GE Takes On DOE/Energy Star
- Thread starter launderess
- Start date
Help Support :
Even from my remote vantage point: 'Bout Bloody time!
I'm proud that a major appliance manufacturer (even if its only GE) stood up to the stupid (or shall we say retarded?) Efficiency Guidelines governments keep dreaming up.
What do I say? Let manufacturers make whatever they want, but reign in to avoid wasteful usage (such as 3 pre washes, 1 wash and 3 rinses some dishwasher from past times seemed to use!), then, award machines "Energy Star" credits/commendations.
One more thing: Why do power companies and governments who insist on making money from this sort of stuff (thru stamp duties on electricity/water/gas or bills/tolls on usage) encourage people to use less energy? Just means they get to put up the prices to justify running those 3 power plants all the time when they aren't really needed. People should really wake up to this!
I'm proud that a major appliance manufacturer (even if its only GE) stood up to the stupid (or shall we say retarded?) Efficiency Guidelines governments keep dreaming up.
What do I say? Let manufacturers make whatever they want, but reign in to avoid wasteful usage (such as 3 pre washes, 1 wash and 3 rinses some dishwasher from past times seemed to use!), then, award machines "Energy Star" credits/commendations.
One more thing: Why do power companies and governments who insist on making money from this sort of stuff (thru stamp duties on electricity/water/gas or bills/tolls on usage) encourage people to use less energy? Just means they get to put up the prices to justify running those 3 power plants all the time when they aren't really needed. People should really wake up to this!
Cannot Speak To Elsewhere In The World
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
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
dj-gabriele
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2007
- Messages
- 1,685
To me this craze about washing machines and people's habits is stupid, everybody knows that agriculture and industry along with transportation are the major energy suckers!
They should be thinking about making factories more efficient and agriculture too. For the auto market they should get a totally different approach too!
It's not a washing machine, even if it can be terribly inefficient like a top loader that will ruin a nation! At worst it will make one to pay 50$ more per month in utilities
They should improve in home heating and cooling! With compulsory insulation and better windows and doors! With stringent standards. As an example new buildings here can't use more than 70 kWh per square meter of total energy that equals to 7 litres of heating diesel or cubic meters of methane per season.
They should be thinking about making factories more efficient and agriculture too. For the auto market they should get a totally different approach too!
It's not a washing machine, even if it can be terribly inefficient like a top loader that will ruin a nation! At worst it will make one to pay 50$ more per month in utilities
They should improve in home heating and cooling! With compulsory insulation and better windows and doors! With stringent standards. As an example new buildings here can't use more than 70 kWh per square meter of total energy that equals to 7 litres of heating diesel or cubic meters of methane per season.
2005 is so long gone, you can't even see the tail lights. While GE raised some valid concerns, it's about time they were hauled up short with all of the needless water their perforated tub washers used with that large gap between the inner basket and outer tub. My V12 used as much water to fill as the huge KA top loader (I used to drain wash water from one into the other) and washed a smaller load just because GE did not change their suspension system when they went from a solid tub to a perforated one more than 5 decades ago.
It would be nice to know if this action had any positive results.
It would be nice to know if this action had any positive results.
arbilab
Well-known member
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!
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!
If Power is Generated by:
Coal, Gas and Hydro...
Build MORE Hydro/Wind/Solar and Nuclear plants. I don't think the US is in such a position that it has to worry about Earthquakes or Tsunami's causing trouble for the power plants (like Japan, Indonesia etc), so it would be a wise(r) option until we can perfect other sources.
I don't think banning lawns is the option, but using treated waste water for gardening purposes would be far more sensible. Some of this treated water may also be used for potable supplies too (I would be happy to use properly treated water for washing and gardening purposes. BUt I'd probably use the "Sani" cycle or Sani rinse agent, just to be sure!)
Coal, Gas and Hydro...
Build MORE Hydro/Wind/Solar and Nuclear plants. I don't think the US is in such a position that it has to worry about Earthquakes or Tsunami's causing trouble for the power plants (like Japan, Indonesia etc), so it would be a wise(r) option until we can perfect other sources.
I don't think banning lawns is the option, but using treated waste water for gardening purposes would be far more sensible. Some of this treated water may also be used for potable supplies too (I would be happy to use properly treated water for washing and gardening purposes. BUt I'd probably use the "Sani" cycle or Sani rinse agent, just to be sure!)
New Power Plants
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.
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.
arbilab
Well-known member
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.
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.
dj-gabriele
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2007
- Messages
- 1,685
The current wisdom is building these turbine "peak"
Since we lost nuclear generation most of Italian power is generated that way: the result is that we have the HIGHEST energy rates in all the OCSE countries!
Definitely not the way to go! A good example is France where they power throttle all the nuclear plants together for load leveling and following! Very smart indeed and they pay 60% less than we do!
Since we lost nuclear generation most of Italian power is generated that way: the result is that we have the HIGHEST energy rates in all the OCSE countries!
Definitely not the way to go! A good example is France where they power throttle all the nuclear plants together for load leveling and following! Very smart indeed and they pay 60% less than we do!
turbine-electric
The Electro-Motive Division of GM tried turbine locomotives in the late fifties-to 60's.Not good-the turbines were more fuel thirsty than the deisels.Remember in the early 70's a freind and I paced a UP turbine locomotive hauling a large coal train-he was going close to 80MPH!!Stay OUT of his way at grade crossings.UP used to use the Turbine locomotives to haul coal out of Wyoming-then on southward to the coal power plants.the turbine locos liked very long hauls in between stops.
Coal is an ABUNDANT fuel source in theUS-by all means USE it!!!In the US power plant boiler makers have made coal more efficient.It is still a viable energy source.Generally power plant boilers take one shift(8hrs) from cold start to generate enough steam to run the generator turbines.Fossil and nuclear boilers.
Gas turbines are used mainly for peaking.and they are used for standby-peaking power for large customers.wished we had one at our station!the Solar division of Caterpillar specializes in gas turbine gensets.The turbine sets do run quiet-Was talking to a freind while watching one of the turbine peaking units going for black hills Power and Light.About 50ft from it-sounded like an airliners APU.The Pentagon and other govt buildings in DC have turbine gensets.Usually they take about 20min from cold start to running condition.If the burners are preheated-almost instant.The operator can set the turbine on "preheat" if a transfer situation is going to exist.I had some data on these units from Solar-Caterpillar at one time.the turbine sets are larger in electric capacity than the deisels.Smallest was like 3Mw-largest 27Mw.
The Electro-Motive Division of GM tried turbine locomotives in the late fifties-to 60's.Not good-the turbines were more fuel thirsty than the deisels.Remember in the early 70's a freind and I paced a UP turbine locomotive hauling a large coal train-he was going close to 80MPH!!Stay OUT of his way at grade crossings.UP used to use the Turbine locomotives to haul coal out of Wyoming-then on southward to the coal power plants.the turbine locos liked very long hauls in between stops.
Coal is an ABUNDANT fuel source in theUS-by all means USE it!!!In the US power plant boiler makers have made coal more efficient.It is still a viable energy source.Generally power plant boilers take one shift(8hrs) from cold start to generate enough steam to run the generator turbines.Fossil and nuclear boilers.
Gas turbines are used mainly for peaking.and they are used for standby-peaking power for large customers.wished we had one at our station!the Solar division of Caterpillar specializes in gas turbine gensets.The turbine sets do run quiet-Was talking to a freind while watching one of the turbine peaking units going for black hills Power and Light.About 50ft from it-sounded like an airliners APU.The Pentagon and other govt buildings in DC have turbine gensets.Usually they take about 20min from cold start to running condition.If the burners are preheated-almost instant.The operator can set the turbine on "preheat" if a transfer situation is going to exist.I had some data on these units from Solar-Caterpillar at one time.the turbine sets are larger in electric capacity than the deisels.Smallest was like 3Mw-largest 27Mw.
Those Amtrak/GM Turbine Locomotives Are Still Around
Well at least they were, pipe:
Well at least they were, pipe:
arbilab
Well-known member
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.
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.
GE takes on the DOE
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.
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.
Since None Of Our Laundry Nor Dishwashing Appliances
Are Energy Star rated will have to take your word for it regarding the savings.
Are Energy Star rated will have to take your word for it regarding the savings.
The turbine gensets do have another advantage-they can be multi-fuel depending upon the burners put in the engine.They can run from natural gas,fuel oil and even finely pulverized coal.and these genset can be portable mounted on truck trailers-so they can be taken to a site where they arfe needed.For BHPL-flood of 1972-the turbine gensets they bought were brand new at that time-BHPL used the sets at places where main power could not be restored-served as temporary portable power plants.The last I saw of them they were stationed at the BHLP "Ben French" coal station for peaking duty.They could be used as portable if needed.
Turbines for locomotive sound great-but for the turbine engine to get its best effeciency-they have to always run full speed-or "high Idle" as for gensets.So they end up burning more fuel than deisels.For locos-deisels can run at low idle-and use only 1 gal fuel per hour at this speed-200RPM for EMD deisels.Full throttle is 1200RPM.Most large power plants are rural-no matter what the prime mover-folks just don't want them "in their backyards"-yes---even feilds of solar cells and windmills.
Sadly----most of the turbine locomotives went to the scrapyard-or to museams.They were magnificent peices of machinery.Don't despair though--turbine engines are good for shipboard duties---most new Navy ships use turbine engines for propulsion and electric power generating aboard the ships.And usually its Caterpillar-solar engines! The engines used in the former EMD turnbine locomotives were from Allison-a division of GM--same engines used in some turbo-prop airplane engines.Instead of spinning a propellor as on the plane-the turbine engine spun a generator.Have seen these Allison Turbines at airplane museams.Engine and gearbox-transmission.
Oh yes--for Gas turbine powerplants-the exhaust of the turbine engine can heat a boiler---and the steam can run steam turbines for additional power generation.
Turbines for locomotive sound great-but for the turbine engine to get its best effeciency-they have to always run full speed-or "high Idle" as for gensets.So they end up burning more fuel than deisels.For locos-deisels can run at low idle-and use only 1 gal fuel per hour at this speed-200RPM for EMD deisels.Full throttle is 1200RPM.Most large power plants are rural-no matter what the prime mover-folks just don't want them "in their backyards"-yes---even feilds of solar cells and windmills.
Sadly----most of the turbine locomotives went to the scrapyard-or to museams.They were magnificent peices of machinery.Don't despair though--turbine engines are good for shipboard duties---most new Navy ships use turbine engines for propulsion and electric power generating aboard the ships.And usually its Caterpillar-solar engines! The engines used in the former EMD turnbine locomotives were from Allison-a division of GM--same engines used in some turbo-prop airplane engines.Instead of spinning a propellor as on the plane-the turbine engine spun a generator.Have seen these Allison Turbines at airplane museams.Engine and gearbox-transmission.
Oh yes--for Gas turbine powerplants-the exhaust of the turbine engine can heat a boiler---and the steam can run steam turbines for additional power generation.
arbilab
Well-known member
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.
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.
The turbines used in ships today are gas turbines-not steam ones.This makes the ships propulsion system more efficient,and lower cost to maintain.Ships no longer have boilers like the older days-or they have VERY large deisel engines.
and yes-turbines love constant speed appliactions such as driving generators.Deisels can do this,too.Most smaller gensets are deisel-under 3Mw.for locos-the engine does not always run at constant speed-Most have 8 throttle settings-from pos#1-200rpm(idle) to full(#8)-1200RPM-full power and speed.With speed of the engine controlled and that of the traction motors-a wider range of speeds and torque is availabe to start and move the train.And as we know---trains can't "scratch off" like cars-a cars torque is let out all at once-for a train-high torque and gradual and over a longer period of time.And the traction motors can only take so much current at starting-----No "Stall burn" now!!Motors overheated from too much start current.It may take a few to even several MINUTES to get a long heavy freight train moving from standstill.I love on movies and TV shows where an engineer throws open the throttle and the train takes off like a car!!
and yes-turbines love constant speed appliactions such as driving generators.Deisels can do this,too.Most smaller gensets are deisel-under 3Mw.for locos-the engine does not always run at constant speed-Most have 8 throttle settings-from pos#1-200rpm(idle) to full(#8)-1200RPM-full power and speed.With speed of the engine controlled and that of the traction motors-a wider range of speeds and torque is availabe to start and move the train.And as we know---trains can't "scratch off" like cars-a cars torque is let out all at once-for a train-high torque and gradual and over a longer period of time.And the traction motors can only take so much current at starting-----No "Stall burn" now!!Motors overheated from too much start current.It may take a few to even several MINUTES to get a long heavy freight train moving from standstill.I love on movies and TV shows where an engineer throws open the throttle and the train takes off like a car!!
mrb627
Well-known member
Split your lineup...
I think each manufacture should have a few models that are ES qualified and a few that aren't. Let the customer choose.
Malcolm
I think each manufacture should have a few models that are ES qualified and a few that aren't. Let the customer choose.
Malcolm
