|
kill a watt ez
i posted a few days ago regarding my fridaire refrigerator seemed to be
running all the time and one of the replies i got suggested buying a kill a watt meter so i got one today and the instructions for calculating costs wants me to input my kilowatt charges so after looking at my latest electric bill i have 3 different charges...power supply energy 457 kwh @0.06726, distribution 457 kwh @0.04195 and energy optimization 457 kwh @0.01081. i am not sure which of these numbers to input into my kill a watt meter...any suggestions? thanks, cj |
kill a watt ez
On May 23, 2:38*pm, cj wrote:
i posted a few days ago regarding my fridaire refrigerator seemed to be running all the time and one of the replies i got suggested buying a kill a watt meter so i got one today and the instructions for calculating costs wants me to input my kilowatt charges so after looking at my latest electric bill i have 3 different charges...power supply energy 457 kwh @0.06726, distribution 457 kwh @0.04195 and energy optimization 457 kwh @0.01081. i am not sure which of these numbers to input into my kill a watt meter...any suggestions? thanks, cj Add all three as that is what you are paying!! |
kill a watt ez
|
kill a watt ez
On Sun, 23 May 2010 15:38:00 -0400, cj wrote:
i posted a few days ago regarding my fridaire refrigerator seemed to be running all the time and one of the replies i got suggested buying a kill a watt meter so i got one today and the instructions for calculating costs wants me to input my kilowatt charges so after looking at my latest electric bill i have 3 different charges...power supply energy 457 kwh @0.06726, distribution 457 kwh @0.04195 and energy optimization 457 kwh @0.01081. i am not sure which of these numbers to input into my kill a watt meter...any suggestions? Add them together. As a check, add them, multiply by your usage, add the billing fee or basic charge (if any), and compare to the bottom line. |
kill a watt ez
cj wrote:
i posted a few days ago regarding my fridaire refrigerator seemed to be running all the time and one of the replies i got suggested buying a kill a watt meter so i got one today and the instructions for calculating costs wants me to input my kilowatt charges so after looking at my latest electric bill i have 3 different charges...power supply energy 457 kwh @0.06726, distribution 457 kwh @0.04195 and energy optimization 457 kwh @0.01081. i am not sure which of these numbers to input into my kill a watt meter...any suggestions? thanks, cj You want the total cost. They split it out so they can jack up the rates in a way you won't notice. If your fridge is running all the time, you already have all the info you need. You need to fix it. The kill a watt won't tell you any more than that you need to fix it. Fridge designs vary considerably. First thing to do is check that it's defrosted. You can usually see the coils in the freezer thru a grille somewhere. The motor that runs the defrost timer can freeze up (pun intended) so the defrost cycle never runs. The evaporator coil gets covered with ice and the efficiency heads for zero. If that's the case, you need to defrost it manually. Even if you fix the timer, the defrost cycle wasn't intended to melt a solid block of ice. I've had chunks of ice get caught in the inside circulation fan and stop it from turning. Vacuum the dust off the exterior condenser coils. |
kill a watt ez
|
kill a watt ez
"HeyBub" wrote in message ... wrote: I called them on this matter, and was told it's for security. I told them flat out "BULL****". Put a security camera by the entrances and a sensor light. Or hire a guard, which would likely cost much less than the amount of power they are wasting, plus give someone a job. They don't pay for the power. And even if they did, the cost to generate the power is negligible compared to the cost to distribute, maintain, and account for the power. We've got an aluminum plant nearby that uses enough power to serve 10,000 homes. But it only takes one wire (well, three) to get it there. Contrast that with 7,000 poles, 5,000 transformers, 10,000 meters (and the reading of them), 10,000 bills sent each month, etc. In the state I live an aluminum company took over a river and put up dams to produce the power to make the aluminum. About 10 years or so ago they quit making aluminum and just sold the power they were generating. Seems the power was making more profit than the aluminum product. |
kill a watt ez
"HeyBub" wrote in message ... wrote: And even if they did, the cost to generate the power is negligible compared to the cost to distribute, maintain, and account for the power. We've got an aluminum plant nearby that uses enough power to serve 10,000 homes. But it only takes one wire (well, three) to get it there. Contrast that with 7,000 poles, 5,000 transformers, 10,000 meters (and the reading of them), 10,000 bills sent each month, etc. I have a little experience with business rates. They are far different and in most cases cheaper than residential rates. Many businesses pay based on a peak demand rate. Off peak is another factor. We actually lowered the utility bills for an all electric pizza restaurant by switching from regular to peak demand pricing. I mean a big savings. Think about it. Those generators and wires can only make and carry so much load at one time. -- Colbyt Please come visit http://www.househomerepair.com |
kill a watt ez
|
kill a watt ez
dpb wrote:
wrote: ... If I can ever afford it, I'm going to setup solar panels and wind generators, and tell the elec co to shove it. Chuckle... And there's the bottom line -- you can't do it for less, even for a minimal amount such as a single dwelling. -- Not if you insist on using electricity as the only way of storing and moving energy. For people who want to live 'off the grid', the answer is to minimize how much electricity you need, and do as much as possible via other means. Passive solar, ground thermal, big south windows and Sola tubes for as much 'free' lighting as possible, windmill and water tower to minimize the need for well pump and water heater, etc, etc. Once you get over the front-end costs and the effort to recreate 1930s tech, you can get by with very little 110/220. It does take a lot more work on a daily basis to exist that way. All that low-tech stuff takes a lot of upkeep. That is the reason electricity caught on so fast- it is so damn convenient. -- aem sends... |
kill a watt ez
notbob wrote: On 2010-05-23, wrote: cant just give it to you straight. The "straight" cost is always given, as in "$.14 KW/hr" or something like that. The other charges are the fed/state/PUC screw job. nb Presuming no carry over charges from the previous month or "equal billing" plans, the cost per kWh is the total bill divided by the number of kWh listed for the billing period. It makes absolutely no difference what parts are attributable to generation, transmission, taxes, etc., the total bill divided by kWh is the amount you paid per kWh. Also, do the math yourself, as the "cost per kWh" listed on some utility bills is fraudulently calculated, excluding taxes and fees. |
kill a watt ez
On May 23, 5:17*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 23 May 2010 20:07:57 GMT, notbob wrote: On 2010-05-23, wrote: cant just give it to you straight. * The "straight" cost is always given, as in "$.14 KW/hr" or something like that. *The other charges are the fed/state/PUC screw job. nb Then that's NOT the straight cost. *I dont care if it's taxes or any other added ****. *You're paying for it. *It's part of the total. *You might be paying 14 cents / KWH, but if the other crap adds another 5 cents, your paying 19 cents / KWH. *ALL utility companies are CROOKS. They know we must have their services, so they know they can get away with it. *Same for gasoline. And it's not just taxes or a fed/state screw job. Just like the OP, my bill has a seperation of the cost of the energy itself from the distribution. At least here in NJ, the PUC has decreed they be seperate. I could choose to buy my electricity from several suppliers and still have the same local electric company deliver it. Both components are substantial. The first pays for the generation of the electricity and the other for the wires, poles, transformers, meters, servicing, etc that delivers it. Still, it's easy to figure out. In the case of the OP I would add all 3 charges and use that for the killawatt meter. I would not just divide the total bill or add any monthly base fee, ie the $25 or whatever that you pay in some cases no matter how much you use. You want the incremental cost attributed to the refrigerator. My local electric co has spent close to $20 million in the past 2 years, building new office buildings. *Now the old buildings sit vacant, and there was nothing wrong with those buildings that a coat of paint could not fix. *On top of that, they bitch and moan that we are supposed to conserve energy. *Well, if you drive past their office at night the whole buillding is lit up, as well as the parking lot and the whole exterior of the building has flood lights on it, so we can all "admire" their waste of money. *And I should note that there is not even one car in their parking lot. *No one is there. * I called them on this matter, and was told it's for security. *I told them flat out "BULL****". *Put a security camera by the entrances and a sensor light. *Or hire a guard, which would likely cost much less than the amount of power they are wasting, plus give someone a job. If I can ever afford it, I'm going to setup solar panels and wind generators, and tell the elec co to shove it. |
kill a watt ez
On May 23, 10:05*pm, aemeijers wrote:
dpb wrote: wrote: ... If I can ever afford it, I'm going to setup solar panels and wind generators, and tell the elec co to shove it. Chuckle... And there's the bottom line -- you can't do it for less, even for a minimal amount such as a single dwelling. You may be able to do it though with fed and state subsidies kicked in. I'm going to a seminar this week at HD to find out what the current deal is here in NJ. Of course, the problem with the subsidy approach is that to get to any significant replacement of the cheaper conventional energy sources would require a lot of money that even the govts don't have. And the subsidy is coming out of everyone elses pocket, including low income families that are paying for guys like actor Ed Begly to feel good about themselves. -- Not if you insist on using electricity as the only way of storing and moving energy. For people who want to live 'off the grid', the answer is to minimize how much electricity you need, and do as much as possible via other means. Passive solar, ground thermal, big south windows and Sola tubes for as much 'free' lighting as possible, windmill and water tower to minimize the need for well pump and water heater, etc, etc. Once you get over the front-end costs and the effort to recreate 1930s tech, you can get by with very little 110/220. It does take a lot more work on a daily basis to exist that way. All that low-tech stuff takes a lot of upkeep. That is the reason electricity caught on so fast- it is so damn convenient. -- aem sends... |
kill a watt ez
On May 24, 6:33*am, wrote:
On May 23, 5:17*pm, wrote: On Sun, 23 May 2010 20:07:57 GMT, notbob wrote: On 2010-05-23, wrote: cant just give it to you straight. * The "straight" cost is always given, as in "$.14 KW/hr" or something like that. *The other charges are the fed/state/PUC screw job. nb Then that's NOT the straight cost. *I dont care if it's taxes or any other added ****. *You're paying for it. *It's part of the total. *You might be paying 14 cents / KWH, but if the other crap adds another 5 cents, your paying 19 cents / KWH. *ALL utility companies are CROOKS. They know we must have their services, so they know they can get away with it. *Same for gasoline. And it's not just taxes or a fed/state screw job. * Just like the OP, my bill has a seperation of the cost of the energy itself from the distribution. * At least here in NJ, the PUC has decreed they be seperate. * I could choose to buy my electricity from several suppliers and still have the same local electric company deliver it. Both components are substantial. *The first pays for the generation of the electricity and the other for the wires, poles, transformers, meters, servicing, etc that delivers it. Still, it's easy to figure out. *In the case of the OP I would add all 3 charges and use that for the killawatt meter. * I would not just divide the total bill or add any monthly base fee, ie the $25 or whatever that you pay in some cases no matter how much you use. *You want the incremental cost attributed to the refrigerator. My local electric co has spent close to $20 million in the past 2 years, building new office buildings. *Now the old buildings sit vacant, and there was nothing wrong with those buildings that a coat of paint could not fix. *On top of that, they bitch and moan that we are supposed to conserve energy. *Well, if you drive past their office at night the whole buillding is lit up, as well as the parking lot and the whole exterior of the building has flood lights on it, so we can all "admire" their waste of money. *And I should note that there is not even one car in their parking lot. *No one is there. * I called them on this matter, and was told it's for security. *I told them flat out "BULL****". *Put a security camera by the entrances and a sensor light. *Or hire a guard, which would likely cost much less than the amount of power they are wasting, plus give someone a job. If I can ever afford it, I'm going to setup solar panels and wind generators, and tell the elec co to shove it.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - To find actual kwh cost it is what is owed divided by what is used in kwh, right. |
kill a watt ez
On May 23, 2:38*pm, cj wrote:
i posted a few days ago regarding my fridaire refrigerator seemed to be running all the time and one of the replies i got suggested buying a kill a watt meter so i got one today and the instructions for calculating costs wants me to input my kilowatt charges so after looking at my latest electric bill i have 3 different charges...power supply energy 457 kwh @0.06726, distribution 457 kwh @0.04195 and energy optimization 457 kwh @0.01081. i am not sure which of these numbers to input into my kill a watt meter...any suggestions? thanks, cj You dont need to know what you pay to use a kill a watt meter, it stores Watts used over time for at least 100 hours on my old unit, you then find the Gov energy rating to see if you are near in total Kwh used. I bought a sears 19,5 cu ft fring years ago because it had the lowest printed consumption I could find, my testing with a Kill a watt meter showed my usage a bit higher but still it cost me only about $4.50- 4.70 a month from the KAW meter vs $4.30 with the Energy Guide ticket, that I adjusted to my KWH cost. www.energystar.gov has all friges listed by KWH consumed. If your frige is way over in consumption of the rating somethiong is probably wrong, unless everyone keeps the doors open looking for food. The gov rating can be nearly achieved, but you need minimal door opening, a 70 degree room, and not settings on coldest to get that consumption rating. What you KWH cost is is not what they say, it is what you PAY divided by KWH, that will give you how many cents a Killowatt hour costs. |
kill a watt ez
ransley wrote:
To find actual kwh cost it is what is owed divided by what is used in kwh, right. Well, no. You'll still pay $25 or so per month if you used no electricity. Then there's tax, universal access fee, Spanish American War tax, exise taxes, sales taxes, 911 fee, sewer charges, mosquito control district, and other taxes and fees (I may have some mixed in here that don't really belong, but that's probably just a temporary thing). |
kill a watt ez
On May 23, 11:20*pm, "Pete C." wrote:
notbob wrote: On 2010-05-23, wrote: cant just give it to you straight. The "straight" cost is always given, as in "$.14 KW/hr" or something like that. *The other charges are the fed/state/PUC screw job. nb Presuming no carry over charges from the previous month or "equal billing" plans, the cost per kWh is the total bill divided by the number of kWh listed for the billing period. It makes absolutely no difference what parts are attributable to generation, transmission, taxes, etc., the total bill divided by kWh is the amount you paid per kWh. Also, do the math yourself, as the "cost per kWh" listed on some utility bills is fraudulently calculated, excluding taxes and fees. It does however make a difference if there is a monthly connection fee of say $25. I don't think most people would include this in determining the cost of running a fridge, since you're paying it even if the fridge is turned off and using 0 energy. If you wanted to apportion that $25, it should be apportioned to everything in the house that could use electric, including the jig saw that is only used once a year. |
kill a watt ez
|
kill a watt ez
On May 24, 12:06*pm, "Bob F" wrote:
wrote: You may be able to do it though with fed and state subsidies kicked in. *I'm going to a seminar this week at HD to find out what the current deal is here in NJ. * Of course, the problem with the subsidy approach is that to get to any significant replacement of the cheaper conventional energy sources would require a lot of money that even the govts don't have. *And the subsidy is coming out of everyone elses pocket, including low income families that are paying for guys like actor Ed Begly to feel good about themselves. Ohhhh! A seminar at HD. That's sure to get you the best data. It will get data from at least one company that is actually installing them here in NJ for HD and can give cost data, incentive program data, etc. The solar panels are made by a major company that is selling them around the world. So, what's your problem and attitude? |
kill a watt ez
On 5/23/2010 11:20 PM, Pete C. wrote:
notbob wrote: On 2010-05-23, wrote: cant just give it to you straight. The "straight" cost is always given, as in "$.14 KW/hr" or something like that. The other charges are the fed/state/PUC screw job. nb Presuming no carry over charges from the previous month or "equal billing" plans, the cost per kWh is the total bill divided by the number of kWh listed for the billing period. It makes absolutely no difference what parts are attributable to generation, transmission, taxes, etc., the total bill divided by kWh is the amount you paid per kWh. Also, do the math yourself, as the "cost per kWh" listed on some utility bills is fraudulently calculated, excluding taxes and fees. Thats exactly as it should be and all taxes/fees should then be explicitly stated as line items. The provider is informing you what they are charging to provide service. They are only acting as a tax collector for the additional charges. This is no different than buying lunch and declaring that the $5 price listed for your sandwich is fraudulent when you pay $5.35 at the register. If you dislike the idea (I do) of weasel politicians applying "taxes we won't notice" on everything then fire them on election day. |
kill a watt ez
|
kill a watt ez
In .com, Pete C. wrote:
I snip to here Presuming no carry over charges from the previous month or "equal billing" plans, the cost per kWh is the total bill divided by the number of kWh listed for the billing period. It makes absolutely no difference what parts are attributable to generation, transmission, taxes, etc., the total bill divided by kWh is the amount you paid per kWh. Also, do the math yourself, as the "cost per kWh" listed on some utility bills is fraudulently calculated, excluding taxes and fees. I would like to modify this a little: The total per KWH cost is determined like this: 1. Subtract from the total bill the amount not related to KWH, in the likely event you have that. This would be a monthly line charge, monthly billing charge, or the like. Doing this leaves the generation cost, transmission cost, distribution cost, fuel cost adjustment, energy optimization cost, male fertile bovine digestive product cost, and the taxes that should at least mostly be on these. These would be on a per-KWH basis. (Should you find or determine a tax or surcharge or portion thereof that is on the monthly flat fee as opposed to the per-KWH related charges, subtract that along with the monthly flat fee. But if you fail to do that, you should not be off by much.) 2. Divide the result of Step 1 by KWH consumed. That is your actual per-KWH cost. (You will be off, very likely only very slightly, if you fail in Step 1 to account for any surcharges/taxes on non-per-KWH charges.) -- - Don Klipstein ) |
kill a watt ez
In article , HeyBub wrote:
ransley wrote: To find actual kwh cost it is what is owed divided by what is used in kwh, right. Well, no. You'll still pay $25 or so per month if you used no electricity. Then there's tax, universal access fee, Spanish American War tax, exise taxes, sales taxes, 911 fee, sewer charges, mosquito control district, and other taxes and fees (I may have some mixed in here that don't really belong, but that's probably just a temporary thing). My non-KWH-related portion of my monthly electric bill is about $6. (My electric utility is PECO, due to me living in Pennsylvania near Philadelphia). I subtract that from the total bill, and divide what's left to get my per-KWH cost (nearly 15 cents per KWH, above the USA average of 11 maybe now or soon 12 cents per KWH). -- - Don Klipstein ) |
kill a watt ez
On May 24, 10:33*am, wrote:
On May 23, 11:20*pm, "Pete C." wrote: notbob wrote: On 2010-05-23, wrote: cant just give it to you straight. The "straight" cost is always given, as in "$.14 KW/hr" or something like that. *The other charges are the fed/state/PUC screw job. nb Presuming no carry over charges from the previous month or "equal billing" plans, the cost per kWh is the total bill divided by the number of kWh listed for the billing period. It makes absolutely no difference what parts are attributable to generation, transmission, taxes, etc., the total bill divided by kWh is the amount you paid per kWh. Also, do the math yourself, as the "cost per kWh" listed on some utility bills is fraudulently calculated, excluding taxes and fees. It does however make a difference if there is a monthly connection fee of say $25. *I don't think most people would include this in determining the cost of running a fridge, since you're paying it even if the fridge is turned off and using 0 energy. *If you wanted to apportion that $25, it should be apportioned to everything in the house that could use electric, including the jig saw that is only used once a year.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - A connection fee? You mean for the telephone right. |
kill a watt ez
Don Klipstein wrote: In .com, Pete C. wrote: I snip to here Presuming no carry over charges from the previous month or "equal billing" plans, the cost per kWh is the total bill divided by the number of kWh listed for the billing period. It makes absolutely no difference what parts are attributable to generation, transmission, taxes, etc., the total bill divided by kWh is the amount you paid per kWh. Also, do the math yourself, as the "cost per kWh" listed on some utility bills is fraudulently calculated, excluding taxes and fees. I would like to modify this a little: The total per KWH cost is determined like this: 1. Subtract from the total bill the amount not related to KWH, in the likely event you have that. This would be a monthly line charge, monthly billing charge, or the like. Doing this leaves the generation cost, transmission cost, distribution cost, fuel cost adjustment, energy optimization cost, male fertile bovine digestive product cost, and the taxes that should at least mostly be on these. These would be on a per-KWH basis. (Should you find or determine a tax or surcharge or portion thereof that is on the monthly flat fee as opposed to the per-KWH related charges, subtract that along with the monthly flat fee. But if you fail to do that, you should not be off by much.) 2. Divide the result of Step 1 by KWH consumed. That is your actual per-KWH cost. (You will be off, very likely only very slightly, if you fail in Step 1 to account for any surcharges/taxes on non-per-KWH charges.) -- - Don Klipstein ) No, you have to include every single charge on the bill as it is a component of the cost you paid per kWh during that billing period. Whether some portions are fixed charges that don't vary with kWh used is not relevant, they are still part of the cost you paid for each and every kWh you used that billing period. |
kill a watt ez
George wrote: On 5/23/2010 11:20 PM, Pete C. wrote: notbob wrote: On 2010-05-23, wrote: cant just give it to you straight. The "straight" cost is always given, as in "$.14 KW/hr" or something like that. The other charges are the fed/state/PUC screw job. nb Presuming no carry over charges from the previous month or "equal billing" plans, the cost per kWh is the total bill divided by the number of kWh listed for the billing period. It makes absolutely no difference what parts are attributable to generation, transmission, taxes, etc., the total bill divided by kWh is the amount you paid per kWh. Also, do the math yourself, as the "cost per kWh" listed on some utility bills is fraudulently calculated, excluding taxes and fees. Thats exactly as it should be and all taxes/fees should then be explicitly stated as line items. The provider is informing you what they are charging to provide service. They are only acting as a tax collector for the additional charges. This is no different than buying lunch and declaring that the $5 price listed for your sandwich is fraudulent when you pay $5.35 at the register. If you dislike the idea (I do) of weasel politicians applying "taxes we won't notice" on everything then fire them on election day. I watched one utility change from an accurate cost per kWh (total bill divided by total kWh used) listing on the bill, to one that excluded taxes and fees from the calculation. During this change, there was no notation of the change in the calculation and this was clearly a move to make the cost of the electric service appear lower to customers who were not paying attention or not good at math. After some time the notation that this cost per kWh did not include taxes or fees mysteriously appeared. |
kill a watt ez
On Mon, 24 May 2010 14:01:26 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote Re kill a watt ez: No, you have to include every single charge on the bill as it is a component of the cost you paid per kWh during that billing period. Whether some portions are fixed charges that don't vary with kWh used is not relevant, they are still part of the cost you paid for each and every kWh you used that billing period. That is correct. -- Work is the curse of the drinking class. |
kill a watt ez
On 5/24/2010 3:01 PM, Pete C. wrote:
Don Klipstein wrote: er.com, Pete C. wrote: I snip to here Presuming no carry over charges from the previous month or "equal billing" plans, the cost per kWh is the total bill divided by the number of kWh listed for the billing period. It makes absolutely no difference what parts are attributable to generation, transmission, taxes, etc., the total bill divided by kWh is the amount you paid per kWh. Also, do the math yourself, as the "cost per kWh" listed on some utility bills is fraudulently calculated, excluding taxes and fees. I would like to modify this a little: The total per KWH cost is determined like this: 1. Subtract from the total bill the amount not related to KWH, in the likely event you have that. This would be a monthly line charge, monthly billing charge, or the like. Doing this leaves the generation cost, transmission cost, distribution cost, fuel cost adjustment, energy optimization cost, male fertile bovine digestive product cost, and the taxes that should at least mostly be on these. These would be on a per-KWH basis. (Should you find or determine a tax or surcharge or portion thereof that is on the monthly flat fee as opposed to the per-KWH related charges, subtract that along with the monthly flat fee. But if you fail to do that, you should not be off by much.) 2. Divide the result of Step 1 by KWH consumed. That is your actual per-KWH cost. (You will be off, very likely only very slightly, if you fail in Step 1 to account for any surcharges/taxes on non-per-KWH charges.) -- - Don Klipstein ) No, you have to include every single charge on the bill as it is a component of the cost you paid per kWh during that billing period. Whether some portions are fixed charges that don't vary with kWh used is not relevant, they are still part of the cost you paid for each and every kWh you used that billing period. But not for the purposes of this discussion. Lets say the fixed charges on an account are $20 and the total energy rate is $0.10/kwh. Lets say the current use is 1,000 kwh/mo. That means the bill should be $120 ($20 + 100) or $0.12/kwh per your method. If use was 100 kwh less (or more) how much would the bill be? $110 or $130 respectively not $132 or $108 |
kill a watt ez
In .com, Pete C. wrote:
Don Klipstein wrote: In .com, Pete C. wrote: I snip to here Presuming no carry over charges from the previous month or "equal billing" plans, the cost per kWh is the total bill divided by the number of kWh listed for the billing period. It makes absolutely no difference what parts are attributable to generation, transmission, taxes, etc., the total bill divided by kWh is the amount you paid per kWh. Also, do the math yourself, as the "cost per kWh" listed on some utility bills is fraudulently calculated, excluding taxes and fees. I would like to modify this a little: The total per KWH cost is determined like this: 1. Subtract from the total bill the amount not related to KWH, in the likely event you have that. This would be a monthly line charge, monthly billing charge, or the like. Doing this leaves the generation cost, transmission cost, distribution cost, fuel cost adjustment, energy optimization cost, male fertile bovine digestive product cost, and the taxes that should at least mostly be on these. These would be on a per-KWH basis. (Should you find or determine a tax or surcharge or portion thereof that is on the monthly flat fee as opposed to the per-KWH related charges, subtract that along with the monthly flat fee. But if you fail to do that, you should not be off by much.) 2. Divide the result of Step 1 by KWH consumed. That is your actual per-KWH cost. (You will be off, very likely only very slightly, if you fail in Step 1 to account for any surcharges/taxes on non-per-KWH charges.) No, you have to include every single charge on the bill as it is a component of the cost you paid per kWh during that billing period. Whether some portions are fixed charges that don't vary with kWh used is not relevant, they are still part of the cost you paid for each and every kWh you used that billing period. That is a cost that does not get reduced by reducing electricity consumption. Going by what you advise, reducing electricity consumption of some loads increases the cost of unchanged loads. - Don Klipstein ) |
kill a watt ez
Don Klipstein wrote: In .com, Pete C. wrote: Don Klipstein wrote: In .com, Pete C. wrote: I snip to here Presuming no carry over charges from the previous month or "equal billing" plans, the cost per kWh is the total bill divided by the number of kWh listed for the billing period. It makes absolutely no difference what parts are attributable to generation, transmission, taxes, etc., the total bill divided by kWh is the amount you paid per kWh. Also, do the math yourself, as the "cost per kWh" listed on some utility bills is fraudulently calculated, excluding taxes and fees. I would like to modify this a little: The total per KWH cost is determined like this: 1. Subtract from the total bill the amount not related to KWH, in the likely event you have that. This would be a monthly line charge, monthly billing charge, or the like. Doing this leaves the generation cost, transmission cost, distribution cost, fuel cost adjustment, energy optimization cost, male fertile bovine digestive product cost, and the taxes that should at least mostly be on these. These would be on a per-KWH basis. (Should you find or determine a tax or surcharge or portion thereof that is on the monthly flat fee as opposed to the per-KWH related charges, subtract that along with the monthly flat fee. But if you fail to do that, you should not be off by much.) 2. Divide the result of Step 1 by KWH consumed. That is your actual per-KWH cost. (You will be off, very likely only very slightly, if you fail in Step 1 to account for any surcharges/taxes on non-per-KWH charges.) No, you have to include every single charge on the bill as it is a component of the cost you paid per kWh during that billing period. Whether some portions are fixed charges that don't vary with kWh used is not relevant, they are still part of the cost you paid for each and every kWh you used that billing period. That is a cost that does not get reduced by reducing electricity consumption. Going by what you advise, reducing electricity consumption of some loads increases the cost of unchanged loads. - Don Klipstein ) I pay lower rates, the *more* electricity I use. My cost per kWh goes down on months where I use more than 1,000 kWh. |
kill a watt ez
On Mon, 24 May 2010 16:04:27 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote Re kill a watt ez: I pay lower rates, the *more* electricity I use. My cost per kWh goes down on months where I use more than 1,000 kWh. Which is how it is supposed to be. -- Work is the curse of the drinking class. |
kill a watt ez
On 5/24/2010 5:04 PM, Pete C. wrote:
Don Klipstein wrote: er.com, Pete C. wrote: Don Klipstein wrote: er.com, Pete C. wrote: I snip to here Presuming no carry over charges from the previous month or "equal billing" plans, the cost per kWh is the total bill divided by the number of kWh listed for the billing period. It makes absolutely no difference what parts are attributable to generation, transmission, taxes, etc., the total bill divided by kWh is the amount you paid per kWh. Also, do the math yourself, as the "cost per kWh" listed on some utility bills is fraudulently calculated, excluding taxes and fees. I would like to modify this a little: The total per KWH cost is determined like this: 1. Subtract from the total bill the amount not related to KWH, in the likely event you have that. This would be a monthly line charge, monthly billing charge, or the like. Doing this leaves the generation cost, transmission cost, distribution cost, fuel cost adjustment, energy optimization cost, male fertile bovine digestive product cost, and the taxes that should at least mostly be on these. These would be on a per-KWH basis. (Should you find or determine a tax or surcharge or portion thereof that is on the monthly flat fee as opposed to the per-KWH related charges, subtract that along with the monthly flat fee. But if you fail to do that, you should not be off by much.) 2. Divide the result of Step 1 by KWH consumed. That is your actual per-KWH cost. (You will be off, very likely only very slightly, if you fail in Step 1 to account for any surcharges/taxes on non-per-KWH charges.) No, you have to include every single charge on the bill as it is a component of the cost you paid per kWh during that billing period. Whether some portions are fixed charges that don't vary with kWh used is not relevant, they are still part of the cost you paid for each and every kWh you used that billing period. That is a cost that does not get reduced by reducing electricity consumption. Going by what you advise, reducing electricity consumption of some loads increases the cost of unchanged loads. - Don Klipstein ) I pay lower rates, the *more* electricity I use. My cost per kWh goes down on months where I use more than 1,000 kWh. Sure, tiered rates were neglected for simplicity but would need to be considered if. But fixed costs need to be neglected for the purposes of this thread. |
kill a watt ez
Pete C. wrote:
I pay lower rates, the *more* electricity I use. My cost per kWh goes down on months where I use more than 1,000 kWh. Where do you live, and how is the power generated? Where I live (Seattle, hydro) the rates go up for any over a certain amount. |
kill a watt ez
Pete C. wrote:
Doing this leaves the generation cost, transmission cost, distribution cost, fuel cost adjustment, energy optimization cost, male fertile bovine digestive product cost, and the taxes that should at least mostly be on these. These would be on a per-KWH basis. (Should you find or determine a tax or surcharge or portion thereof that is on the monthly flat fee as opposed to the per-KWH related charges, subtract that along with the monthly flat fee. But if you fail to do that, you should not be off by much.) 2. Divide the result of Step 1 by KWH consumed. That is your actual per-KWH cost. (You will be off, very likely only very slightly, if you fail in Step 1 to account for any surcharges/taxes on non-per-KWH charges.) -- - Don Klipstein ) No, you have to include every single charge on the bill as it is a component of the cost you paid per kWh during that billing period. Whether some portions are fixed charges that don't vary with kWh used is not relevant, they are still part of the cost you paid for each and every kWh you used that billing period. If you are concerned with the cost/savings for changing any particular appliance, you need to be concerned with the cost of that particular power usage change, which is not affected by the base charge. So no, you don't want to include the base charge. |
kill a watt ez
On Sun, 23 May 2010 14:07:54 -0700, mike wrote:
If your fridge is running all the time, you already have all the info you need. You need to fix it. This is not correct. Modern refrigerators are designed to run nearly all the time. Turns out it uses less energy to use a small motor and run it constantly than to use a large motor and turn it on and off. If running all the time is the only problem, get used to it. But using the Kill a Watt is a good idea. Edward -- Art Works by Melynda Reid: http://paleo.org |
kill a watt ez
In ,
Edward Reid typed: On Sun, 23 May 2010 14:07:54 -0700, mike wrote: If your fridge is running all the time, you already have all the info you need. You need to fix it. This is not correct. Modern refrigerators are designed to run nearly all the time. Turns out it uses less energy to use a small motor and run it constantly than to use a large motor and turn it on and off. If running all the time is the only problem, get used to it. But using the Kill a Watt is a good idea. I challenge you to offer up a citation for that; it makes no sense. Running all the time is one sign of a coolant leak. Edward |
kill a watt ez
In article ,
Twayne wrote: In , Edward Reid typed: On Sun, 23 May 2010 14:07:54 -0700, mike wrote: If your fridge is running all the time, you already have all the info you need. You need to fix it. This is not correct. Modern refrigerators are designed to run nearly all the time. Turns out it uses less energy to use a small motor and run it constantly than to use a large motor and turn it on and off. If running all the time is the only problem, get used to it. But using the Kill a Watt is a good idea. I challenge you to offer up a citation for that; it makes no sense. Running all the time is one sign of a coolant leak. Edward Well, it would sure keep the food at a more constant temperature. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:08 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter