[ale] Microsoft tries to reverse Vista's Impact on the environment

[Sean McNealy]

This kind of logic reminds me of Circuits class, where someone asked,
"Can you power things with imaginary power?"  It's a funny question,
since it makes a lot more sense in your head when you're first
learning this stuff... until you ask it out loud.

The load is higher in your example, but only due to transmission loss
because you're drawing more current.  It's not like you multiply the
wattage by power factor to get the actual load.  Nobody has to
generate imaginary power.  It's just not real.

-Sean

On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Drag0n<dragon at atlantacon.org> wrote:
> The irony of that statement is, with the introduction of compact
> fluorescents, there was no reduction in power usage, just a shift to
> where the cost is. With CF bulbs using less KWH of power, but increasing
> the load on the power providers, the meter at the house spins less
> costing you less, but the generator at the station has to work harder to
> push that energy down the wire so they have to spend more to generate
> it. It is odd that the truly energy efficient light source gets no real
> air time ,LED lighting is many times more efficient and has a lower
> power factor than even CF or incandescent bulbs.
>
>
> Drag0n