Having just moved (mostly, don't ask - literal nightmares are wearing me down) from 900 square feet to 2,200 (deemed reliable but not guaranteed) and facing having to buy more fossil fuels to keep it "tolerable" in the Midwestern climate, plus continue to power computers, a fridge (new=efficient? we did not choose it, doubt it's an Energy Star), a water heater (not tankless, again, another predetermined choice), etc., this spatial comparison from Daily Dose of Architecture is "isn't that something?"
And we believe as a household of only two humans, one cat and six birds (latter use very little energy!) that we're justified. This size of home is "supposed" to have kids in it, I guess. But that would make it less efficient – more lights on, more flushing, more bathing and dish/clothes-washing – wouldn't it?
2 comments:
this is really dorky but before I forget - my fridge is ancient and hugely wasteful - if you're like me and don't really have stuff filling it, put a bunch of jugs of tap water in it wherever you have room and it will hold the cold much better and run more efficiently - same for the freezer - bottles of water to freeze (also they're great for a cooler or a bumped knee on occasion) -- also I have one of those can't-see-into-it vegetable drawers down below, plus it opens and closes really badly so I have all my fizzy water and pop down there - great storage plus if I keep it fairly full it too helps maintain the fridge temp... Susie Verbosity doling out unsolicited help :)
is actually is an energy star, though i don't know what that means.
the bill we're to pay to coal-burning kcp&l is $93 a month. (even pay system, with one adjustment per year; it's based on previous 12 months, which are generally irrelevant unless one knew what she used. she did have the heating system programmed to 70ยบ, though.
yes, the volume thing does work. same for toilet tank, though not as fun when water is hard like kc. our water is consistently rated as highly drinkable and yet, it does corrode the pipes so.
Post a Comment