So Much For 'Energy Star' Ratings

Let the Record show that Erik on or about Sat, 27 Mar

2010 17:21:39 -0700 did write/type or cause to appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

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!

Someone is going to get fired at GAO for embarassing government.

Wes

On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 10:43:16 -0500, the infamous Wes scrawled the following:

The exact opposite should happen. Fire the gov't and keep the GAO.

-- "Not always right, but never uncertain." --Heinlein -=-=-

I documented this years ago:

The DOE energy ratings may have meant something initially, but they don't 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.

Ä
x?mAO1?ïýs?©$??Ñpà@4ÁDodvw¶­t;Ðv­?,«'/MÞ?oæU?g;ô0?Nàn~;»_O±?ÀèÜr\¼[µW #©8¤lR?÷ýËz?f?%7#?#És¤¹X?U/sjycVºÖ6a@c5?5NÁxã?öý

Air infiltration is a compromise between energy loss and "proper" ventilation:

Like police vs fire recommendations for ease of access they conflict wildly.

jsw

On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 05:44:02 -0700 (PDT), the infamous Jim Wilkins scrawled the following:

Ayup. Theoretically, both are good things, but reality often differs.

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

Yikes, some of the recommended air exchange rates at the website you 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.

"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.

But, but, you haven't been empowered to feel smug and superior. You'll have to do it entirely on your own without permission.

On Sat, 3 Apr 2010 16:31:43 -0700 (PDT), the infamous Jim Wilkins scrawled the following:

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

Only if you drive to the store to buy it in your Prius. Southpark had a great episode on Smug.

Wes

a great episode on

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:

jsw

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 -- Charles Darwin

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.

On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 04:31:58 -0700 (PDT), the infamous Jim Wilkins scrawled the following:

great episode on

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."

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

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