"harry" wrote in message
...
On May 7, 7:03 pm, "NotMe" wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...
On May 7, 3:45 pm, "NotMe" wrote:





"harry" wrote in message

...
On May 7, 1:17 am, "
wrote:

On Sun, 06 May 2012 16:50:42 -0400, Ed Pawlowski
wrote:
On Sun, 06 May 2012 10:47:12 -0400, "
wrote:

Indeed. We both heat and cool with electricity and "only" spend
something
less than $1700 (five months @ $200 and seven around $100). $9K in
electricity? Yikes! Either harry is lying again, or he's worse than
AlBore.

Typical rates in Britain are about 22¢ per kW. A bit more that I pay
in CT, about 17¢

I paid a total of $1775 last year.

Like I said, I both heat and cool with electricity - 2600ft^2 (now
6200ft^2,
but that's an anomaly).

PV is ideal for cooling. Max power available when you need the
cooling.

{{

Not very efferent. If you have the sun light and space an absorption
system
can work better. A knowledge of thermodynamics can be your friend.- Hide
quoted text -



- Show quoted text -

Or evaporative cooling in dry climates.

{{

Will be a time (some say it's here now) when water will be more valuable
than energy. Swamp coolers (evaporative cooling) are typically not much
better then a 20 F delta T which is fine if the ambient temp is not over
100F but a bear if it's 110 F and above. BTDT and have experience with
some
that produce a 100% RH which is better known as sticky heat.- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

They only work in low RH areas. My brother in Australia has one. Works
fine.

The air temperature is niether here nor there.

{{

Skipped the classes on practical applications of thermodynamics did you ??