Energy Conservation

Discussion in 'General Science' started by Kailyn Alfson, Oct 29, 2015.

  1. Kailyn Alfson

    Thread Starter New Member

    Dec 11, 2014
    5
    1
    My company has been proposing on how we can conserve our monthly electrical bill. They mentioned about hiring a consultant on how we can go about it. Basically, my thought was, what would it be for? Everyone seems to know what to do. We are a medium scale company and I fully understand why there is a need to save up.

    My question is, do we really need a consultant for this or is it just another waste of money?
     
  2. DerStrom8

    Well-Known Member

    Feb 20, 2011
    2,428
    1,328
    This highly depends on how much you want to drop the monthly bill by. If it would meet your requirements to simply turn off lights when not in use (use automatic sensors in the bathrooms and less frequently used rooms, turn on fewer lights on bright days, etc) then there is no need for a consultant. If you do the obvious and still have a bill significantly higher than it should be, then a consultant may be able to provide less obvious ideas for how to reduce your energy usage.
     
  3. Lool

    Member

    May 8, 2013
    117
    12
    What kind of a consultant is he?

    Is he an electrical/heating expert that will study existing systems and make recommendations to replace, modify or tune things that are wasting energy?

    Is is a motivational expert or hypnotist that will try to make you employ better habits in your daily routine?

    How can we answer your question if we don't know what is the goal of bringing in a consultant?
     
  4. BR-549

    Well-Known Member

    Sep 22, 2013
    1,981
    388
    Brother-in-law.
     
  5. wayneh

    Expert

    Sep 9, 2010
    12,078
    3,015
    I think it would be very hard for a consultant to pay his own fee based on energy savings at a medium scale company, whatever that means. Your local power companies might do thermal audits for free. They have those nice thermal imaging cameras to find poorly insulated areas. That's where I'd start.
     
  6. #12

    Expert

    Nov 30, 2010
    16,246
    6,733
    Well, based on your location and the business you're in, the season with the most potential is...wait...you don't have a location.:confused:
    You don't have a product.
    You don't have machines to make your product.
    What are we supposed to do with this information?
     
    absf and nsaspook like this.
  7. Kailyn Alfson

    Thread Starter New Member

    Dec 11, 2014
    5
    1
    By consultant I mean <tSnip>. We were thinking of hiring them to help us with energy management. We've heard of how they've helped companies monitor and ultimately reduce their usage of energy and water and minimize their wastes. Perhaps you guys have heard of them?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 12, 2015
  8. WBahn

    Moderator

    Mar 31, 2012
    17,718
    4,786
    As already noted, you aren't giving anyone anywhere near enough information to go on.

    Wouldn't it seem reasonable to you that the answer to your question (it is a waste of money or not) might be very different for a company that is leasing space in a large building in a very temperate climate and has fifty employees all of whom work at a computer all day compared to a company that owns a free-standing building in either an arctic or a hot/humid climate and where most of the fifty employees are running heavy machines in a large bay in which the doors are opened and closed many times a day?

    As noted in the initial response, what you really need to look at is reasonable payback time. If your energy bills are $200/mo and a consultant charges you $2000 to show you how to reduce them by 20%, then you are looking at more than four years for it to pay for itself -- and that's assuming that the 20% is in addition to what you have already reduced the costs by through your own efforts. But if your energy bills are $5000/mo and a consultant charges you $4000 to show you how to reduce them by 10% (above what you've already done), then you have a payback time that is only eight months.
     
    #12 and DerStrom8 like this.
  9. Glenn Holland

    Member

    Dec 26, 2014
    353
    110
    I used to be in the elevator business and if you're running a high rise building, there's definitely a need to hire a consultant to recommend how to keep up your equipment running most efficiently. Same goes for HVAC and plumbing.

    However, if you're running a plain vanilla building, there's not much need for anyone to give you just no brainer advice. Furthermore, a lot of energy/water conservation advise are just useless rhetoric that will result in a reduced standard of living and quality of life.

    From California's water problem, low flow toilets, waterless urinals, and so called "high efficiency" washers are junk solutions.
     
  10. MikeML

    AAC Fanatic!

    Oct 2, 2009
    5,450
    1,066
    They are better than junk opinions!
     
  11. Glenn Holland

    Member

    Dec 26, 2014
    353
    110
    Actually, junk opinions work as well as a waterless urinal and a low flow toilet.

    In both cases, the pee and do-do are still there!!! :p
     
  12. MikeML

    AAC Fanatic!

    Oct 2, 2009
    5,450
    1,066
    So you think that it is a good idea to dilute a 1cup of urine with 1 gallon of water, and then have to treat 1.1gallons of sewage just to get that water back. The older I get, the more frequently I pee, about ten times per day...
    I figure that waterless urinals would save California 1.9e7guysinCA * 1gal/flush * 10flushes/day/guy * 365days/yr =69,350,000,000 gal/yr. That's a lot of diluted pee, 69Billion gallons. The capacity of Hetch Hetchy is 117Billion gallons....

    I dont know what we do about the women...
     
    nsaspook likes this.
  13. Glenn Holland

    Member

    Dec 26, 2014
    353
    110
    Yes toilets use water, but not a whole lot. However when we started peeing and Do-Doing in water, the rate of bacteria-borne diseases dropped. So there is a definite health reason why we're using a water operated system for waste disposal.

    By the way, there are already waterless urinals and waterless toilets in most large cities. They're used where the homeless go to the bathroom. So do we want more waterless sanitation?

    IIIIIIIII don't think sooooooooo. o_O
     
  14. WBahn

    Moderator

    Mar 31, 2012
    17,718
    4,786
    So... because you are peeing ten times a day as you get older, that means that every man in California pees ten times a day? Wouldn't you think a more realistic number would be about half that?

    The U.S.G.S. estimates that California uses 38 billion gallons of water per day. So you are talking about a day's consumption each year. None-the-less, it's true that every little bit helps out and adds up.
     
  15. Glenn Holland

    Member

    Dec 26, 2014
    353
    110
    In the early 60s, I used to live "Out in the sticks" in the Ozark mountains of Arkansas.

    We had a conventional bathroom that lead to a septic tank. However, a hillbilly family up in the hills had a "Privy" -IE- an outhouse. Anyone with the brain of a snail knows that you can't convert large cities to sewage disposal based on hillbilly technology.

    So I'm going to keep my modern plumbing no matter how much water it uses. It's like the manta used by opponents of gun control: "You'll have to pry my flush lever out of my dead hand".
     
  16. MikeML

    AAC Fanatic!

    Oct 2, 2009
    5,450
    1,066
    Gee Glenn, cant you figure out how to include a rant about Obama in your posts, too?
     
    shortbus likes this.
  17. Glenn Holland

    Member

    Dec 26, 2014
    353
    110
    Ya know, while we're on the subject of Obama.................. There are theories going around that the last shooting in Oregon were staged so it would be easier for the feds could impose gun control.

    However, that's an entirely different hot button issue and the moderators of AAC would probably lock the thread to anyone making further posts.
     
  18. WBahn

    Moderator

    Mar 31, 2012
    17,718
    4,786
    MOD NOTE: YES, WE WILL!
     
    Wendy likes this.
  19. WBahn

    Moderator

    Mar 31, 2012
    17,718
    4,786
    So you would never consider changing anything to save any amount of water? That it's inconceivable that any toilet could ever work acceptably on one drop less of water usage than the one you have now does?
     
  20. Glenn Holland

    Member

    Dec 26, 2014
    353
    110
    As a resident of California which has a chronic water problem, I can tell you that any further attempt to cut water use will not work and I will not accept anymore prodding to cut back.

    Low flow toilets (1-1/2 gallons per flush) don't work (they clog the sewer lines) and the old 3-1/2 gallon (or more) models are the only ones that do work. So I'm going to keep my 1963 vintage 3-1/2 gallon crapper.

    So called "High Efficiency" ("he") washers are a complete disaster and every make and model has a mold problem. The mold infests everything that is "washed" in one of these horrid things and buyers are suing the manufacturers right and left.

    Cutting back on agricultural water consumption means cutting food production and putting farming industry out of business.

    So there are only two solutions that will solve the water problem:
    Build more water collection facilities (dams and reservoirs) or ground water recharge stations.
    -Or-
    Cut population growth and urban development that's driving up consumption in the first place.

    I prefer the last one because California's population growth comes mostly from immigration - particularly from low income people with large families. Furthermore, the real estate and construction industry is a business model of a cancer cell that relies on endless growth and consumption of land and resources.

    Putting the water problem in it's true perspective, California is an example of Third World de-evolution where unlimited population growth is outstripping resources.
     
Loading...