Think

And then you should think a little. Actually, think a lot, for this movie is very clever, I think.

The movie is well-crafted, if not as slickly produced as movies such as Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. In particular, Cool It presents a different take on climate change than Inconvenient Truth. It is convincing — skipping between scenes of the youthful Lomburg in his Greenpeace days, to his canonical assertion, which is that to fight climate change, we’re spending our money the wrong way, and efforts to date have been largely ineffective and fantastically cost-ineffective.

But something did not seem to quite “add up” to me. That’s when I started thinking again.

Lomberg is pictured on his bike, or train, and in natural scenes, and even (a bit over the top, if you ask me) helping his Alzheimers-stricken Mom. His blond hair, blue eyes, commanding physique, nearly accent-less English, his professorship, and everything make you feel: this is a guy I can trust. I didn’t come away from Inconvenient Truth thinking my wife would think Al Gore was a hottie (and in his movie Gore was on a CO2-emitting plane!)

I spend a fair amount of my time reading, learning, assessing, and evaluating what I read about climate change and energy. I was genuinely impressed with the movie when I walked out, and it made me think about some of the ways we have approached the issue of and discuss climate change. The opening montage is a series of images drawn by school children depicting their views of climate change — in one case, I believe a boy used at least four “very”s to describe how hot the world would soon become. My own kids, of similar ages are getting what I might describe as “propaganda” about climate change in school — information culled to be exciting, dramatic, convincing and dire. It’s possible that Lomberg’s general assertions have validity.

“Cool It” presents a more moderate, less strident, calmer and alternative view of our global response (or perhaps non-response) to climate change. The movie presents a series of assertions about the ways climate change issues have been overblown by the media and other sources, including some jabs at the data presented in An Inconvenient Truth. Lomberg, who is Director of The Copenhagen Consensus, says his organization has done a lot of diligent and scholarly work looking at how we’re responding to climate change mainly from an economic perspective, using cost-benefit analysis. Based on the data they present, efforts like Kyoto, EU, US and others have been terribly ineffective and wasteful. The message is:

Global warming is real, it is caused by man-made CO2 emissions, and we need to do something about it. But we don’t need action that makes us feel good. We need action that actually does good.

And this is a very hard position to disagree with. I don’t.

However, the movie made me think. I strongly encourage you to watch it or read the book.

And then, I suggest you read this book.

After the first hundred or so pages of the second book, I began to have a different take on Lomberg’s position than I had after leaving the movie theater.

I’ll write more after I finish reading both.

Do watch or read “Cool It”, but please make sure to watch carefully, as I have begun to think there is a new kind of art that is really worth looking at carefully.

This is not the blather and bluster that we have heard from Glenn Beck and his ilk. “Cool It” is not a simple denial of facts that everyone agrees on. “Cool It” strongly advises large expenditures on renewable energy and other climate change mitigation or adaptive responses. But as I begin to delve into the data used to support the claims behind the larger policy recommendations, they appear to be frequently wrong and misleading. There’s a degree to which one can accept a particular view of a problem and understand why someone would choose to refer to one part of the finding — Lomberg is indeed looking at the problem from the standpoint of an economist, not a climate scientists.

However, it appears that the facts used to justify his claims are not just occasionally wrong or misleading, but instead systematically misleading. There’s another word for that: deceptive. The work is wrapped and presented as well-documented science, but it’s something else.

It’s too soon for me to be sure, but I believe Cool It is a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” — a popular presentation leading people to see the world through a different lens … which would be fine, except many of the key facts used to make the assertions are just not right.

Watch the movie, read the book. And think. I believe we may have the next, and more slippery wave of denial wrapped in environmentalist clothing.

So make your own seltzer and soda at home — it’s easy, convenient, and saves money, and may also be good for the environment.

Not Your Dad’s Old Seltzer Bottle

I used to buy flavored seltzer in one liter bottles — lime, orange, and other flavors and fizzy water (no sugar). Then I recalled that when I was a kid, my dad had a seltzer bottle — one (CO2) charger would make a quart — a while back, I bought a Liss Soda Siphon and would regularly order packs of 10 chargers in the mail — I think they were about 50 cents a liter, which compares favorably to the 99 cents a liter at the store.

But the big wins: no bottles to lug, and as much water as you needed when you wanted it (as long as you keep chargers on hand). And no bottles in the landfill or to recycle. It was a reasonable solution, but after a year or so, a couple of the parts on the bottle started failing so that gas would leak out. I could usually make it work, but it was always a bit of a hassle to make a new batch. I think repair parts are available, so it’s still a pretty good option.

Enter The SodaStream

But then my friends showed me their SodaStream Fountain Jet and I was sold. I have had mine for a few months now, and highly recommend it.

But I think what’s especially cool is that the carbonator (CO2 gas canister) can be exchanged and refilled — not just trashed. The carbonator bottles are metal, probably aluminum with a well-machined screw-in mount, about 10″ tall and solid. To exchange, you can either pick one up at a store that is part of the program, or place an order, leave the empty bottle on the porch and a local rep will replace it with a refilled one. The extent of the “consumables” in this case is the gas itself, and some cost for transport if you use their exchange program.

The starter kit (including one carbonator and two bottles) is $85 — there are other pretty looking models that sell for a lot more, and this isn’t nothing, but I believe the payback is pretty reasonable. A refill on the carbonator is $24 using the exchange service, and that will make 110 liters, which is 23 cents a bottle; I have seen prices lower for in-store exchange, although they seem hard to find. You can get flavoring syrups for cola, lemon-lime, diet, unsweetened, or regular (with real sugar, not high fructose corn syrup) at local stores or online; they are inexpensive, perhaps 10 cents extra per litre. I prefer just keeping limes on hand and squeezing a little in the glass. So (not including the initial outlay), a bottle costs about one third as mush as in the store.

Get Creative With Flavors

I just like my soda straight, although a little Scotch adds something :-)

SodaStream sells syrups to make most of the flavors you would think of, although as I have been reading around, people are pretty disappointed in the flavor, especially for the ones that do contain real sugar … but also contain Splenda. Yuck. There are a few other companies out there that make flavors for this purpose. And various cordials like Kirch (cherry brandy) and similar might be fun to try.

A splash of any fruit juice makes for a nice refreshing drink — lime, orange, cranberry are all nice.

We’re really not fans of sweet soda pop, just because they are pure empty calories.

How Green Is SodaStream

The company makes some eco/green claims; some are based on an assumption that each bottle of seltzer you make replaces one you would have bought at the store. In my case, this doesn’t really fly — I simply cannot bring myself to buy plastic or aluminum bottles that I just throw in the recycling bin. I may not be typical. (Yes, that was a joke). I do wonder if the fact that it’s super convenient makes it more likely that normal people drink more fizzy water than they would otherwise? Let’s say that a typical person who would actually buy this product may have bought three bottles a week, so right off, that’s 150 plastic bottles a year that never get made only to get tossed or recycled. On the other hand, perhaps you would use 5 bottles if it were convenient?

(So assuming 150 bottles not bought at the store for $1/bottle = $150/yr, and perhaps $0.30/bottle with flavoring and 5 bottles a week = $75, the payback is less than a year. Your mileage will vary.)

There’s also some environmental cost of obtaining/filtering water, bottling, transporting, displaying, maybe in-store refrigerating, and carrying home. Offsetting this is the embedded energy and costs in making the device. These costs should be quite modest — the thing is mostly plastic and fairly lightweight without the carbonator; the main bits are the screw connector for the carbonator, and screw connector for the bottles, plus a simple push valve — mostly made of nylon (which should make them pretty durable). The whole environmental proposition would probably be shot if the carbonator bottles were not exchanged, as they are fairly heavy duty aluminum with a brass thread at the valve — however it’s pretty hard to miss that this option is available and considerably cheaper than buying a new bottle. It’s probably reasonable to assume they’ll get reused 50 times (and probably could be reused 100 times), and highly likely that they get recycled when their life is done. I can’t do a true lifecycle analysis, but it looks good, mostly on the reduced plastic bottle waste.

Is Seltzer Good For You?

I live in the Boston area, and we have great tap water. If your water is not as good, presumably you use a Brita or Pur filter and don’t get those jugs of water at the store … right? If you do, get over it and double-check if good ol’ tap water isn’t just fine, and if not, some sort of filter will remove nasty chemicals or bad taste.

Health is an important consideration. Obviously if this encourages consumption of more sweetened drinks in your household, it’s a bad bet. On the other hand, if you can substitute for flavored, or even just sweetened with real sugar, it’s a probable win. Many health studies have suggested drinking lots of water is good, but there have been some articles discussing harmful effects of carbonated beverages. I looked around and found the main concerns were 1) soda/pop displacing milk or water, 2) some additives that messed with body chemistry. Some stuff on blogs suggest that the carbonic acid created in the process is harmful. Several articles from more authoritative sources confirmed that you would need to drink a lot of (pure CO2) carbonated water to mess with your body chemistry — stomach acid is far, far more acidic. I’m no expert, but choose to believe that I drink more water, and that’s a good thing.

And of course an irony of this is that carbonation uses CO2, so we’re releasing a greenhouse gas! But I challenge anyone to come up with real numbers on this compared to the greenhouse gasses created as your computer has been running in order to read this post (also a minuscule amount compared to just about anything else).

I Recommend SodaStream, But Check For Alternatives

I am perfectly happy with my purchase. I think it’s a good addition to our house, and a better product in a number of ways than the seltzer bottle it replaced. If you drink a lot of soda pop, flavored seltzer, or just plain fizzy water, SodaStream will save you money, and certainly reduce the number of plastic bottles in the trash bin.

There are probably many good alternatives — it’s pretty clear that SodaStream is doing a pretty good job of marketing. Here’s a link to Consumer Reports’ comparison of seltzer makers, focusing on price.

I could see no difference in performance compared to incandescent: they start instantly, have nice bright light at full power, nice warm light as they dim, and they dim continuously with no buzzing, the bulb looks the same and fits.

I would have preferred to use CFL bulbs: compared to standard incandescent Halogena bulbs use about 1/3 less electricity; CFLs use 4 to five times less. CFLs also last a great deal longer, even than Halogena’s modest 500 hour improvement. So Halogena are an incremental improvement.

But as per the mission of this blog: saving energy and conservation is a matter of a lot of small steps that add up to big, big savings.

Where It Makes Sense to Use Halogena Bulbs

Sadly, I have not yet found a dimmable CFL bulb in the special R20 and BR30 sizes of our kitchen and living room ceiling fixtures … or should I say I haven’t found one that is any good.

If anyone knows of an R20, BR30, or PAR30 CFL bulb that fits a standard ceiling fixture, dims fairly well (without buzzing), and maintains a warm color temperature, please let me know. The R20′s need to produce light about 500 lumens, the BR30 or PAR30′s need to produce about 600 lumens. LED light bulbs would be fine, too as long as it’s not too expensive.

So I conditionally recommend Philips Halogena energy saving bulbs to replace only bulbs that cannot be CFLs.

With only several remaining exceptions, every other bulb in our house is a CFL. In most applications, CFLs are great. Our basement, including the finished part, is great; outdoor floods and the lights in our garage, reading lamps, desk lamps, standing lamps, hanging lamps and so on, all use CFL. Some use the GE EnergySmart brand I settled on in my CFL test and review last year. Others use ones I installed as long ago as 4 or 5 years — still going strong.

CFL is great for most applications … just not all.

Energy Cost Savings

If you replace bulbs with equivalent light output, the Halogena bulbs in general save at least 30% in energy costs. The two bulb types I am using now each save a little more than that based on their rated wattage. Based on my electricity rate, I have calculated that each 100W saved over the course of a year saves me a bit less than $200 — it may be less in other parts of the country, as we have higher than usual electricity rates in Massachusetts. Our rate is $0.22/kWh — so ten 100W bulbs on for an hour cost 22 cents.

I replaced 7 bulbs in the kitchen (R20), and 7 in the living room (BR30). Total cost was $145, compared to about $85 for standard (assuming longer life). So I have to make up $60. We have the kitchen bulbs on for about 2 hours a day (more when it’s dark outside, less when light); we have the living room lights on far less, say 1 hour a day. The kitchen bulbs use 35W less than the ones they replace; the LR bulbs use 25W less. So how many kWh did my old bulbs use per year?

• Kitchen: 7 bulbs saving 35W for 2 hours for 365 days = 179 kWh * $0.22/kWh = $39/year saved, and
• Living Room: 7 bulbs saving 25W for 1 hour for 365 days = 64 kWh * $0.22/kWh = $14/year saved.

Total Annual Savings, Payback Period, and Assumptions

• Grand Total: $53/year saved, so payback is just over a year.

This assumes you replace the lights as the old ones burn out, and you replace bulbs with ones of the same light output. (In my case, neither was true, although most of the bulbs had been in place for several years at least). The kitchen bulbs were actually 50W (not 75W) so my savings would be less, however the living room bulbs were 120W (!!), not 75W so that savings would be more. The math works out about the same.

One last assumption: we’ll use the lights the same amount now. I think this one is important: knowing that we use less energy, will we be more inclined to use the lights than in the past? This is a big issue, in fact. Look at cars: as manufacturers learned how to make more efficient engines, they made the engine more powerful instead of using less gasoline — even some hybrid vehicles used this trick. So if you replace light bulbs, don’t get sloppy with turning them off!

IF there were CFL bulbs that were suitable, the savings calculated above would have been based on an 80% savings. 75W of incandescent light requires about 15W in a CFL, a savings of 60W. Here are those (fictitious, but hopeful) numbers:

• Kitchen: 7 bulbs saving 60W for 2 hours for 365 days = 307 kWh * $0.22/kWh = $67/year saved, and
• Living Room: 7 bulbs saving 60W for 1 hour for 365 days = 153 kWh * $0.22/kWh = $34/year saved, for a total of $101/year.

Either way, a little savings add up over time. If you’re inclined to try, here’s a link to buy online from Amazon.

Keeping your house cool in the summer (with minimal, or no air conditioning) boils down to three things:

1. Don’t Add Heat from the Inside — cook on the grill, turn on the bathroom exhaust fan, keep the lights off
2. Don’t Let Hot Air from Outside In — shut windows, doors, and seal the drafts and leaks that let hot air in
3. Don’t Let Convective or Radiant Heat from the Sun In — insulation, low-E glass, blinds down … and outside shades

We have had exterior shades on some of our windows for several years now and they work great. They’re nothing more than big rolling window shades, but it’s key that they are outside, not in. Normal inside window blinds are good — they don’t let the sun that has already come in, get further than it has, and can reflect some of the heat back. But even in that pocket of air between the shade and the window, you’re allowing the sun to heat up the air in your house.

Exterior shades or awnings, however, do the same thing as window shades, but the heat never gets inside the house in the first place. We use both, and it has really made a difference.

SunSetter Retractable Awnings

We bought two window awnings from SunSetter, and I installed them yesterday. They are also basically roll-up shades, except they have struts on the side that hold the shade out, at an angle. By raising them you can get them entirely out of the way, lowering them all the way mostly covers the window … but the main setting for the summer is out at an angle.

With this setting, they shade the entire glass area of the window while still providing a view and light from outside. The angle is just right to bounce the radiated sun away but not get in the way of the view.

You can buy the awnings in different colors and sizes. I recommend getting a light, neutral color, as the material lets through the light from the sun without the heat — a strong color awning fabric would affect the colors in your room … which is fine, if that’s what you mean to do. Our awning was about 8 inches wider than the outside frame width of the window. There are numerous sizes and configurations available.

The awnings can be adjusted with a pull cord, and the ones we bought have the option of being adjustable from outside or inside. (In our case, however, there wasn’t enough clearance between our curtains inside to install the supplied pulley … not a big deal, since I think there’s mostly a summer setting and a winter setting).

The materials of the SunSetter awnings are very high quality (and this is not often the case with window treatments, in my experience). The awning itself is thick, rugged vinyl. The hardware is aluminum with an enamel coating — very durable and nothing is flimsy. They’re not cheap (around $235, delivered for a 4′ awning), but they’re also not cheap-o — they will last, and not rust for a long time.

Installation is a bit of work, more than just screwing in a few screws — I mounted our two awnings yesterday, and have two important tips:

1. The first one took me an hour, mostly running to get a tool I needed (up and down the ladder); the second one took around 20 minutes
2. Don’t install the awning at noon on a hot, sunny day :-)

You’ll need a few tools — level, measuring tape, socket wrench, drill, screwdriver and a water bottle. If you’re reasonably handy, the instructions provided are very detailed and well written … although frankly they were so detailed I thought there was more to it than it turns out. If you’re not handy, find someone who is to do the installation.

The chimney balloon is an inflatable bag, available in various sizes to fit inside your chimney. A tube and valve on the bottom allows you to inflate it so that it conforms to even the roughest, oddest shaped chimney interiors. The inflating tube is detachable, so there’s nothing visible when installed. The balloon is made of a tough, durable plastic. It can be easily removed as needed (but don’t forget to before lighting a fire!) and just as easily reinstalled. The cost is under $50, and their web site has a lot of great and helpful information on how to choose the right size.

I can tell that the chimney balloon works because it has solved an annoying problem for us already this summer: during cooler evenings, we get fresh and cool air into the house using our whole-house fan. If we don’t have enough windows open, the living room would have a smokey smell, as the fan would draw air in through the chimney. After we installed the Chimney Balloon, the problem is solved, and we get fresh air in the house.

As a result of an inadvertent slip, I did manage to put a small puncture in our chimney balloon (don’t ask: I’ll just say it was not a very clever move on my part, and involved a razor knife :-). After a quick look around on their site, I found good instructions for repairing it: a patch with packing tape did the trick and it’s as good as new.

It’s hard for me to quantify the savings in heating (and cooling) one could expect from this product. Based on our audit, we’re expected to save about $350 per year on our heating bill after completing the various air sealing projects identified. It’s pretty clear, just from walking around with the inspector while the blower-door sucking air out of the house during the test that the chimney, even with damper closed, was one of several large sources or air leakage. Perhaps if it accounts for 10% or 15% of the fixable leaks, the cost of the larger sized chimney balloon we needed should be paid for in a year or less. This seems to be backed up by independent testing reported by the seller which suggests savings of more than $100/year (for a house in Minneapolis). At a cost of under $50, it’s a quick payback on fuel alone.

Another solution for blocking chimney drafts is to install glass doors over the fireplace opening. They are far more expensive, however (around $250 and up), and a bit of a chore to install, especially if your fireplace opening is not relatively flat. The tests I note above suggest that the chimney balloon is a bit more effective than glass doors, too, although I suspect either makes about the same difference.

This is a small expense and small effort that can save you a lot of money over the years, and reduce your carbon footprint a little bit.

Actual Size: 2-1/4 Inches

I was skeptical. For one, my toilet is the kind that make people hate low-flow toilets. It sometimes doesn’t work in, eh hem, certain cases. We have lived with the toilet’s shortcomings for a while. So anything that might reduce efficacy further seemed like a bad idea.

But I put in the WaterSaver anyway, just as a test, and measured. The simplest way is to measure fill time. Before installation fill time for my toilet was a bit less than a minute; afterward it was about 52 seconds. After three flushes, I calculated that I used about 10% less water. I rushed off to write this blog post, but was distracted by reality. That was four months ago.

But is my forgetfulness is the ultimate endorsement of this product. My concerns were unjustified. The failed-flush rate is no different than before. I had completely forgotten that this little device was in there … saving a little every flush, for months.

The WaterSaver works simply. After a toilet is flushed, water runs to fill two parts: the tank and the bowl: it stops filling when the tank is full. The WaterSaver diverter just sends a little more water into the tank, and a little less into the bowl. And thus, the tank fills more quickly, with less water being sent directly down the drain through the bowl.

You might ask, why doesn’t the toilet maker do this from the start? The answer is simple: the fill devices used on most commodes are commodities that can be purchased at any hardware store. One size fits all. Only a very few companies (e.g. Toto) actually optimize their toilets for consumption (and have a proprietary fill valve) — the rest just meet whatever standard they must, apparently without much thought of how. So, diverting a little water into the tank (instead of the bowl) saves a little water.

As I said, installation is a snap. Take the lid off the tank and you’ll see a small plastic tube that is clipped to a larger, vertical pipe — this fills the bowl part after a flush. You just slip the WaterSaver on the end of the plastic tube and clip it back on the pipe. No tools are needed.

So head on over to the WaterSaver site and get one for each of your potties. And while you’re at it, get Darryl McMahon’s book, The Emperor’s New Hydrogen Economy — I can’t vouch for the book yet, but I can assure you that the WaterSaver is a simple, effective way to save a bit of water.

I have now done five low flow shower head reviews so far (sorry, no nude shower scenes in this one) and the HighSierra wins hands down on price and is a strong contender for the best feeling shower of those we have tried.

A water saving shower head can help you conserve water, and in particular hot water which means you’re also save energy.

The other very good water saving shower heads I tested are larger, and considerably more expensive. Don’t be deceived — the HighSierra model might look like those really cheapo, painful shower heads that they put in locker room showers. But HighSierra’s clever low flow design makes it really a totally different beast. Simple is good; the manufacturer claims that it is less likely to become clogged with mineral deposits, it’s very small, and solidly built.

Here are some criteria I use for water saving shower head reviews:

• Comfortable: is the spray pleasant overall and does not sting … nor is wimpy
• Droplet size: very small droplets cool down and can be chilly around the edges
• Effective: forceful enough to remove shampoo and rinse soap off easily and quickly
• Spray pattern: wide enough that your whole body is covered
• Adjustable: are there options to adjust flow rate, e.g. a shut-off valve
• Construction: does it seem solid and durable, prone to clogging or other failure?
• Water usage: regular shower heads use 2.5 GPM, a low flow head should use less
• Price: some of these puppies can be expensive

And here’s my review of the HighSierra FCS-200 low flow shower head:

• Comfortable: very comfortable and pleasant overall, compares favorably to normal 2.5GPM showerheads
• Droplet size: large droplets retain warmth and feeling of power and do not sting
• Effective: Very good, if a little less forceful than the Oxygenics model
• Spray pattern: wide spray is smart; more water reaches the edges and the spray is horizontally oriented
• Adjustable: The FCS-200 model has a flow-control button valve; good for reducing flow when shaving or soaping up
• Construction: all-metal, chrome, very well made, unlikely to clog
• Water usage: at 1.5 GPM, this one is a little better than other low flow heads
• Price: $22.90 for the FCS-100 (no shut-off), $25.45 for the FCS-200 as of 2/10/2009

Some comments from the family… my son greatly prefers this shower head over the Oxygenics shower head I reviewed and that we normally use. I think this is because the other head is optimized for adults (taller, and therefore closer to the spray). With the HighSierra head, the larger droplets stay warm longer so reach down the extra couple of feet to his 4-1/2 foot body. The shower head is very small and great for tight spaces. My wife and I are both very happy with it, with only one minor quibble — tiny drops of water tend to escape around the top, and can get into your eyes.

A heads-up for buyers: the unique design confused me at first (I didn’t read the instructions) — you have to rotate the head until the visible eye-shaped orifice is oriented horizontally (like the CBS logo). From experience, I can attest that it’s a rather unusual shower experience if you don’t do that step! But that’s a one-time thing. Otherwise, installation is a simple matter of unscrewing the old head and screwing on the new one (a wrench or pair of pliers might help).

Bottom line: this is a great shower head for about one half the price of other great ones I have used. (And the real bottom line is that my wife hasn’t asked me to re-install our old one). I think you’ll be very happy.

Good Picture (borrowed from Slashgear)

Netflix is a great service, which by now everyone probably knows about — they pretty much single-handedly killed numerous movie rental chains just by being easier and better. You pick movies from a web site, and they send them to you in a special envelope that you use to return them when you’re done watching. TiVo is also a great service that allows you to watch TV on your terms (far better than the horrible “TiVo-like” DVR services offered by cable and satellite providers).

Netflix recently started making some of their movies available over the internet, on demand. But you needed a special player. More recently, you could use an XBox as that player, and there are even a couple of Blu-Ray players that are “Netflix capable”. But now, TiVo (HD models only), and that’s the best.

A while back TiVo made a deal with Amazon, who has a digital media service called “unbox“. It’s ok, but Amazon is not very strong at providing help choosing movies (Netflix is awesome!), you have to pay a per-rental fee to Amazon, and it can take a while for movies to start downloading. If you have a Netflix account, you can use your TiVo to watch any of the movies that Netflix has available for the service, instantly, for free. It’s really pretty great.

OK, but How Does This Save Energy?

So the interesting thing about this from an energy perspective is that movies watched in this manner do not need any of the following:

• To be sent via postal mail to you
• To be sent back via postal mail to them
• To be turned into DVDs with mylar slip cases and labels
• To be handled numerous times by multiple shipping facilities and employees
• To be subject of physical limitations, like the number of DVD copies made
• Have an extra set-top box consuming more electricity (assuming you have a TiVo)

We were trying to do the math on the new cost model this creates for Netflix. We still pay our $17/month fee to Netflix and can watch as many movies as we want. So there has to be a cost that Netflix pays to the movie studios each time they rent a movie — maybe $1.00? But a big cost of their transaction is cut out with digital delivery — at least $0.84 for postage in two directions (maybe less if they pay a bulk rate), then the cost of their regional facilities and especially the labor it takes to manage all those disks — I’ll bet the handlings all adds up to $2.00 or more per round-trip of a movie.

Maybe the average Netflix user watches four movies a month at a total cost of $3.00 per movie or $12.00 per customer, leaving $5.00 left over for operational costs and profit. But with the new model, maybe we watch more movies, but Netflix pays only the studio fee and bandwidth and server fees that are incremental to their existing costs (perhaps $0.10 per movie delivered? Probably less).

Naturally, the selection of movies available for download is a much smaller set than the ones you can rent from Netflix the old way — it seems better than the selection Amazon has, but it’s a fraction of what’s out there, now. This can only be due to (stupid) studio rules, and/or (their paranoia) about people stealing their movies — it’s certainly not a cost issue for anyone. Well, except Sony and the other makers of Blu-Ray HD players who would presumably love to see their players to every man, woman and child with a regular DVD player now, as well as the disks they make.

This is similar to the struggle between iTunes and the music studios (often the same ones). iTunes seems to be winning that battle, if slowly. Perhaps we can rid ourselves, for once and for all of the fragile, poorly constructed, hard to set up, energy sucking players as well as the masses of easily scratched plastic disks in plastic cases, shipped all over the place to sit in our houses, being watched a few times (or sent back and forth by mail).

Think of the energy we’ll save :-)

Simple and Inexpensive

There are three kinds of shower timers I could find: fancy models that actually shut off the water flow, egg timers that run for about 4 minutes, and digital countdown timers. I have found a good, inexpensive choice: The “Shower Professor”.

The first type of timer is fancy: it installs between the shower water spout and the shower head and actually shuts off the water after a set period of time. They cost about $150 or more. This seems like an expensive and rather excessive method.

I tried using an egg timer. They are cute and inexpensive (around $4) but pretty limited. For one, they are set for about 4 minutes, which is the recommended time, but some may prefer an extra minute or so. I also found the model I got hard to read. In the end, I would forget it and stopped using it.

Two models of digital countdown timers are available. Both have a digital display, are water resistant, have a suction cup, and a few buttons. One made by Ripple Products in Australia has several colorful designs (star, duck, etc) for about $20. A new company (that contacted me and provided a free sample) called Shower Professor is similar, and is only $12.98 including shipping.

(And, I just noticed that TerraPass sells one called the Half a Teaspoon Shower Watch for $30)

The Ripple and Shower Professor differ in a small but important way: the Ripple needs to be set (e.g. press the “minutes” button 5 times for 5 minutes, then press start). The Shower Professor comes with four presets: 5, 7 and 10 minutes and another for 1 minute — one touch and you start the timer. Not a big deal, for sure, but who needs to think when getting into the shower?

Both have a display, and beep when time’s up. The Shower Professor’s display is large enough to be legible, and has a discrete, short (but audible) beep. My only real complaint is that the 1 minute setting worked a little differently than I expected — I thought it would add a minute, instead, it stops (but doesn’t restart) a running timer, or if there’s no timer running, starts a 1 minute countdown.

Also, the Ripple sells in the US for about $20 when you include shipping; the Shower Professor is $13 with shipping, at least to my address. No doubt you can save $13 in a matter of a few weeks if you’re motivated. The Shower Professor website is a little hokey, but I have exchanged a few emails with they guy there, and he seems like an honest guy.

I am regularly reminded how slowly my brain is operating when I shower in the morning — it’s nice to have a gentle reminder lest I find myself asleep under a gentle spray of warm water :-)

Don’t Forget The Low Flow Shower Head!

Short showers are a good complement to low-flow shower heads several of which I have reviewed in prior posts. My favorite is the Oygenics Elite 700, but there are other good options, notably the Evolve Roadrunner, or even just the little fitting that comes with the Evolve or can be purchased separately that turns off the water once it has warmed up.

Apple's Time Capsule

We have a Windows PC setup in our broom closet. It holds a bunch of files; our pictures, digital music, backups, and other stuff we all use. It’s also a shared printer server. Finally, it runs a bit of software that works with several “Squeeze Boxes” that let us play our digital music on the kitchen radio, and in our living room and outside patio. There’s a small monitor, keyboard and mouse which are needed when updating the machine. We also have our wireless network router in there.

The only problem: when all of this stuff is on, my Kill-a-Watt meter shows that it uses 108 Watts of electricity. And it’s on all the time. No wonder the closet is so hot!

Apple to the rescue! We bought a Time Capsule, which is a terribly named thing, if you ask me. It’s actually: a wireless router, a 500GB (!) hard disk, a print server, and, get this, it can even let us play music from our music library in our kitchen and living room.

This single box uses only 12 watts when idle (18 when the hard disk is in use), and it can replace the computer and exiting wireless network router. All this in an elegant 8-inch square, 1-1/2 inch high case. And, it’s silent.

Net reduction of power: 96 Watts, 24 hours a day. So that’s 2.3 kWh saved every day, which at our rate of $0.19/kWh is 44 cents a day. So what, you say? That adds up to $13/month, or $160 per year saved.

Kill-a-Watt Meter

We can now store brooms and other things in our broom closet, and the house will be just a little bit quieter.

I can sell my SqueezeBox (wireless music player) and get an Apple AirPort Express (which also extends the wireless network and can be a print server too); I think the net cost here should be very small. I doubt there will be a significant energy use difference, maybe a bit less.

Our PowerCost Monitor (which measures all the electricity we use) reports that we’re using about 400 Watts of power … when everything is “off”. This is the sum of all of those “standby” modes, vampire transformers, phones, clock, cable box (well, TiVo, actually) … and the whole computer setup. So this represents about one quarter of our standby use.

Which, of course, makes me wonder, what other things are sucking up the other 300 Watts?!!