January 08, 2010

CFL

The light bulb police visited this morning and replaced most of my incandescent light bulbs with compact flourescents. They also replaced the spouts on my faucets, and my shower head.

It was something called "Energy Trust of Oregon" and they made a deal with the landlord to do all of this for free. I'm not just sure what the deal was with the water, though. I was afraid they were going to be "low-flow", but they aren't.

Most of the bulbs they replaced were ones I never use, so the whole thing has a feel of silliness and futility about it.

I wonder if this is my share of last year's stimulus money?

UPDATE: Actually, the bathroom faucet was changed to "low flow".

Of all the stupid ideas, "water conservation" in this area is one of the stupidest. Back in the late 1960's, when the "Ecology" movement (as it was known then) was just getting started, one time my sister attended some sort of consciousness raising (i.e. indoctrination) meeting, and came back full of wonderful ideas for how we could use less. One of the things she wanted to do was to put a brick in each of our toilet tanks so that we used less water when we flushed.

Now, in southern California conserving water makes a whole lot of sense. The area is arid and most of its water has to be imported (from the state of Colorado). But this is the Willamette valley, land of rain, rain, and more rain. We get 50 inches of rain per year here, and it comes slow and easy over many, many days, so there's plenty of time for the water to sink through the soil. Here in Beaverton, our water comes from wells. But there's no danger to the water table; the rains replenish the ground water that we take. It ain't fossil water like in Oklahoma.

Where we were living back then, our water came from the Bull Run watershed east of Portland. The water we didn't use ran down the Bull Run river into the Columbia, and out to sea.

"Conserving" something usually means "saving it for later" -- but there isn't anything here to save. We here in western Oregon are not short of fresh water, and we won't be for the forseeable future. And excess water here runs off into the ocean; there's no way to "save it for later".

I haven't used it yet, but if that new shower head also turns out to be "low flow", I'm going to buy my own. (grumble)

Posted by: Steven Den Beste in Daily Life at 10:35 AM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 430 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Are they the good bulbs, the ones that require actually paying attention to tell they aren't incandescent?  Or the crappier kind?

( I wonder if the light bulb police realize they just installed 'hazardous waste'. . . )

Posted by: metaphysician at January 08, 2010 12:07 PM (vM63Z)

2 Of course they realize. It's all part of their plan. Now, anytime they want, they can force entry to the home on pretext of removing dangerous mercury-containing CFLs...

Posted by: Avatar_exADV at January 08, 2010 12:11 PM (pWQz4)

3

I was surprised, in fact. They seem to be a new generation of CFLs, better than the last ones I tried years ago. Those had a huge base for the ballast, and the same kind of blue-green tint as big flourescent bulbs, and they'd flicker when they turned on.

These turn on instantly, and the color actually looks about the same as incandescents, a warmer color.

Posted by: Steven Den Beste at January 08, 2010 12:27 PM (+rSRq)

4

Could be worse - they could have replaced your toilet with a low-flush model.  Assuming, of course, you had an older and more sensible, high-flush toilet remaining when they visited.

Having experienced them at first hand for too many years - let me say that not speaking ill of the dead is something those POC have not taught me to do.

C.T.

Posted by: cxt217 at January 08, 2010 01:31 PM (HxmfY)

5 Is there any conceivable way the Willamette Valley could run short of water, barring mass exportation of it to other areas?

Posted by: metaphysician at January 08, 2010 01:55 PM (vM63Z)

6

The Sun starting to expand into a red giant and evaporating the water?

C.T.

Posted by: cxt217 at January 08, 2010 02:17 PM (HxmfY)

7 One of the other Texas cities (which shall remain nameless) pays customers to replace their toilets with low flow models.  Occasionally, I've had to field questions from customers as to why we don't do the same.  If I were able to REALLY answer the question, I'd say one of the following:

1. We're not giving apartment owners that kind of kickback.
2. We're not running out of water for at least sixty years at current growth projections.  Call me in 2070.
3. We have a shortage of police, and you want somewhere cheap to take a dump while you're being robbed?
4. We're not that stupid.

Posted by: ubu at January 08, 2010 03:11 PM (i7ZAU)

8

CXT, if that happens we have bigger problems to worry about.

Metaphysician, at one time they talked about running a pipeline from the mouth of the Columbia underwater all the way down the coast to California. But it was a ridiculous idea, and nothing came of it.

In terms of getting water out of the Willamette to ship somewhere else, California is really the only reasonable customer. The distance is titanic, and there is a really big mountain range in between, the Siskiyou's. Anyone who has ever driven that section of I-5 knows how rugged those mountains are. They're taller than the Sierras between LA and Las Vegas. Getting water in large volume across there would not be trivial.

I haven't heard of anyone proposing such a project.

Now let's all stop the "Aha! He made a categorical statement, so I am challenged to prove that there is an exception" game, OK?

Posted by: Steven Den Beste at January 08, 2010 03:47 PM (+rSRq)

9 Ah, sorry.  Didn't mean to challenging, I was more expressing incredulity at the idea that the Willamette could ever run low on water.

Posted by: metaphysician at January 08, 2010 03:54 PM (vM63Z)

10 Conserving water in Portland is like conserving sunlight in Phoenix.

Posted by: Steven Den Beste at January 08, 2010 07:55 PM (+rSRq)

11 Frequently, the only thing which makes a shower head "low flow" is a restricter plate.  It normally resides just inside the nozzle where it screws onto the pipe coming out of the wall.

A suitably observant person with technical training and some knowledge of how things work can usually work out which part to remove in order to convert the "low flow" nozzle to one which actually allows one to take a shower; and this part is usually only held in place by friction until the fixture is screwed onto the pipe.  It's pretty easily removable on every shower head I've ever seen.

Mind you, I am not actually advocating the modification of your shower nozzle, as I have no idea what Al Gore's stormtroopers have made illegal in your state and municipality.  I am in fact merely discussing the theory of modifying plumbing fixtures for my own amusement.

Posted by: atomic_fungus at January 09, 2010 01:50 AM (cyUyZ)

12 Low flow toilets have an effect on the efficiency of the sewer system.  The ratio of water to solids.  More toilets (pop. increase) but less water. A few kind of low key be-quiet-about-it sewer projects around San Jose, CA.

Posted by: norm1034 at January 09, 2010 07:16 AM (xRikq)

13

Mind you, I still think putting a brick into your toilet tank to be a better idea than low-flush toilets.  Certainly better than all the other ideas Ted Kennedy sponsored in the Senate.

C.T.

Posted by: cxt217 at January 09, 2010 08:07 AM (HxmfY)

14 Not all "low flow" shower heads suck.  I've been using one of these for a few years now.  The water pressure coming out of the nozzle is very good; it feels pretty close to a full flow shower to me.  (I only installed it so I could take longer showers before the hot water ran out.)

Posted by: Mark A. Flacy at January 09, 2010 11:13 AM (Lbkvv)

15 There is one drawback to the "brick-in-the-tank" trick.  Most bricks will crumble and flake after being immersed in water for long periods.  The debris causes increased wear to the flapper, and can get caught in it, breaking the seal. What you get then is a leaky flapper with a trickle of water going into the bowl.  You'd be surprised how much water can be lost that way, and you won't hear a thing, unless you stand next to the toilet continuously.

We now recommend putting a plastic bag filled with water in the bowl instead.  You can use a ziplock sandwich bag or two, as long as they're out of the way of the float and flapper.  But only do this to older toilets -- those using 4-5 gallons per flush. Modern 1.5 gallon flush toilets can't afford to lose any more water.  (And as norm1034 said, they have their own drawbacks en masse.)

Posted by: ubu at January 09, 2010 01:13 PM (uIaT5)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Enclose all spoilers in spoiler tags:
      [spoiler]your spoiler here[/spoiler]
Spoilers which are not properly tagged will be ruthlessly deleted on sight.
Also, I hate unsolicited suggestions and advice. (Even when you think you're being funny.)

At Chizumatic, we take pride in being incomplete, incorrect, inconsistent, and unfair. We do all of them deliberately.

How to put links in your comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
14kb generated in CPU 0.0048, elapsed 0.0126 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.0093 seconds, 32 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.