It moves it. It's not like it disappears from the water cycle. The ecological problem of toilets is not the amount of water moved. It is the waste, which does not vary with the amount of water used. Of course less water means poorer performance! The engineering changes you suggest carry their own problems. Being more complicated, they are more expensive to buy, break down more, need more maintenance not to be even more inefficient, therefore are more expensive to use,, etc. There are always unintended consequences to all changes. However, the more complex the change, the more unpredictable and more probably detrimental those consequences are. Again, if the government sees the need to steer the public from one behavior or product to another, they should focus on the facet of the product or behavior which is detrimental and insure that costs are properly allocated. For example, if toilets are "using" too much water, add to the cost of the water the cost of the recovery system. Then, the excess water "used" will be recovered at no cost to the government or the public at large and individuals may be motivated to find better solutions. But, when government mandates solutions, they rarely are the best idea and usually create more problems than they solve. Government should guide the market, not force it. But, it's not really about the environment. It's about power and control. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #16 Dec 26 2007, 10:16 AM |
|
The flourescent bulb over my cube is a 48" T8 bulb (if I remember correctly). I have controls on my computer that I can adjust the brightness of the bulb. After 15 minutes (the time is adjustable) the light dims off just like in a movie theater. You might be correct about not being able to dim CFL bulbs. |
Civilian
|
|
|
|
| Post #17 Dec 26 2007, 10:21 AM |
|
| I realize that water doesn't get "used" and "disappear" (in the case of toilets at least. But the water has to get treated. It takes energy to treat water. Many wastewater treatment plants are at capacity. There are many jurisdictions that prohibit dumping condensate from HVAC units (a small amount of liquid comparatively speaking) into sanitary piping because it taxes the wastewater treatment plant too much. |
Civilian
|
|
|
|
| Post #18 Dec 26 2007, 10:24 AM |
|
| BTW - I was joking about installing vacuum assisted toilets everywhere. They work great in prison setting because the inmates love to flush stuff like bedsheets and contraband down the toilet. The vacuum assisted toilets are strong enough that this doesn't back the toilet up. The stuff goes to a tank and can be recovered if need me (contraband, for example). Vacuum assisted toilets use little water but would not be a good application for residential use for the reasons you stated (maintenance, cost, etc). |
Civilian
|
|
|
|
| Post #19 Dec 26 2007, 12:23 PM |
|
Try it with a CFB. I have been told by and electrical engineer that it won't work. As a matter of fact, I just tried it. I put a CFB in an overhead light on a dimmer. As I rotated the dimmer, one of the following happened: It was off, it flickered (much like older fluorescents did when first turned on), or it was on with full brightness. We all don't have fancy light installations and cannot all afford to make the switch to such computer-controlled systems. Government mandates hurt us economically (the poorest among us are hurt most) and/or cost us in terms of capability. It is caused by the mindset that there are simple solutions to complex problems that don't involve working with natural forces. When you oppose natural forces, rather than guide complex systems within them, you get backlash from the system; you get unintended consequences. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #20 Dec 26 2007, 12:32 PM |
|
Now that we seem to be in agreement as to the real problem, can we look at a solution to that actual problem? Pass along to people the cost of moving and processing the waste-filled water, based on the volume that has to be moved, possibly a little more, to provide disincentive to over-use the water and to provide an economic incentive to purchase more efficient systems. This technique would replace the need for any smart mandates, accomplishing the same goal. It would also achieve the goals more effectively than stupid mandates. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General, in the News · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
5:31 PM May 20