QuoteU.S.News & World Report
FAQ: The End of the Light Bulb as We Know It
Wednesday December 19, 11:01 am ET
By Marianne Lavelle
The incandescent light bulb, one of the most venerable inventions of its era but deemed too inefficient for our own, will be phased off the U.S. market beginning in 2012 under the new energy law just approved by Congress. Although this will reduce electricity costs and minimize new bulb purchases in every household in America, you may be feeling in the dark about the loss of your old, relatively reliable source of light. Here's a primer on the light bulb phase-out and what will mean to you:
Why are they taking my light bulbs away? Moving to more efficient lighting is one of the lowest-cost ways for the nation to reduce electricity use and greenhouse gases. In fact, it actually will save households money because of lower utility bills. Ninety percent of the energy that an incandescent light bulb burns is wasted as heat. And yet, sales of the most common high-efficiency bulb available--the compact fluorescent (CFL)--amount to only 5 percent of the light bulb market. Earlier this year, Australia became the first country to announce an outright ban by 2010 on incandescent bulbs. The changeover in the United States will be more gradual, not mandated to begin until 2012 and phased out through 2014. However, don't be surprised if some manufacturers phase out earlier.
How do I save money, when a CFL costs six times as much as an old-fashioned bulb? Each cone-shaped spiral CFL costs about $3, compared with 50 cents for a standard bulb. But a CFL uses about 75 percent less energy and lasts five years instead of a few months. A household that invested $90 in changing 30 fixtures to CFLs would save $440 to $1,500 over the five-year life of the bulbs, depending on your cost of electricity. Look at your utility bill and imagine a 12 percent discount to estimate the savings.
I've heard that CFLs don't really last as long as they say. Turning a CFL on and off frequently shortens its life, which is why the government's Energy Star program says to leave them on for at least 15 minutes at a time. Also, if you have dimmable light fixtures, make sure to buy CFLs labeled "dimmable." All CFLs that carry the government's Energy Star label are required to carry a two-year limited warranty, so contact the manufacturer if your bulb burns out prematurely. The Energy Star website has a good FAQ on CFLs.
I don't think that I like the color of the light from CFLs. When they first hit the market, CFLs had a limited range of tones. Now, manufacturers offer a wider variety, but there is not an agreed-upon labeling standard. The Energy Star program is working to change that. But for now, look for lower "Kelvin temperatures" like 2,700 to 3,000 for "redder" light, closer to old-fashioned incandescent bulbs, while bulbs with Kelvin temperatures of 5,000 and 6,500 provide more "blue" and intense light. A good photograph illustrating the difference is shown here.
I've heard that CFLs have mercury in them--isn't that bad? Consumers are rightly concerned about the toxic substance mercury that helps CFLs produce light. Even though the amount sealed in each bulb is small--one old-fashioned thermometer had about 100 times as much mercury--contact local trash collection for disposal instructions. Environmentalists agree that more work must be done on bulb recycling programs. Right now, you can return any CFL to any Ikea store for recycling, and the Environmental Protection Agency and Earth911 have sites you can search for other recycling programs near your home.
But if you break a CFL, you'll have a toxic spill in your home. Maine's Department of Environmental Protection has developed the best advice on the procedures to follow if a CFL breaks. Don't use a vacuum. Maine officials studied the issue because of a homeowner in that state who received a $2,000 light bulb clean-up bill from an environmental hazards company--a story that has circulated around the country and increased consumer concerns about CFLs. It turns out that the company's advice was overkill, and a subsequent analysis showed no hazard in the home. But the bulbs must be handled with caution. Using a drop cloth might be a good new routine to develop when screwing in a light bulb, to make the clean-up of any breaks easier.
By the way, don't think that incandescent bulbs are mercury free. In the United States, the chances are at least 50 percent that their light is generated by a coal-powered plant featuring mercury as well as other types of pollution. Popular Mechanics recently crunched the numbers to find that even if the mercury in a CFL was directly released into the atmosphere, an incandescent would still contribute almost double that amount of mercury into the environment over its lifetime.
Isn't there efficient lighting without mercury? Yes. By 2012, the chances are good that consumers will have many more options to replace incandescent bulbs. Manufacturers already are deploying advanced incandescent bulbs that are efficient enough to stay on the market after 2012, although they are not yet as efficient as CFLs. Even more exciting are the developments with light-emitting diodes (LEDs), which are jazzing up holiday lighting. The European electronics firm Philips this year acquired several pioneering small technology companies and plans a big push to make LEDs practical for ordinary lighting purposes. The lights on the New Year's Eve Times Square Ball could one day brighten your home. LEDs last even longer than CFLs and will make bulb buying more like an appliance purchase than a throw-away item.
Is Thomas Edison turning over in his grave? Perhaps, but the incandescent bulb has had a good run, with the technology little changed since 1879, when Edison produced light with a carbonized thread from his wife's sewing box. The breakthrough that ushered civilization out of the candle era was so revolutionary that the light bulb itself became the culture's iconic image to illustrate any thought, brainstorm, or idea. But energy-efficient bulbs are a better idea, says Andrew deLaski, director of the Appliance Standards Awareness Project. "It's hugely important," he says. "A 60 to 70 percent reduction in light bulb energy use will save as much energy annually as that used by all the homes in Texas last year." That's a big savings.
http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/economy/2007/12/19/faq-the-end-of-the-light-bulb-as-we-know-it.html
I'm going to have to look up how halogens compare. I actually bought into the whole CFL thing and started getting severe migraines from the light output. It was very concentrated and didn't saturate a room like a good light should. I replaced them all with my good ole halogens. Yes, they emit a lot of heat, but I've had halogen bulbs that have lasted 4 years so to me, it's worth it...plus they don't make my head hurt;-)
Halogens are essentially a different type of incandescent. They burn hotter and last longer and are a bit more effeciant, but not much. Compact fluorescent and LED are completely different. The CFL's you used might have had a higher temperature or Kelvin rating making the light a brighter white. The CFLs you want are those with a lower temp rating that puts the light spectrum closer to that of incandescent, such as 2700K.
What the government is looking at is Lumens Per Watt. A lumen is the measurement of light emmitted from a light source. Different lamp types break down as follows:
Incandescent:
Life span: 700-1000 hours
Pros: cheap; gives a pleasant warm light that most people like,
Cons: least efficient of all the bulbs, short life span
Efficiency: 7 - 24 lumens per watt
Halogen:
Life span: 2,000 - 4,000 hours
Pros: more efficient than incandescent bulbs; bright light
Cons: burns very hot; more expensive than incandescent
Efficiency: 12 - 36 lumens per watt
Fluorescent (Tube):
Life span: 10,000 - 20,000 hours
Pros: bulb burns cooler; very efficient; can come in various CRI ratings; comes in different color temperatures
Cons: not cheaply dimmable; fixtures are slightly more costly; known to flicker at times.
Efficiency: 33 - 100 lumens per watt
Compact Fluorescent:
Life span: Up to 10,000 hours
Pros: efficient
Cons: cost of bulb; sometimes they can't physically fit; to replace incandescent bulbs
Efficiency: 44 - 80 lumens per watt
LED:
Life span: 30,000 - 80,000 hours (100,000 hours)
Pros: High durability - no filament or tube to break; long life span; low power consumption; low heat generation
Cons: High cost of bulb (in the meantime)
Efficiency: 30 - 60 lumens per watt (Labs are producing up to 150-200 lumens per watt but it a ways away from the market)
Uses: wide variety of uses including general lighting, accent lighting, and decorative lighting
There are many other types of bulbs but most are used for lighting larger areas such as warehouses, roadways, sports facilities, etc and likely will never be used in residential applications. LED will likely take over the market in the next couple decades but CFLs are an easy replacement for incandescent by being double or in some cases triple as effecient and by lasting 10-20 times as long.
I like white light, not green, or yellow, or black. Sorry, my art collection looks better in white. How will my
Lincoln in Dali Vision look under LED's?
This energy bill is an awful governmental intrusion into our lives and will even reduce our standards of living in several ways as well as kill people. As for light bulbs, I personally prefer the light from an incandescent bulb and I pay my power bills so the kind of bulb I use is my business. Also, the provisions regarding new car fuel efficiency will result in severe harm to the American car industry and will end up killing people because smaller cars equals more auto accident deaths. Of course, to the environmental crowd the lives of people are less significant than those of snail darters anyway so what does a few thousand dead Americans mean to those wackos. And, to top it off, our "conservative" President Bush signed this travesty into law. What a piece of work these people are. >:(
With an increasing demand for electricity and an aging infrastructure, I think this is a good step to help prevent future rolling brownouts and blackouts. Seems like blackouts would really reduce our quality of life and create a negative economic impact.
Also, if there are more small cars on the road as a result of the 35 mpg fleet requirement, wouldn't that save lives because there are less SUV's on the road crashing into people and killing them?
Small cars kill people that's a fact. This is why mass transit is good but we've got to make it more appealing then say driving your own Range Rover when and where you want...if you can afford the gas. I can't but that's another blog in itself. The problem is SUV's and trucks sales have taken off since 1995 and those 5,700+ LBS Rovers and Escalates, Nav Gators, are going to be on the road for a long long time. We're looking at one bloody mess here folks. (See Sweeny Todd for blood example.)
Quote from: gatorback on December 26, 2007, 03:49:32 PM
I like white light, not green, or yellow, or black. Sorry, my art collection looks better in white. How will my
Lincoln in Dali Vision look under LED's?
Light is light. LED, CFLs, and Incandescent may utilize different spectrums of light but all will light your artwork just fine. All are also available in different colors. The benefits of CFLs and LED is that you can light you artwork and the rest of your house with a fraction of the energy.
Quote from: RiversideGator on December 26, 2007, 04:19:45 PM
This energy bill is an awful governmental intrusion into our lives and will even reduce our standards of living in several ways as well as kill people. As for light bulbs, I personally prefer the light from an incandescent bulb and I pay my power bills so the kind of bulb I use is my business. Also, the provisions regarding new car fuel efficiency will result in severe harm to the American car industry and will end up killing people because smaller cars equals more auto accident deaths. Of course, to the environmental crowd the lives of people are less significant than those of snail darters anyway so what does a few thousand dead Americans mean to those wackos. And, to top it off, our "conservative" President Bush signed this travesty into law. What a piece of work these people are. >:(
I've seen displays lit with incendescent and identical displays lit with fluorescent and wasn't able to tell which was which. The only way to tell was to look at the bulb. The difference was that the fluorescent display was consuming half of the power that the incendescent was. Right now the bulbs are a little pricey ($3-$10 a piece for CFLs) but don't you think investing approximately $50-$100 on new CFL lamps for your home would be worth the 1 1/2 - 2 year payback? Look at the numbers I posted above.
Here are some more figures for you:
The average home in the US is probably 3 bed/2 bath, would you agree? Alright, assuming that the average home consists of a single ceiling mounted fan/light combo in each main room, that would equal about 8 (includes kitchen, living, dining) 75watt light bulbs which equals about 600 watts total. Is it safe to assume that the average person uses the lighting 5 hours a day? OK, JEA's rates are approximately 8.9 cents per kilowatthour (KWH) which would equal approximately 3 kwh per day. Now multiply the JEA rate of 8.9 times 3 kwh and you get roughly 27 cents per day to light your house. Multiply by 365 and you get $98.55 or we'll say $100 a year for those lights. Note that that assumes you don't have to replace any in the meantime which is highly unlikely.
Now let try the same math using the CFL counterpart. A 20W self ballasted (screw-in) CFL is the recommended replacement for a 75W incandescent lamp. Using the same math you get approximately 0.8 kwh per day times JEA's rate of 8.9 which equals 7 cents per day or $26 dollars per year.
After a quick search online, I've found that the average 20W spiral CFL is about $6.00. Therefore to replace all 8 bulbs in the average home would cost approximately $50 dollars. Add to that the $26 per year to run them and you get a grand total of $76 dollars for the first year (better than spending $100). The next year there is no need to replace the lamps because they last an average of five years. So after about a year and a half they have paid for themselves.
All that being said, I think it is well worth the investment and if everyone started doing it the cost of bulbs would drop and the power grid would be much less strained.
Now I have no argument on government interference with the automobile industry, but one thing I do know is that a movement to live more effecient lives does more good than bad.
Jason, the fact is that the government is creating an intrusive, pseudo-bandaid for a problem that will continue as long as people procreate. The government is also interfering with "freedom of choice" that so many people want in their lives.
This bill will actually create more energy problems rather than solving them. The light bulb mandate is absolutely stupid, because it refuses to look at the other intangibles. First, incandescent bulbs generate more heat, so people who live in the colder climates will be affected. When they all convert to CFLs, they will have to run their heater more, thereby consuming more energy!! ??? Second, CFLs do not produce the best lighting for reading, so people's vision will be affected, resulting in more burdens to health care. River has addressed the car mandate in the bill rather well, so I won't go into that. However, it demonstrates how more problems will be created with this bill.
QuoteAll that being said, I think it is well worth the investment and if everyone started doing it the cost of bulbs would drop and the power grid would be much less strained.
Jason, the bottomline is that the current power grid needs to be expanded and updated with nuclear power.
That is a long-term, proven solution that will benefit everyone, plus it sets the energy industry standard, which will eventually make coal plants obsolete.
What everyone is really overlooking is that this bill is not about saving the environment, even though it is packaged that way. No, the bottomline is MONEY. What a great scam to ensure company profits:
- Produce a sub-standard, piss-poor product with lower quality and performance but higher costs for maintenance (for the bulbs, expensive cleanup if broken; for the cars, using cheaper, lighter materials and reducing the amount of steel to build the frames).
- Make people buy it.
- Package and market it as a thing that will "save the planet".
- Politicians vote for it to look better in the media, assuring them another term in office.
- Eliminate manufacturing jobs and plants for the other products, i.e. eliminating costs.
It's really quite genius, even though it is ethically reprehensible.
Quote
Jason, the bottomline is that the current power grid needs to be expanded and updated with nuclear power. That is a long-term, proven solution that will benefit everyone, plus it sets the energy industry standard, which will eventually make coal plants obsolete.
I'm confused. Exactly what is the bottom line? Are you seriously saying there's no other option except nuclear power?
I don't think that's true. Our future holds myriad alternative energy sources including potentially the aurora borealis, tidal flows and bacteria.
QuoteThis bill will actually create more energy problems rather than solving them. The light bulb mandate is absolutely stupid, because it refuses to look at the other intangibles. First, incandescent bulbs generate more heat, so people who live in the colder climates will be affected. When they all convert to CFLs, they will have to run their heater more, thereby consuming more energy!! Huh Second, CFLs do not produce the best lighting for reading, so people's vision will be affected, resulting in more burdens to health care. River has addressed the car mandate in the bill rather well, so I won't go into that. However, it demonstrates how more problems will be created with this bill.
I don't really see how it creates more energy problems than it solves. Your arguments are pretty weak. I think it makes more sense to turn a light bulb on for light and a heater on for heat. This way you don't get the undesired heat/light when you don't want them.
Also, increased health care costs from strained eyes? That's a stretch. Fluorescents are used in just about every commercial building already. In fact, what do you think is lighting up your LCD computer screen? If fluorescents cause eye damage we're already doomed.
I didn't buy that strained eye cost point either. A watt is a watt is true and you get the energy savings from.... but if you don't have enough light you will hurt your eyes in the long run. To not go blind you need illumination and you need it in the range of human vision.
What's really funny here is that she could have compared the LED to the arc lamp and found the same visual light/illumination with 1/100 the power. Wanna not go blind? Use an arc lamp. ;D
OMG...you guys are freakin killing me.
First, thanks, Jason, for the comparison info. I heard that about LEDs too...that within the next 10-15 years we'll be shopping for light-bulbs like major appliances because of how long the LEDs will last and the options we'll have with them.
Charleston native, looks like you and I disagree on things more than religion, lol. Yes, the government's involvement does discredit "freedom of choice", however if your choice forces another to live outside of their own choice, then an alternative must me met.
MY choice is to live as efficiently and self-sufficient as humanly possible. Other people's choice NOT to do that directly impacts my way of living, from the landfills that are produced, to the carbon emmissions, to the foreign oil dependency...you name it. Decisions are supposed to be made with the least impact on the individual well-being as possible. I believe this does that. It's not as if you're being told you have to live by candlelight again. And the idea that people up north are actually heating their homes with their lamps...are you serious? Come on. "More expensive clean-up?" If you break a bulb, wipe it up using a wet rag instead of vacuuming...oooohhhh, what a horrible atrocity ::). Btw, in case you didn't know, basics of supply and demand are, with greater demand comes a greater supply, and the costs naturally decrease, so your point that it will remain more expensive is false as well. I also doubt anyone is saying the lightbulb is going to "save the planet", just as the use of the CFL is not going to "kill people", but I'll address RiversideGator's comment later ;) It will most certainly HELP the environment, however by decreasing the amount of energy lost through use and manufacturing. And since the producers of the CFL are the same manufactuer's of incandesant (GE, Phillips, etc.), and they have been producing CFLs since the early '80's, and there is going to be a greater increase in production of the bulbs, I don't see how there are going to be job cuts for the manufacturing jobs.
Quote from: RiversideGator on December 26, 2007, 04:19:45 PM
This energy bill is an awful governmental intrusion into our lives and will even reduce our standards of living in several ways as well as kill people. As for light bulbs, I personally prefer the light from an incandescent bulb and I pay my power bills so the kind of bulb I use is my business. Also, the provisions regarding new car fuel efficiency will result in severe harm to the American car industry and will end up killing people because smaller cars equals more auto accident deaths. Of course, to the environmental crowd the lives of people are less significant than those of snail darters anyway so what does a few thousand dead Americans mean to those wackos. And, to top it off, our "conservative" President Bush signed this travesty into law. What a piece of work these people are. >:(
Ok, a bit of an overstatement? "Kill people?" It's a freakin lightbulb. Our species has existed on this planet for centuries with nothing more than candlelight and a fire, we're not going to die over a lightbulb. And yes, the kind of lightbulb you use is EVERYONE's business, as I indicated above when addressing CNative. YOUR choices don't outweigh my choices or vice versa. The best decision has to be made. There are sacrifices at both spectrums. Personally, I think we should all call JEA and find out why they don't advertise alternate energy sources on their bills (which they have btw). I also think we should be able to choose our power company based on their services. Why can't I use FPL? They have an option where I can convert over to solar. In fact, why can't we all kill our dependency on our city government/entities all together and just live off the grid? There is enough technology available, at reasonable cost, and enough sunlight here in FL that we could sustain our households strictly on solar power from our own backyard. Furthermore, I don't feel a #$@% bit sorry for the car industry. We don't NEED cars. We need transportation. It is not necessary to produce a new model of a specific car every year, nor is it necessary for an individual to go out and buy one when they have last year's model that works perfectly fine. Good riddance to the car. Everyone could benefit from getting off of their obese American butts and climbing onto the seat of a bike and moving under their own power, or how about those flying cars that run on water vapor like we were promised?
Smaller cars do not = more deaths. Smaller cars+giant SUVs=more deaths. If, as you say, this lightbulb is going to mean fewer cars, and those cars, because of the new fuel bill, are going to be much, much smaller, than logic determines the number of SUVs on the road is going to be fewer. The SUV would only be driven by those that can afford to upgrade the fuel efficiency of their engines, and for the fuel to put into them. Don't understand the problem. I guess the positive outcome of the bill, less dependency on foreign oil and fewer carbon emmissions resulting in a more balanced climate (think 85 degree summers instead of the projected 110 in the next 10 years, here in Jax), and smaller cars creating more available parking, are overshadowed by having to deal with what you have, or progressing through technology, eh?
Oh, and since I'm one of those "wackos", let me clarify that the lives of people are not "less" important, but AS important. Now, I agree, as applies with any and all organizations, that there are people (GreenPeace for one) that go to extremes and do primarily believe that humans exist for no purpose than to destroy and therefore we must be destroyed; but that doesn't speak for all naturalists/environmentalists. To them, I say, go ahead and rid yourself of the guilt for being born and do us all a justice by becoming one with the earth. But for those of us that want to live in a beautiful and natural world and enjoy everything around us with respect and admiration, there have to be changes made...with equal respect for those that hate trees and would love to live in an atmospheric bubble.
And for your last line, Jason, "...but one thing I do know is that a movement to live more effecient lives does more good than bad.", I think I might be falling in love ;)
Here's some fun reading: http://www.cflfacts.com/ (http://www.cflfacts.com/)
http://www.greenlightsusa.com/why_cfls.html (http://www.greenlightsusa.com/why_cfls.html)
Quote from: gatorback on January 02, 2008, 01:13:16 PM
I'm confused. Exactly what is the bottom line? Are you seriously saying there's no other option except nuclear power?
I don't think that's true. Our future holds myriad alternative energy sources including potentially the aurora borealis, tidal flows and bacteria.
No, I'm not saying there is no other option. However, this clean, safe option is continuing to be ignored by policy makers and environmentalists. These extremists have choked our nation's resources by simply banning us from drilling, making more oil refineries, building windmills on our oceans, and building more nuclear plants.
Lunican, the argument for banning incandescent bulbs is much significantly weaker, considering the overwhelming amount of evidence that disputes manmade global climate change/warming/whatever. Yet, we're creating laws for it? Have you ever lived in a place where it is bitterly cold during the winter months? Like the policy makers, you're not considering the intangibles. Regular lamps and lights do generate heat. Measure the temperature on a ceiling that is illuminated by a chandelier and below it, for example. Granted, it's not a significant difference, but it may just be enough for individuals to bump their thermostat switch up a little more. Light isn't the primary source of heat in the home, but it does help in maintaining a comfortable temperature. Eliminate heat from lights, and people will want to increase their thermostat temperature by a few degrees.
As far as eye strain, CFLs are different than industrial fluorescents...they do not provide the same amount of light. My LCD computer screen? I don't use the light of my computer to read or be able to see where I'm going.
This bill is a means of government to change the lifestyles of people in the privacy of their own home. People still have the option to recycle...it's not mandated. This bill goes beyond that...changing the products that people use rather than giving them a choice to do so.
2nd pancake, I'm sorry, your logic is so convoluted, I don't even know where to begin. In no way does my choice of using incandescent light bulbs force you to live outside your choice of CFLs. Same with a car.
Kudos second_pancake! I'm all for being able to go off the grid; however, I'd like to be on the grid too sometimes when I need to fire up that old Macintosh tube amp I have.
But, you are wrong with the
QuoteSmaller cars do not = more deaths.
Small cars do = more deaths. Cars run into other things like other small cars and sidings, not just SUVs.
Here's one for you? How many police, highway patrol, or others state or federal agents were killed in a SUV patrol vehicle? I don't know the answer to that question but I bet percentage wise is less then in a small patrol car.
Quote from: Charleston native on January 02, 2008, 02:55:51 PM
No, I'm not saying there is no other option. However, this clean, safe option is continuing to be ignored by policy makers and environmentalists. These extremists have choked our nation's resources by simply banning us from drilling, making more oil refineries, building windmills on our oceans, and building more nuclear plants.
But we're not ignoring nuclear power. In fact, recently there's been a huge rush to nuclear power applications. The problem is it takes over 15 years from beginning the process to going on line.
Plants will be coming on line in the future but OMG doesn't nuclear scare you? Remember 3 Mile Island? The impact to the lives of others should be taken seriously and not rushed into just to save a few barrels of oil.
Gator, 3 Mile Island was an aberration, and alot of hype generated by Jane Fonda and her ilk. True, it was a dangerous incident, but the entertainment and media industry helped create and propagate the fear of nuclear power.
Quote from: gatorback on January 02, 2008, 02:57:15 PM
Kudos second_pancake! I'm all for being able to go off the grid; however, I'd like to be on the grid too sometimes when I need to fire up that old Macintosh tube amp I have.
But, you are wrong with the QuoteSmaller cars do not = more deaths.
Small cars do = more deaths. Cars run into other things like other small cars and sidings, not just SUVs.
Here's one for you? How many police, highway patrol, or others state or federal agents were killed in a SUV patrol vehicle? I don't know the answer to that question but I bet percentage wise is less then in a small patrol car.
This website shows that fatality rates in SUV's are higher than the overall fatality rates for other vehicles.
http://swiharts.com/suv/
A head on collision between an SUV and a passenger car is only one type of crash. SUV's are much more likely to rollover and have longer stopping distances.
Quote from: Charleston native on January 02, 2008, 02:55:51 PM
2nd pancake, I'm sorry, your logic is so convoluted, I don't even know where to begin. In no way does my choice of using incandescent light bulbs force you to live outside your choice of CFLs. Same with a car.
Hmm, really? So, the entire world runs on fossil fuels which pollute the air I breathe. I'm an asthmatic so I cough and hack on a daily basis as I pedal my bike through layers and layers of smoke from vehicles whose tailpipes sit so high they're directly in my face. Very few roads are built with bicycle lanes, therefore I have to "share" the road with enormous boxes of steel traveling 30 mph faster than myself. I can't use the sidewalk because I would be endangering the lives of those who use it for its intended purpose, walking and running. I come home to see the news that there are no longer any polar bears because they've all drowned from the ice caps melting, but no worries, because we still have them in zoos. Yeah. Every new thing that comes on the market is disposable. Humans now don't have to worry about cleaning toilets because someone just invented the disposable toilet which now gives us greater space in our brand new homes that were just built using a developer that cleared a nature preserve to build 5,000 new homes...all made of redwood. The power companies have stopped exploring all alternative energy options because it was determined that there is no such thing as global warming, and thus have increased their coal-burning to produce more electricity. Since coal is a non-renewable resource, are supplies are dwindling, but who cares, we won't live to see that happen, that's for another generation to worry about. I step outside to look at the sky, but I can't see what color it is any longer because of all the smog that now fills the air. Everyone uses incandesant bulbs, and since they burn out if you bump your lamp too hard, or turn them on and off too much, they're being purchased in bulk-packs causing a greater demand and more energy used to produce the vast amounts needed to light the earth.
Of course, a lot of what I've written above is a great exageration (the first part is true), but not far fetched when you think of how unbalanced this world would be without those of us that care about nature and the world around us. Everything that each person does directly impacts another person's life whether you want to subscribe to that belief or not.
There are more people on the earth than you and the people that think like you. Everytime you get into a car and drive down the road, it impacts me. Everytime you choose to buy bottled water, it impacts me. Everytime you purchase and use an incandesent bulb, it impacts me. Yes, I have a choice to use something else, and you will still have a choice to use something besides CFL. Thankfully though, your choices will be more efficient and less impactful than technology from the late 19th century.
Quote from: gatorback on January 02, 2008, 02:57:15 PM
Kudos second_pancake! I'm all for being able to go off the grid; however, I'd like to be on the grid too sometimes when I need to fire up that old Macintosh tube amp I have.
But, you are wrong with the QuoteSmaller cars do not = more deaths.
Small cars do = more deaths. Cars run into other things like other small cars and sidings, not just SUVs.
Here's one for you? How many police, highway patrol, or others state or federal agents were killed in a SUV patrol vehicle? I don't know the answer to that question but I bet percentage wise is less then in a small patrol car.
No, you're right. We can't keep stupid people from driving small cars. We're still going to have the lil ole lady who mistakes the gas for the brake pedal and drives into the daycare center, and unfortunately without her Lincoln Grand Marquis, she will probably die instead of walk away with scratches and a ticket.
I bet, and I'm reaching here, that the government, including city, don't change the size of their vehicles or the power-output of them at all. I know, I know. To think our government is hypocrital is just outrageous, isn't it ;) So, to settle your fears, I would say the number killed in SUVs will still be the same number killed in the same kind of SUVs.
I wouldn't credit Jane Fonda for much let alone 3 Mile. Here's a few others that you may not have known about:
Date: August 10, 1985
Location: Near Vladivostok, Russia
While at the Chazhma Bay repair facility, about 35 miles from Vladivostok, an "Echo"-class Soviet nuclear-powered submarine suffered a reactor explosion. The explosion released a cloud of radioactivity toward Vladivostok but did not reach the city. Ten officers were killed in the explosion.
Date: April 12, 1970
Location: Atlantic Ocean
A Soviet "November"-class nuclear-powered attack submarine experienced an apparent nuclear propulsion problem in the Atlantic Ocean about 300 miles northwest of Spain. Although an attempt to attach a tow line from a Soviet bloc merchant ship; the submarine apparently sank, killing 52.
Date: January 17, 1966
Location: Palomares, Spain
A B-52 carrying four nuclear weapons collided with a KC-135 during refueling operations and crashed near Palomares, Spain. One weapon was safely recovered on the ground and another from the sea, after extensive search and recovery efforts. The other two weapons hit land, resulting in detonation of their high explosives and the subsequent release of radioactive materials. Over 1,400 tons of soil was sent to an approved storage site.
Date: July 4, 1961
Location: North Sea
A cooling system failed, contaminating crew members, missiles and some parts of a K-19 "Hotel"-class Soviet nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine off Norway. One of the sub's two reactors soared to 800 degrees Celsius and threatened to melt down the reactor's fuel rods. Several fatalities were reported.
Chernobyl disaster", or reactor accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power ...... NY Times Headline, April 29, 1986
I'm not a tree hugger. I'm cool with nuclear power. The point was that nuclear isn't the answer here, as that lady said.
That when one of these buggers go off They Freaken GO OFF! Look at how much money goes into cleaning up one of nightmares not to mention the suffering that goes on for mulitiple lifetimes. Can you say ten of hundreds of thousands of people have been impacted by that technology.
(http://birdhouse.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/chernobyl.jpg)
Aww, GatorB, come with me and hug a tree;)
I agree with you about nuclear power. It is a very clean and efficient source of energy, but I doubt our ability to contain that energy effectively to the point that it would be useful AND safe. Hell, we're the poster children for 'act now, think later', and there's not a whole lot of room for error with that philosophy and nuclear power.
True, I really don't want to credit Jane Fonda for anything except treason, but she did take part in protesting nuclear plants right after the incident.
My point is that instead of using stupid bandaid solutions like mandating light bulbs, let's start creating new sources of clean, dependable forms of energy, with nuclear being the top pick. Solar and wind are not completely dependable.
2nd pancake, I've come to a point in my life where I've learned to carefully choose who and what I debate with and about. Considering your avatar, I already know your agenda, and it would be pointless for me to rebut your argument. People like you want bikes as the primary source of transportation for all people...I'd be willing to bet you want the automobile banned. I could go on, but I really don't want to. Yes, we truly disagree on alot, especially after reading your previous post.
Quote from: second_pancake on January 02, 2008, 04:04:17 PM
I agree with you about nuclear power. It is a very clean and efficient source of energy, but I doubt our ability to contain that energy effectively to the point that it would be useful AND safe.
It wasn't until recent years that the US did crash tests on concrete for understanding how a jet aircraft might reach with a containment building.
We need to take it one step at a time. We now better understand the technology which is why we are going forward with those applications.
Quote from: gatorback on January 02, 2008, 04:20:29 PM
It wasn't until recent years that the US did crash tests on concrete for understanding how a jet aircraft might reach with a containment building.
We need to take it one step at a time. We now better understand the technology which is why we are going forward with those applications.
OMG, I know! I just saw that too. That was some scary stuff.
LOL, at CNative. I actually agree with you on something ~gasps~. And to your shock and dismay, I'm sure, it's not about the bike;) It's this, "My point is that instead of using stupid bandaid solutions like mandating light bulbs, let's start creating new sources of clean, dependable forms of energy, with nuclear being the top pick. Solar and wind are not completely dependable." But, everything has to start somewhere. I'm a project manager and I deal with "stupid band-aid solutions" all the time. The thing that I'VE come to realize is that while there may be a bigger and better solution down the road, the band-aids are usually needed to stop the immediate bleeding until such solution can be planned, developed, tested, and implemented.
I am a cyclist, yes. I commute, I race, and I ride for recreation. I also have a V6 truck that I drive. I don't think bicycles are the end-all. I don't think we should all do away with cars. That would be the equivalent of using old technology in a faster, more technologically advanced world....kind of like that incandesent bulb;) I do, however, think that they are a very viable solution for the majority of people in cities like ours. Most of us live within 10 miles of where we work and we perform all of our extra-curricular activities within 5 miles of our homes. In FL we have rideable weather year-round. Traffic congestion is a problem, gas is at an all-time high, parking is limited, we're more aware of environmental impacts produced by cars, obesity is an epidemic, so it's a no-brainer: Get a bike and ride it for all the short trips and only use your car when it's absolutely necessary. THAT is my "agenda."
Quote from: Lunican on January 02, 2008, 03:32:44 PM
Quote from: gatorback on January 02, 2008, 02:57:15 PM
Kudos second_pancake! I'm all for being able to go off the grid; however, I'd like to be on the grid too sometimes when I need to fire up that old Macintosh tube amp I have.
But, you are wrong with the QuoteSmaller cars do not = more deaths.
Small cars do = more deaths. Cars run into other things like other small cars and sidings, not just SUVs.
Here's one for you? How many police, highway patrol, or others state or federal agents were killed in a SUV patrol vehicle? I don't know the answer to that question but I bet percentage wise is less then in a small patrol car.
This website shows that fatality rates in SUV's are higher than the overall fatality rates for other vehicles.
http://swiharts.com/suv/
A head on collision between an SUV and a passenger car is only one type of crash. SUV's are much more likely to rollover and have longer stopping distances.
Interesting website. It looks like it is a private website belonging to some liberal New York couple:
(http://swiharts.com/wedding_frontalview.gif)
Very credible. ::)
Let's go back to high school physics, shall we? Force = Mass x Velocity. So, all things being equal, if you are in a head on collision you are safer in a heavy SUV than in the lighter passenger car hit by an SUV. This is really fundamental. Now, roll overs are a legitimate concern, although recent engineering advances have significantly mitigated this problem. For more on Force:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_second_law#Newton.27s_second_law:_law_of_acceleration
Oh and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration agrees that SUVs are 5-7% safer than passenger cars based on a recent study. See:
QuoteIn anticipation of the release of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) "Early Assessment" of 2006 traffic crashes, SUV Owners of America, released today an expert analysis of 1997-2005 data for vehicle performance in all kinds of crashes. It found that SUVs are 5-7 percent safer than passenger cars in reducing fatality risk. This is particularly important for consumers that may be downsizing to cut fuel costs â€" a dangerous tradeoff...
These are the key findings based on vehicles that were involved in crashes:
* When the analysis considers only driver fatalities (focusing more on the vehicle’s performance), and most recent years data (2003-2005) to include the contribution of the newest safety features, SUVs are 5-7 percent safer than passenger cars.
* In crashes involving a light truck/van (includes SUVS) and a passenger car, occupant fatalities in passenger cars remained fairly constant from 2001-2004, but between 2004-2005 they declined by 4.3 percent.
* For both passenger cars and SUVs there has been a substantial reduction in overall occupant fatality rates, and by 2005 the rates are virtually identical per 100,000 registered vehicles (13.64, passenger car / 13.84, SUVs).
* For both passenger cars and SUVs the occupant fatality rates in rollover crashes have decreased. The percentage reduction from 1997-2005 is 15.7 percent for passenger cars and more than 19 percent for SUVs.
* When considering the more prevalent frontal, side and rear crashes, by 2005 SUVs had become about twice as safe as passenger cars. In 2005, SUVs had an occupant fatality rate in these crashes that was nearly 50 percent lower than passenger cars (10.42, passenger cars / 5.56 SUVs).
http://www.topspeed.com/cars/car-news/-suvs-5-7-safer-than-passenger-cars-ar32839.html
BTW, the reason why the total occupant death rate is higher in SUVs is SUVs typically have more passengers than smaller cars so a terrible accident can kill more people. Still, on average SUVs are safer on a per passenger basis. There really is no argument about this among the logical community. :)
Ok, I demand you take down my wedding picture right this instant;) Kidding of course.
GatorB, I can't support your love of SUVs, for any reason. It's not a truck, it's not a van, it's not a station wagon. It hardly ever actually goes off-road for "sport", and it's not utilitarian...most of them are lined with plush carpet and expensive upholstery. I just don't get it. Ok, so they're pretty and you can pack a lot of people in there, and when you drive down to the local Town Center, you can load up the back with all sorts of pretty packages, but really, why can't you do that with a car? Seems like a whole lot of excess to me, and from my point of view (a cyclist) they are VERY dangerous. I was hit by one on my bike while riding in St. Augustine and have close calls everyday....close calls that I don't have with a car because the vantage point for a driver in a car is much better for me than an SUV. Let's just be up front and say the real reason why having SUVs is being defended. It has nothing to do with the safety of one over the other, cause if everyone drove small cars and there were no SUVs, using your "physics" formula, we'd be safer and there would be fewer per accident fatalities. It's about want versus need and what we think we're entitled to. The SUVs are there and are being sold. They are big and give the illusion of safety when we're inside of them. They make us feel good and therefore we want them. It wouldn't matter if there were a study put out today that says all SUVs will roll-over and you will eventually be stranded and injured or dead on the side of the road, we'd still buy them and put 26's on them, and cute little stick-figure family stickers on the back window.
Btw, weren't we talking about lightbulbs, lol. Funny how the subjects shift.
second_pancake: did you change your avatar because of what that lady said to you? I hope not. I like whatever avatar you have as long as it’s you. Mine of course is all me!
I went to UF. I was the gatorback my freshmen year. The title is given to the fastest cyclist in the bicycle class that term. I love to ride. I blog to educate people on the benefits of cycling. I bike to work given good weather.
I own a 2000 model year P38. That's the top of the line Range Rover. It's almost 3 tons of British steel, aluminum, leather wood, etc. It's so nice to drive. It says what I want to say(we can still do that, it's America). Yes, it gets 13 miles per gallon at best. It's safe with like 8 airbags and anti-locking breaks, and Stability Control. The car even starts humping itself (actuating the air-suspension) when it thinks it getting stuck. The SUV's you're talking about are old without these new safety features and mostly the problem we got into trouble with was underinflated tires. If you lowered the tire pressure, the ride was better. That smooth ride cost a lot of people their life.
With the safety features of my Range Rover I can get anywhere. I know most SUVs don't see more then the side of a soccer field but not mine. I'm an out doors kind of guy. I've never gotten stuck on my way to the lake house or off-roading with friends. People still do that you know.
During the storms in Florida with the fallen trees, branches, and debris I was glad I had my range rover. If somebody needed help I could offer it without worrying if the road conditions were ideal. I'm not a doomsdayer, but get real, you better prepare youself for the future coming of the storms!
PS P38's are LEVs. My car polutes the same amount as an LEV Honda Civic.
oh man I can't believe I was tricked by liberals from New York again!
QuoteLet's go back to high school physics, shall we? Force = Mass x Velocity.
In an accident you want the force to be as low as possible. SUV's have changed the equation by increasing the mass and therefore increasing the force. So now people driving around in regular cars are getting in accidents with large SUV's and dying.
I guess the only solution is to drive an SUV... if you want to live.
Quote from: Lunican on January 02, 2008, 07:29:24 PM
oh man I can't believe I was tricked by liberals from New York again!
QuoteLet's go back to high school physics, shall we? Force = Mass x Velocity.
In an accident you want the force to be as low as possible. SUV's have changed the equation by increasing the mass and therefore increasing the force. So now people driving around in regular cars are getting in accidents with large SUV's and dying.
I guess the only solution is to drive an SUV... if you want to live.
Try getting T-boned by a toyota camery in say a honda civic. Bet you'd rather have been in an Excursion or even better that new Caddy Escallade Pick Up Truck huh.
Plus, with the coming of the water don't you want to be up off the ground?
Try getting T-boned in an Excursion by an Excursion. That wouldn't be pretty either.
or this...
http://www.youtube.com/v/Gtv14ZM8DNI
Quote from: RiversideGator on January 02, 2008, 06:25:14 PM
Interesting website. It looks like it is a private website belonging to some liberal New York couple:
Very credible. ::)
Sorry RG, I couldn't find any Jacksonville Conservative writings on this subject.
Quote from: gatorback on January 02, 2008, 07:06:28 PM
second_pancake: did you change your avatar because of what that lady said to you? I hope not. I like whatever avatar you have as long as it’s you. Mine of course is all me!
I went to UF. I was the gatorback my freshmen year. The title is given to the fastest cyclist in the bicycle class that term. I love to ride. I blog to educate people on the benefits of cycling. I bike to work given good weather.
I own a 2000 model year P38. That's the top of the line Range Rover. It's almost 3 tons of British steel, aluminum, leather wood, etc. It's so nice to drive. It says what I want to say(we can still do that, it's America). Yes, it gets 13 miles per gallon at best. It's safe with like 8 airbags and anti-locking breaks, and Stability Control. The car even starts humping itself (actuating the air-suspension) when it thinks it getting stuck. The SUV's you're talking about are old without these new safety features and mostly the problem we got into trouble with was underinflated tires. If you lowered the tire pressure, the ride was better. That smooth ride cost a lot of people their life.
With the safety features of my Range Rover I can get anywhere. I know most SUVs don't see more then the side of a soccer field but not mine. I'm an out doors kind of guy. I've never gotten stuck on my way to the lake house or off-roading with friends. People still do that you know.
During the storms in Florida with the fallen trees, branches, and debris I was glad I had my range rover. If somebody needed help I could offer it without worrying if the road conditions were ideal. I'm not a doomsdayer, but get real, you better prepare youself for the future coming of the storms!
PS P38's are LEVs. My car polutes the same amount as an LEV Honda Civic.
LOL. Ok, you caught me. Yes, I changed my avatar when I read her response, but I'm not sure it's for the reason you think. I have a lot of avatars that are "me" and this is just another of many. I changed the avatar because the subject matter was very much inline with the discussions between she and I...religion and my "agenda", lol. ;)
I think it's very cool that you actually use your SUV for its intended purpose! If everyone did that, there would be fewer actually driving around on the streets. Since you're a bike guy you'll understand this analogy; riding an SUV around on city streets is the equivalent of riding a full-suspension carbon-frame moutain bike with tubeless knobbies on the sidewalk. What's the point? Anyway, what I REALLY want to know is, what's your OTHER ride?
Btw, I walked out this morning and quickly realized there isn't enough gear in my closet to even begin to think about riding in 28 degree weather. Brrrr!!!
Wow, where did this thread go? I've been away far too long and have some catching up to do.
Charelston, my response to your rebuttal:
QuoteJason, the fact is that the government is creating an intrusive, pseudo-bandaid for a problem that will continue as long as people procreate. The government is also interfering with "freedom of choice" that so many people want in their lives.
You're right, the government is creating a pseudo-bandaid for a much larger problem, however, movements like this are the first step toward the ultimate goal of living more effeciently. We can't outlaw SUVs, coal-fired power plants, and pollution generating industry in one fell swoop. It takes baby steps. The information I provided on page one is a great way for the consumer to do their part.
QuoteThis bill will actually create more energy problems rather than solving them. The light bulb mandate is absolutely stupid, because it refuses to look at the other intangibles. First, incandescent bulbs generate more heat, so people who live in the colder climates will be affected. When they all convert to CFLs, they will have to run their heater more, thereby consuming more energy!! Second, CFLs do not produce the best lighting for reading, so people's vision will be affected, resulting in more burdens to health care. River has addressed the car mandate in the bill rather well, so I won't go into that. However, it demonstrates how more problems will be created with this bill.
Ok, an incandescent lamp (light bulb) creates a fraction of the heat that your own body does and in the home plays an extremely small role in the heating of said home. Besides, when heat is most necessary (at night) the lights are turned off. The energy produced by lighting in the home really only affects your utility bill. And if you use your lighting to help heat the house you will only be doing more harm to your utility bill by significantly increasing it. If you leave all of the lighting in your home on all day you will consume more energy than running your heat full blast. However, if you switch to CFLs you can run both much much cheaper.
Now, CFLs produce a higher quality and more effecient light than almost all incandescent lamps, period. As I said before, there are many different types of CFLs that mimic the light spectrum of an incandescent lamp and are virtually undetectable unless you look at the lamp. There has been no research done that I know of that suggests that fluorescent lighting causes eye damage. A truer, more "white" light allows for much easier reading and fine detail work because the color spectrum in more complete, which is what fluorescent lighting does very well. Why do you think office buildings, hospitals, kitchens, and other places where detailed tasks are done every day are all utilizing fluorescent lighting? Trust me, fluorescent and LED lighting is far superior and much better for all of us. Its my job to stay up to date on the latest lighting and power technologies so I do know what I'm talking about.
QuoteJason, the bottomline is that the current power grid needs to be expanded and updated with nuclear power. That is a long-term, proven solution that will benefit everyone, plus it sets the energy industry standard, which will eventually make coal plants obsolete.
I partially disagree. The power grid does NOT need to be expanded. The current grid is sufficient and JEA is able to handle peak demand without buying power from our neighbors. Development should be encouraged within the reaches of the current grid and sprawl should be disallowed. Now I do agree with you on the necessity to upgrade to nuclear but that would be best discussed in another thread.
QuoteThis bill is a means of government to change the lifestyles of people in the privacy of their own home. People still have the option to recycle...it's not mandated. This bill goes beyond that...changing the products that people use rather than giving them a choice to do so.
So tell me this, would you continue to use lead paint if it were allowed? How about asbestos? Asbestos would likely help with making your house much more energy effecient because of its fantastic insulating qualities. Let's face it, the human race is lazy. Without laws like these we would all still be using products that are known to harm those that use it and even those that chose not to use it. I'm not a fan of the government having to protect people from their own bad choices, however, without the government's interference our lives and environment would be much less healthy and likely much shorter. Now don't paint me as a tree hugger either. I am a realist that has realized that our environment is the key to mankind's survival and if it goes, then we all do as well.
Quote
So tell me this, would you continue to use lead paint if it were allowed? How about asbestos? Asbestos would likely help with making your house much more energy effecient because of its fantastic insulating qualities. Let's face it, the human race is lazy. Without laws like these we would all still be using products that are known to harm those that use it and even those that chose not to use it. I'm not a fan of the government having to protect people from their own bad choices, however, without the government's interference our lives and environment would be much less healthy and likely much shorter. Now don't paint me as a tree hugger either. I am a realist that has realized that our environment is the key to mankind's survival and if it goes, then we all do as well.
Lead paint in the right applications sure. I wouldn't want it below 4 ft where there a babies but, and you know it's a mess to remove that stuff so leaving it where it already is is probably a good idea.
Asbestos got a bad rap. In fact the asbestos industry is sueing the cigarette industry to recover some of the damages that was really due to smoking. Those 9" sq. tiles are now no longer consider asbostos containing materials. Those tiles never wear out.
Government is the key? I think free market got us there with a little help Uncle Sam.
Freon has been banned in the United States since 1996.
QuoteLead paint in the right applications sure. I wouldn't want it below 4 ft where there a babies but, and you know it's a mess to remove that stuff so leaving it where it already is is probably a good idea.
Asbestos got a bad rap. In fact the asbestos industry is sueing the cigarette industry to recover some of the damages that was really due to smoking. Those 9" sq. tiles are now no longer consider asbostos containing materials. Those tiles never wear out.
Government is the key? I think free market got us there with a little help Uncle Sam.
My examples may be a bit extreme when compared to the impact of outlawing incandescent lighting but the principle is the same. Sure lead paint, asbestos, freon, DDT, etc all have their uses but without the government's stance we would still be suffering these products negative side effects be those effect health related or other. The side effects of incandescent lighting are that they produce an unneccessary strain on our power grid and our wallets. Sure the free market will eventually move toward more efficient forms of lighting, however, a large step forward is necessary to help hurry the process along and move our nation toward being the proactive example as we used to be versus being the last to react to methods and processes being implemented by countries considered "third-world".
Quote from: gatorback on January 02, 2008, 02:12:43 PM
I didn't buy that strained eye cost point either. A watt is a watt is true and you get the energy savings from.... but if you don't have enough light you will hurt your eyes in the long run. To not go blind you need illumination and you need it in the range of human vision.
What's really funny here is that she could have compared the LED to the arc lamp and found the same visual light/illumination with 1/100 the power. Wanna not go blind? Use an arc lamp. ;D
The wattage of the lamp has little to do with the light output. Different technologies have different capabilities. The "lumens-per-watt" I mentioned earlier shows that certain technologies emit more light using the same amount of power. For example, the common 75W A-Lamp (incandescent) emits approximately 1,100 lumens of light, whereas, a it only takes a 20W CFL to emit the same amount of light. Less than a third of the wattage for the same amount of light. To add to it, CFLs last about 10 times as long and they also suffer a lower "maintenance factor" which means that over the life of the lamp there is very little change in the amount of light it emits as it ages. The common incandescent A-Lamp will lose nearly 50% of its output capabilities before it finally burns out. LED lamps are even better still. Also, CFLs in their natural form emit a truer more natural light that is about as close as you can get to natural sunlight. When considering which light is best for reading, the temperature rating of the lamp is very important. A higher temperature rating means the lamp is closer to natural sunlight thereby allowing for better contrast and color rendition. It takes less of a higher quality light for reading or other detailed tasks than it does for a lower quality light. Finally, the higher quality lighting I've been talking about (CFLs, LEDs, and others) again takes less energy to do the same job, and it even does it better.
Quote from: second_pancake on January 02, 2008, 06:47:47 PM
Ok, I demand you take down my wedding picture right this instant;) Kidding of course.
GatorB, I can't support your love of SUVs, for any reason. It's not a truck, it's not a van, it's not a station wagon. It hardly ever actually goes off-road for "sport", and it's not utilitarian...most of them are lined with plush carpet and expensive upholstery. I just don't get it. Ok, so they're pretty and you can pack a lot of people in there, and when you drive down to the local Town Center, you can load up the back with all sorts of pretty packages, but really, why can't you do that with a car? Seems like a whole lot of excess to me, and from my point of view (a cyclist) they are VERY dangerous. I was hit by one on my bike while riding in St. Augustine and have close calls everyday....close calls that I don't have with a car because the vantage point for a driver in a car is much better for me than an SUV. Let's just be up front and say the real reason why having SUVs is being defended. It has nothing to do with the safety of one over the other, cause if everyone drove small cars and there were no SUVs, using your "physics" formula, we'd be safer and there would be fewer per accident fatalities. It's about want versus need and what we think we're entitled to. The SUVs are there and are being sold. They are big and give the illusion of safety when we're inside of them. They make us feel good and therefore we want them. It wouldn't matter if there were a study put out today that says all SUVs will roll-over and you will eventually be stranded and injured or dead on the side of the road, we'd still buy them and put 26's on them, and cute little stick-figure family stickers on the back window.
Btw, weren't we talking about lightbulbs, lol. Funny how the subjects shift.
1) SUVs provide a much better field of vision so I find it less likely that a person driving an SUV would hit a biker than would someone driving a car.
2) I actually do need my SUV. I use it to haul construction materials to my apartments when they are being rehabbed. I also need the space for the family. And, I am pretty tall and have a real hard time fitting into little cars.
3) As for safety, I am first concerned with the safety of myself and my family. Also, not all car accidents involve 2 car collisions. SUVs are also safer in single car collisions.
4) As for the light bulb discussion, the reason why the cars vs. SUV debate crept in is that the same asinine bill that banned incandescent bulbs requires car makers to raise the fuel efficiency for new cars in 12 years thereby probably putting some car makers out of business and costing Americans jobs and reducing the availability of SUVs thereby costing some Americans their lives. So, we are being significantly inconvenienced and even hurt and killed because of a total hoax - global warming.
Quote from: Lunican on January 02, 2008, 07:29:24 PM
oh man I can't believe I was tricked by liberals from New York again!
It certainly isnt the first time and likely not the last time. ;)
Quote from: Lunican on January 02, 2008, 10:03:22 PM
Quote from: RiversideGator on January 02, 2008, 06:25:14 PM
Interesting website. It looks like it is a private website belonging to some liberal New York couple:
Very credible. ::)
Sorry RG, I couldn't find any Jacksonville Conservative writings on this subject.
Maybe post something from a credible source of any kind then. A private website with personal pictures = not credible. In any event, the "facts" they cite are easily refuted.
Quote4) As for the light bulb discussion, the reason why the cars vs. SUV debate crept in is that the same asinine bill that banned incandescent bulbs requires car makers to raise the fuel efficiency for new cars in 12 years thereby probably putting some car makers out of business and costing Americans jobs and reducing the availability of SUVs thereby costing some Americans their lives. So, we are being significantly inconvenienced and even hurt and killed because of a total hoax - global warming.
There is much evidence supporting global warming and the effects of mankind's way of living on the environment. To say we have no impact on our climate and the world around us when we outnumber any species on the planet we share, have the power to literally knock-down a mountain, empty a lake, divert a river, and create landmasses in the middle of the ocean where there were previously not any, is what is truly "asinine".
I don't think anyone needs to worry about the death of the SUV or lightbulbs. If there's one thing we know about the human race is that we are nothing short of inventive, and we always find a way to adapt to our environment. And, as I noted above, when our environment doesn't comply, we develop the technology to create a new one.
My prediction is that not only will there not be any car companies going out of business over this bill, but there will be radically new and innovative SUVs on the market that will give the economically fuel-efficient "small cars" a run for their money.
Quote4) As for the light bulb discussion, the reason why the cars vs. SUV debate crept in is that the same asinine bill that banned incandescent bulbs requires car makers to raise the fuel efficiency for new cars in 12 years thereby probably putting some car makers out of business and costing Americans jobs and reducing the availability of SUVs thereby costing some Americans their lives. So, we are being significantly inconvenienced and even hurt and killed because of a total hoax - global warming.
Well, the fuel efficiency rating is for all cars, not just American built cars. All auto manufacturers will remain on a level playing field with the new requirement. Are you suggesting that American auto manufacturers don't have the engineering ability to produce a fuel efficient car?
Also, the Japanese have built their auto manufacturing empire by selling small cars in America. Toyota and Honda appear to be outperforming Ford, GM, and Chrysler.
Quote from: Lunican on January 03, 2008, 11:00:44 AM
Freon has been banned in the United States since 1996.
I love freon. The problem with freon is it escapes into the atmosphere but freon doesn't eat up my automobile's a/c system as the new refrigerant does.
And let's not for get good old chlordane and aldrin. Treat once, that's it! My home in Avondale was treated with chlordane in 1975 the year before it was banned I think. Some guy told me it would be at least 2050 before I'd need another application.
You can now buy asbostos containing tiles for that kitchen remod! They'll never wear out.
I agree the bill is asinine for several reasons mostly that I just don't think it was thought out completely.
I think Washington DC wanted to show things are getting done in our nations capital before Iowa.
Quote from: second_pancake on January 03, 2008, 04:52:42 PM
Quote4) As for the light bulb discussion, the reason why the cars vs. SUV debate crept in is that the same asinine bill that banned incandescent bulbs requires car makers to raise the fuel efficiency for new cars in 12 years thereby probably putting some car makers out of business and costing Americans jobs and reducing the availability of SUVs thereby costing some Americans their lives. So, we are being significantly inconvenienced and even hurt and killed because of a total hoax - global warming.
There is much evidence supporting global warming and the effects of mankind's way of living on the environment. To say we have no impact on our climate and the world around us when we outnumber any species on the planet we share, have the power to literally knock-down a mountain, empty a lake, divert a river, and create landmasses in the middle of the ocean where there were previously not any, is what is truly "asinine".
Actually, this isnt even close to being true. In fact, humans arent even the most numerous mammal type on Earth. This honor goes to rodents followed closely by bats. http://www.awf.org/content/wildlife/detail/bat
Man is the most numerous large mammal species, but there are many more large mammals. There are 50 million crabeater seals in Antartica alone, for example.
http://www.coolantarctica.com/gallery/seals/antarctica_seals17.htm
There are twice as many Antartic krill, measured by biomass, than humans and humans comprise just .33% of the total biomass of the Earth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass_%28ecology%29
Also, there are an estimated 100 trillion insects on earth and beetles alone constitute 40% of all insect species.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beetle
When you look at the grand scheme of things, mankind really isnt that big a factor on Earth and there is so much that we dont even yet know.
I will say that your faith in this global warming claptrap goes to show that, even among self-professed atheists, the God-given religious instinct is still very strong but has just been redirected into the false-religion of global warming. ;)
Quote from: Lunican on January 03, 2008, 05:39:05 PM
Well, the fuel efficiency rating is for all cars, not just American built cars. All auto manufacturers will remain on a level playing field with the new requirement. Are you suggesting that American auto manufacturers don't have the engineering ability to produce a fuel efficient car?
Also, the Japanese have built their auto manufacturing empire by selling small cars in America. Toyota and Honda appear to be outperforming Ford, GM, and Chrysler.
Your statement is contradictory. Japanese and other foreign car companies sell more small cars than American car companies so the American car companies would likely suffer more in terms of not being allowed to sell their products to the market. American car companies have the "ability" to produce smaller cars but have not specialized in this for some time, selling instead larger cars, trucks and SUVs, and are outsold with small cars by foreign makes. To retool and restructure their operations would cost the American companies lots of money and jobs. The end result will probably be libs will complain that there arent as many manufacturing jobs in America anymore and then blame it on Republicans. ::)
Excuse me RG, I meant to say the largest "intelligent species" on earth. I kind of figured that was understood given the fact that neither a rat, nor a bat, nor krill, nor seals, nor any number of insects have ever knocked down a mountain using a machine(s) they created, designed siphoning technology to empty a lake, or built a damn large enough to divert the enormous rivers we have (yes, beavers do this by nature, but show me one who has recreated the Hoover in trees and rocks and I'll eat my words). I'll be more specific next time.
As for global-warming "faith", you should know by now that I don't believe something for the sake of believing it. It is a fact that we (homo-sapiens) have a direct ecological impact. The extent in which we impact our environment is, and always has been, the debate; recent scientific evidence has shown that there is a direct correlation to major lifestyle changes and modern inventions of our kind and the increase in global temperature.http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/globalwarmA.html (http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/globalwarmA.html)
That's just one site, I have hundreds more, but something tells me you're not interested in facts. Your statement that we're not that big in the great scheme of things, followed by there's so much that we don't yet know after you just stated as fact that global warming is a farce, proves that point. If you were truly interested in finding out the truth, you would consider any and every study and statistic, BECAUSE there is still so much that we don't know. But, I guess you'd rather just continue to live life as you do and when you and the planet die, you can look down from heaven, shrug your shoulders and claim ignorance, eh?
RG: Why don't you spend 1 day with a federal fire fighter with 20 years experience they will tell you first hand that we've changed the global climate.
QuoteJapanese and other foreign car companies sell more small cars than American car companies so the American car companies would likely suffer more in terms of not being allowed to sell their products to the market. American car companies have the "ability" to produce smaller cars but have not specialized in this for some time, selling instead larger cars, trucks and SUVs, and are outsold with small cars by foreign makes.
Well, then, shame on them. If I'm not mistaken, aren't you coming across a bit on the "lib", or even, dare I say it, Socialist side? This is a democracy. There is competition amoung businessmen. If you want to compete, you must make a competetive product. If you can't do that, then you fail and you are left with a decision to either dissolve your company or find some niche where you can create a competetive product. Does that sound too harsh? I mean, I guess you're right. I guess we really need our government to step in and extinguish all foreign trade, and force Americans to buy only locally-produced products. And while they're at it, they'll pass a law that will "allow" all those same car companies to produce whatever vehicle they want, gosh darn it, because this is America and if they want to make a car out of plastic with a V10 diesel-burning engine, then that's what they should do. And if others don't like it, then Uncle Sam will just have to send them to bed without their supper. ::)
Btw, the last I looked, small cars were outsold by SUVs until just recently and American auto-makers were outselling foreign because of their SUV sales. The only reason SUV sales are down is because of rising gas prices. If the fuel bill causes American manufactuers to create a more fuel-efficient SUV then they will, once again, be on top of the market...holding a niche that foreign manufactuers can not, and have not, been able to compete with. Oh, and, to your dismay, guess which type of vehicle had a 57% increase in sales in 2007? That's right, the hybrid ~gasps~. So much so, in fact, that manufactuers had to increase production. But, there's no demand for fuel efficiency, it's just a ploy by the government to keep it's own money-making, nation-building corporations down ::)
http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080104/BUSINESS/801040379/1003/rss03 (http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080104/BUSINESS/801040379/1003/rss03)
QuoteWhen you look at the grand scheme of things, mankind really isnt that big a factor on Earth and there is so much that we dont even yet know.
Did you really just say that? Your right to say that the human race is mere peanuts when calculating the biomass of Earth's species but to suggest that mankind isn't really that big of a factor is absolutely absurd.
Take a look around!!
Second_Pancake hit the nail on the head with her statement. The human race is the only major organism on the planet that does not live in harmony with its surroundings. As far as nature is concerned we are very similar to a virus with no cure. Humans move to an area and multiply thereby consuming every possible natural resource available to us and when everything is used up we simply move to a new area and start over again. There are very few places left on this planet that have not been grossly and negatively impacted by mankind.
Edit:
After re-reading your statement I believe that I have taken the referenced comment completely out of context and I apologize.
Pancake: I have read all of that and more about global warming. The arguments are just not that persuasive and the increasing desperation by the left to prove it by making more and more outlandish claims is just one more indication that it is bunk. Also, I dont believe in things just because they are the in things to believe in (e.g. global warming).
gator: I am talking on a macro-level not a micro-level. Of course, we can change the course of rivers but this is a far cry from changing the weather.
As for man's relative insignificance re the climate, look at termites for example. Did you know they alone produce 20 million tons of methane per year - a gas which is 120 times more potent in terms of global warming.
http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/gases.htm
There are also all sorts of microbes in the sea which sequester CO2 and methane and prevent it from becoming a problem. In fact, scientists theorize that these creatures may have played a role in creating conditions on Earth to support advanced life forms as CO2 and methane levels used to be far higher millions of years ago. We know next to nothing about them and their role in the larger climate.
Also, did you know that there have been periods with higher atmospheric concentrations of CO2 but lower temps? This alone casts significant doubt on the gw religion.
This is a great article. We know this much:
QuoteIn 2008, a 100 Percent Chance of Alarm
By JOHN TIERNEY
Published: January 1, 2008
I’d like to wish you a happy New Year, but I’m afraid I have a different sort of prediction.
You’re in for very bad weather. In 2008, your television will bring you image after frightening image of natural havoc linked to global warming. You will be told that such bizarre weather must be a sign of dangerous climate change â€" and that these images are a mere preview of what’s in store unless we act quickly to cool the planet.
Unfortunately, I can’t be more specific. I don’t know if disaster will come by flood or drought, hurricane or blizzard, fire or ice. Nor do I have any idea how much the planet will warm this year or what that means for your local forecast. Long-term climate models cannot explain short-term weather.
But there’s bound to be some weird weather somewhere, and we will react like the sailors in the Book of Jonah. When a storm hit their ship, they didn’t ascribe it to a seasonal weather pattern. They quickly identified the cause (Jonah’s sinfulness) and agreed to an appropriate policy response (throw Jonah overboard).
Today’s interpreters of the weather are what social scientists call availability entrepreneurs: the activists, journalists and publicity-savvy scientists who selectively monitor the globe looking for newsworthy evidence of a new form of sinfulness, burning fossil fuels.
A year ago, British meteorologists made headlines predicting that the buildup of greenhouse gases would help make 2007 the hottest year on record. At year’s end, even though the British scientists reported the global temperature average was not a new record â€" it was actually lower than any year since 2001 â€" the BBC confidently proclaimed, “2007 Data Confirms Warming Trend.â€
When the Arctic sea ice last year hit the lowest level ever recorded by satellites, it was big news and heralded as a sign that the whole planet was warming. When the Antarctic sea ice last year reached the highest level ever recorded by satellites, it was pretty much ignored. A large part of Antarctica has been cooling recently, but most coverage of that continent has focused on one small part that has warmed.
When Hurricane Katrina flooded New Orleans in 2005, it was supposed to be a harbinger of the stormier world predicted by some climate modelers. When the next two hurricane seasons were fairly calm â€" by some measures, last season in the Northern Hemisphere was the calmest in three decades â€" the availability entrepreneurs changed the subject. Droughts in California and Australia became the new harbingers of climate change (never mind that a warmer planet is projected to have more, not less, precipitation over all).
The most charitable excuse for this bias in weather divination is that the entrepreneurs are trying to offset another bias. The planet has indeed gotten warmer, and it is projected to keep warming because of greenhouse emissions, but this process is too slow to make much impact on the public.
When judging risks, we often go wrong by using what’s called the availability heuristic: we gauge a danger according to how many examples of it are readily available in our minds. Thus we overestimate the odds of dying in a terrorist attack or a plane crash because we’ve seen such dramatic deaths so often on television; we underestimate the risks of dying from a stroke because we don’t have so many vivid images readily available.
Slow warming doesn’t make for memorable images on television or in people’s minds, so activists, journalists and scientists have looked to hurricanes, wild fires and starving polar bears instead. They have used these images to start an “availability cascade,†a term coined by Timur Kuran, professor of economics and political science at Duke University, and Cass R. Sunstein, a law professor at the University of Chicago.
The availability cascade is a self-perpetuating process: the more attention a danger gets, the more worried people become, leading to more news coverage and more fear. Once the images of Sept. 11 made terrorism seem a major threat, the press and the police lavished attention on potential new attacks and supposed plots. After Three Mile Island and “The China Syndrome,†minor malfunctions at nuclear power plants suddenly became newsworthy.
“Many people concerned about climate change,†Dr. Sunstein says, “want to create an availability cascade by fixing an incident in people’s minds. Hurricane Katrina is just an early example; there will be others. I don’t doubt that climate change is real and that it presents a serious threat, but there’s a danger that any ‘consensus’ on particular events or specific findings is, in part, a cascade.â€
Once a cascade is under way, it becomes tough to sort out risks because experts become reluctant to dispute the popular wisdom, and are ignored if they do. Now that the melting Arctic has become the symbol of global warming, there’s not much interest in hearing other explanations of why the ice is melting â€" or why the globe’s other pole isn’t melting, too.
Global warming has an impact on both polar regions, but they’re also strongly influenced by regional weather patterns and ocean currents. Two studies by NASA and university scientists last year concluded that much of the recent melting of Arctic sea ice was related to a cyclical change in ocean currents and winds, but those studies got relatively little attention â€" and were certainly no match for the images of struggling polar bears so popular with availability entrepreneurs.
Roger A. Pielke Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, recently noted the very different reception received last year by two conflicting papers on the link between hurricanes and global warming. He counted 79 news articles about a paper in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, and only 3 news articles about one in a far more prestigious journal, Nature.
Guess which paper jibed with the theory â€" and image of Katrina â€" presented by Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truthâ€?
It was, of course, the paper in the more obscure journal, which suggested that global warming is creating more hurricanes. The paper in Nature concluded that global warming has a minimal effect on hurricanes. It was published in December â€" by coincidence, the same week that Mr. Gore received his Nobel Peace Prize.
In his acceptance speech, Mr. Gore didn’t dwell on the complexities of the hurricane debate. Nor, in his roundup of the 2007 weather, did he mention how calm the hurricane season had been. Instead, he alluded somewhat mysteriously to “stronger storms in the Atlantic and Pacific,†and focused on other kinds of disasters, like “massive droughts†and “massive flooding.â€
“In the last few months,†Mr. Gore said, “it has been harder and harder to misinterpret the signs that our world is spinning out of kilter.†But he was being too modest. Thanks to availability entrepreneurs like him, misinterpreting the weather is getting easier and easier.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/01/science/01tier.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
gb: would you consider mankind 'accelerated' global warming. Perhaps you're right, "we" “can't†"change" "global" "Climate" but we can accelerate it. Better?
RG: Did you also oppose the Ocean Dumping Bans that were put in place in the 70's and 80's to stop radioactive materials, medical and industrial waste, and raw sewage from being dumped into the oceans? These bans also had the potential to cost Americans their jobs by putting companies that could not afford to comply out of business.
Quote from: Lunican on January 05, 2008, 01:40:12 PM
RG: Did you also oppose the Ocean Dumping Bans that were put in place in the 70's and 80's to stop radioactive materials, medical and industrial waste, and raw sewage from being dumped into the oceans? These bans also had the potential to cost Americans their jobs by putting companies that could not afford to comply out of business.
1) This is apples and oranges;
2) I do not recall taking a position on this issue at the time but I think that it is easily and logically proveable that dumping waste into the ocean causes far more localized harm to the ocean than 25 mpg cars and incandescent light bulbs do to the atmosphere.
BTW, on the subject of global warming, what happened to it??
QuoteBr-r-r! Where did global warming go?
By Jeff Jacoby
Globe Columnist / January 6, 2008
THE STARK headline appeared just over a year ago. "2007 to be 'warmest on record,' " BBC News reported on Jan. 4, 2007. Citing experts in the British government's Meteorological Office, the story announced that "the world is likely to experience the warmest year on record in 2007," surpassing the all-time high reached in 1998.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the planetary hot flash: Much of the planet grew bitterly cold.
In South America, for example, the start of winter last year was one of the coldest ever observed. According to Eugenio Hackbart, chief meteorologist of the MetSul Weather Center in Brazil, "a brutal cold wave brought record low temperatures, widespread frost, snow, and major energy disruption." In Buenos Aires, it snowed for the first time in 89 years, while in Peru the cold was so intense that hundreds of people died and the government declared a state of emergency in 14 of the country's 24 provinces. In August, Chile's agriculture minister lamented "the toughest winter we have seen in the past 50 years," which caused losses of at least $200 million in destroyed crops and livestock.
Latin Americans weren't the only ones shivering.
University of Oklahoma geophysicist David Deming, a specialist in temperature and heat flow, notes in the Washington Times that "unexpected bitter cold swept the entire Southern Hemisphere in 2007." Johannesburg experienced its first significant snowfall in a quarter-century. Australia had its coldest ever June. New Zealand's vineyards lost much of their 2007 harvest when spring temperatures dropped to record lows.
Closer to home, 44.5 inches of snow fell in New Hampshire last month, breaking the previous record of 43 inches, set in 1876. And the Canadian government is forecasting the coldest winter in 15 years.
Now all of these may be short-lived weather anomalies, mere blips in the path of the global climatic warming that Al Gore and a host of alarmists proclaim the deadliest threat we face. But what if the frigid conditions that have caused so much distress in recent months signal an impending era of global cooling?
"Stock up on fur coats and felt boots!" advises Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences and senior scientist at Moscow's Shirshov Institute of Oceanography. "The latest data . . . say that earth has passed the peak of its warmer period, and a fairly cold spell will set in quite soon, by 2012."
Sorokhtin dismisses the conventional global warming theory that greenhouse gases, especially human-emitted carbon dioxide, is causing the earth to grow hotter. Like a number of other scientists, he points to solar activity - sunspots and solar flares, which wax and wane over time - as having the greatest effect on climate.
"Carbon dioxide is not to blame for global climate change," Sorokhtin writes in an essay for Novosti. "Solar activity is many times more powerful than the energy produced by the whole of humankind." In a recent paper for the Danish National Space Center, physicists Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen concur: "The sun . . . appears to be the main forcing agent in global climate change," they write.
Given the number of worldwide cold events, it is no surprise that 2007 didn't turn out to be the warmest ever. In fact, 2007's global temperature was essentially the same as that in 2006 - and 2005, and 2004, and every year back to 2001. The record set in 1998 has not been surpassed. For nearly a decade now, there has been no global warming. Even though atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to accumulate - it's up about 4 percent since 1998 - the global mean temperature has remained flat. That raises some obvious questions about the theory that CO2 is the cause of climate change.
Yet so relentlessly has the alarmist scenario been hyped, and so disdainfully have dissenting views been dismissed, that millions of people assume Gore must be right when he insists: "The debate in the scientific community is over."
But it isn't. Just last month, more than 100 scientists signed a strongly worded open letter pointing out that climate change is a well-known natural phenomenon, and that adapting to it is far more sensible than attempting to prevent it. Because slashing carbon dioxide emissions means retarding economic development, they warned, "the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it."
Climate science isn't a religion, and those who dispute its leading theory are not heretics. Much remains to be learned about how and why climate changes, and there is neither virtue nor wisdom in an emotional rush to counter global warming - especially if what's coming is a global Big Chill.
Jeff Jacoby's e-mail address is jacoby@globe.com.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/01/06/br_r_r_where_did_global_warming_go/
Regardless of the validity of global warming, it still makes sense to reduce our energy consumption since we are mainly still relying on fossil fuels which create pollution and are in limited supply.
Was the sole purpose of this legislation to combat global warming?
thanks for being the voice of reason here Lunican. PS Let's put in another Starbucks downtown!
Yeah, well, I'm a pompous little antichrist that will probably abandon my desire for world DOMINATION before I have the chance to realize it. While I waste gas just for the hell of it, I use 1/4 of the lights in my house on a regular basis because I cannot afford these high priced high effiecency GE legal bulbs. Thank you.
Quote from: Jason on January 03, 2008, 09:59:46 AM
...You're right, the government is creating a pseudo-bandaid for a much larger problem, however, movements like this are the first step toward the ultimate goal of living more effeciently. We can't outlaw SUVs, coal-fired power plants, and pollution generating industry in one fell swoop. It takes baby steps. The information I provided on page one is a great way for the consumer to do their part.
Wow, I didn't come here for awhile, and this thread took off. First of all Jason, I can see that there
IS an agenda to ban the SUV and "pollution-generating industry", whatever that means. So basically, you want to force your way of life and way of thinking on the economy.
Quote...The energy produced by lighting in the home really only affects your utility bill. And if you use your lighting to help heat the house you will only be doing more harm to your utility bill by significantly increasing it. If you leave all of the lighting in your home on all day you will consume more energy than running your heat full blast. However, if you switch to CFLs you can run both much much cheaper.
Many people's utility bills are connected to both the electricity they use and their heating/air. Switching to CFLs affects the ambient heat that remains in the home after lights are turned off and has negligible differences in power usage in comparison to incandescents. In the end, the power bill will not be greatly affected when using CFLs. As far as costs, the bulbs will cost more than incandescents and will be manufactured in China. So that's GREAT...we can pay more $ for a shitty product and reduce American jobs. Fantastic: [said in German accent] All for ze planet!
QuoteNow, CFLs produce a higher quality and more effecient light than almost all incandescent lamps, period. As I said before, there are many different types of CFLs that mimic the light spectrum of an incandescent lamp and are virtually undetectable unless you look at the lamp. There has been no research done that I know of that suggests that fluorescent lighting causes eye damage. A truer, more "white" light allows for much easier reading and fine detail work because the color spectrum in more complete, which is what fluorescent lighting does very well. Why do you think office buildings, hospitals, kitchens, and other places where detailed tasks are done every day are all utilizing fluorescent lighting? Trust me, fluorescent and LED lighting is far superior and much better for all of us. Its my job to stay up to date on the latest lighting and power technologies so I do know what I'm talking about.
Wow, there are alot of false statements, here. CFLs
do not produce a higher quality light for home usage, and they do not provide warm ambiance for homes, restaurants, and other businesses. If they're so good, why do you think people still buy incandescents? These different types of CFLs are still different, and you just admitted that they're an imitation of the real thing. Here's another question: what do you do for historical structures that would require a complete electrical rewiring for these bulbs? Are we going to rip apart old ceilings and walls for it? Another false statement is about eye damage. Please read JAMA, AHA, and other publications because some reports are coming out now that confirm eye damage. However, there are far more reports about CFLs causing migraines and affecting epileptics. Like it or not, the fact is that CFLs are different from the industrial flourescent lights found in hospitals and office buildings. Plus, in a standard light outlet, you have
THREE of these large tubes to adequately light a small section. One tiny CFL is going to be used on a lamp, and you actually expect me to believe it will apply the same lighting?
QuoteI partially disagree. The power grid does NOT need to be expanded. The current grid is sufficient and JEA is able to handle peak demand without buying power from our neighbors. Development should be encouraged within the reaches of the current grid and sprawl should be disallowed...
Regardless if "sprawl" is disallowed, there are more people being born into this world every day, as well as older people living longer, so our population only stands to get much larger...and we're NOT going to expand a power supply?!?! Extremely shortsighted, IMO. All of these additional people will require electricity.
QuoteSo tell me this, would you continue to use lead paint if it were allowed? How about asbestos? Asbestos would likely help with making your house much more energy effecient because of its fantastic insulating qualities...
This comparison is completely disingenuous. Apples to oranges. Abestos has been found to be a significant contributor to lung cancer and other respiratory illnesses with clear proof from scientific research. Lead paint has irrefutable proof to cause brain damage in children when ingested. You can't possibly tell me (nor can most legitimate scientists) that Thomas Edison's invention is responsible for a global phenomenon that in itself is false and pure propaganda. Incandescents bulbs have posed no health problems in humans for the past 100 years. However, if you want to examine health side effects, I do know that CFLs contain considerable amounts of mercury. I don't think many of these bulbs will be properly disposed when broken or burnt out, so how healthy are we going to be as more mercury seeps into our ground, water supply, or even gets spilled on the carpet?
Face it, this bill was designed as a politically correct knee-jerk reaction. Lunican, this legislation's purpose was primarily as a knee-jerk reaction to glo-bull warming. It won't reduce our energy consumption, and there is no valid evidence to say it will...it was just a feel-good bill that accomplished what I mentioned in my earlier post: Make people buy a sub-standard, piss-poor product with lower quality and performance but higher costs for maintenance (for the bulbs, expensive cleanup if broken; for the cars, using cheaper, lighter materials and reducing the amount of steel to build the frames), package and market it as a thing that will "save the planet" or "reduce consumption", politicians vote for it to look better in the media to assure them another term in office, and eliminate manufacturing jobs and plants for the other products, i.e. eliminating costs.
It's all about the money. It's a damn scheme.
QuoteWow, I didn't come here for awhile, and this thread took off. First of all Jason, I can see that there IS an agenda to ban the SUV and "pollution-generating industry", whatever that means. So basically, you want to force your way of life and way of thinking on the economy.
There is not an agenda to ban the SUV and other pollution-generating industry, just make them cleaner and more effecient. And yes, I do support the plan to make these things more effecient because I do understand that the human race is quickly consuming every natural resource available and without movements like these we could run out. This has nothing to do with global warming, just the fact that there is only so much matter on this planet available to sustain our way of life. The SUV isn't going anywhere, its just going to use less gas or perhaps no gas at all by switching to hydrogen. The lightbulb isn't going anywhere either, just becomming more effecient by using less energy.
QuoteMany people's utility bills are connected to both the electricity they use and their heating/air. Switching to CFLs affects the ambient heat that remains in the home after lights are turned off and has negligible differences in power usage in comparison to incandescents. In the end, the power bill will not be greatly affected when using CFLs. As far as costs, the bulbs will cost more than incandescents and will be manufactured in China. So that's GREAT...we can pay more $ for a shitty product and reduce American jobs. Fantastic: [said in German accent] All for ze planet!
Everybody's utility bill is "connected to both the electricity they use and their heating/air". As far as the power company is concerned, a kilowatt-hour is a kilowatt-hour. It doesn't matter how they are used, just how much of them are used.
Answer me this, if there is no gain to be had by switching to CFLs why would power companies (JEA for example) be airing commercials that recommend switching to save money? JEA is a publically traded utility. Do you think they stand to gain more money?
Two of the three largest light bulb manufacturers (Sylvania and GE) are base in North America. Philips (the largest) is based in the Netherlands. All three manufacture about every type of lightbulb under the sun and will not be losing money or laying off workers by manufacturing more CFLs than incandescents. And your statement that we would have to pay more for a "shitty product" is unresearched and false. Currently CFLs are more expensive but are getting cheaper by the day. As more of the market makes the switch the prices will continue to drop and will eventually cost as much as a standard incandescent.
QuoteWow, there are alot of false statements, here. CFLs do not produce a higher quality light for home usage, and they do not provide warm ambiance for homes, restaurants, and other businesses. If they're so good, why do you think people still buy incandescents? These different types of CFLs are still different, and you just admitted that they're an imitation of the real thing. Here's another question: what do you do for historical structures that would require a complete electrical rewiring for these bulbs? Are we going to rip apart old ceilings and walls for it? Another false statement is about eye damage. Please read JAMA, AHA, and other publications because some reports are coming out now that confirm eye damage. However, there are far more reports about CFLs causing migraines and affecting epileptics. Like it or not, the fact is that CFLs are different from the industrial flourescent lights found in hospitals and office buildings. Plus, in a standard light outlet, you have THREE of these large tubes to adequately light a small section. One tiny CFL is going to be used on a lamp, and you actually expect me to believe it will apply the same lighting?
QuoteWow, there are alot of false statements, here.
I have yet to cite a single false statement and have backed up everything I've stated.
QuoteIf they're so good, why do you think people still buy incandescents?
For the same reason people still buy standard televisions versus plasma or LCD, the cost!!
QuoteThese different types of CFLs are still different, and you just admitted that they're an imitation of the real thing.
They are not an imitation, they can be made to produce the same temperature rating as an incandescent. Is "different" a bad thing?
QuoteHere's another question: what do you do for historical structures that would require a complete electrical rewiring for these bulbs? Are we going to rip apart old ceilings and walls for it?
You do NOT need to rewire old structures to support flourescent lighting because it uses less power. The wiring system is designed to accomodate a certain electrical load and as long as that load is not increased, no changes are necessary. Besides, most commercial, institutional, and public buildings built in the last 50 years already use fluorescent lighting. Also, any light fixture that uses a standard medium base incandescent A-Lamp will work with a screw-in CFL so you don't even need to replace the fixture. They're built for that purpose.
QuotePlease read JAMA, AHA, and other publications because some reports are coming out now that confirm eye damage. However, there are far more reports about CFLs causing migraines and affecting epileptics.
I will look up the information you've suggested.
QuoteLike it or not, the fact is that CFLs are different from the industrial flourescent lights found in hospitals and office buildings.
I'm not sure what you mean by "industrial fluorescents". A standard 2'x4' fluorescent fixture that sits in an acoustical tile ceiling system uses a 4' long fluorescent tube lamp. Yes, that lamp is different in size, however, it still produces the same type of light and is not more "industrial" than a CFL. An "industrial" designation is reserved solely for the fixture itself and how that fixture is built. You would be hard pressed to find an incandescent light anywhere inside a hospital save some low-voltage accent lighting.
QuotePlus, in a standard light outlet, you have THREE of these large tubes to adequately light a small section. One tiny CFL is going to be used on a lamp, and you actually expect me to believe it will apply the same lighting?
Again, I'm sure about your terminology. I think you're confused. A single CFL will not replace 3 of the large tubes you speak of. Those tubes are already fluorescent and are already effecient.
QuoteRegardless if "sprawl" is disallowed, there are more people being born into this world every day, as well as older people living longer, so our population only stands to get much larger...and we're NOT going to expand a power supply?!?! Extremely shortsighted, IMO. All of these additional people will require electricity.
Right, there are more and more people everyday being born into this world which is a great reason to do whatever it takes now to increase our effeciency and reduce the amount of fossil fuels used to provide everyone with power. There is only so much on this planet available for consumption and it needs to be preserved.
QuoteThis comparison is completely disingenuous. Apples to oranges. Abestos has been found to be a significant contributor to lung cancer and other respiratory illnesses with clear proof from scientific research. Lead paint has irrefutable proof to cause brain damage in children when ingested. You can't possibly tell me (nor can most legitimate scientists) that Thomas Edison's invention is responsible for a global phenomenon that in itself is false and pure propaganda.
In my following statement I recognized that the comparison was not entirely accurate. Here is my previous statement....
My examples may be a bit extreme when compared to the impact of outlawing incandescent lighting but the principle is the same. Sure lead paint, asbestos, freon, DDT, etc all have their uses but without the government's stance we would still be suffering these products negative side effects be those effect health related or other. The side effects of incandescent lighting are that they produce an unneccessary strain on our power grid and our wallets. Sure the free market will eventually move toward more efficient forms of lighting, however, a large step forward is necessary to help hurry the process along and move our nation toward being the proactive example as we used to be versus being the last to react to methods and processes being implemented by countries considered "third-world".
QuoteIncandescents bulbs have posed no health problems in humans for the past 100 years. However, if you want to examine health side effects, I do know that CFLs contain considerable amounts of mercury. I don't think many of these bulbs will be properly disposed when broken or burnt out, so how healthy are we going to be as more mercury seeps into our ground, water supply, or even gets spilled on the carpet?
Finally, a legitimate argument that has some substance. The mercury found in fluorescent lighting is a concern and needs to be addressed. But know that fluorescent lighting is not something new. It has been around for decades and isn't going anywhere anytime soon. If disposed of properly there is little threat but the average consumer is not likely to do so.
Quote from: Jason on January 07, 2008, 01:38:23 PM
QuoteEverybody's utility bill is "connected to both the electricity they use and their heating/air". As far as the power company is concerned, a kilowatt-hour is a kilowatt-hour. It doesn't matter how they are used, just how much of them are used.
Are you sure about that Jason? ARE YOU SURE ABOUT THAT!?? My a/c bill is connected to my water bill. The Domain uses water chilled at the, you guessed it, Pickle Research Center, you know, the center that is putting in the Hydrogen Fuel station. When I turn on my A/C there's a rush of water to my exchanger that's it. Sorry in advance for you being so magnificently incredibly wronger on this issue. :P
I'm talking about electric utilities. Where did I mention the first thing about water?
Apparently some have come to the conclusion that global warming is a myth and therefore energy efficiency and pollution are non issues. I guess smog is a myth as well.
Quote from: Lunican on January 07, 2008, 03:51:07 PM
Apparently some have come to the conclusion that global warming is a myth and therefore energy efficiency and pollution are non issues. I guess smog is a myth as well.
That can go on record as the first understatement of the year, lol. Funny how when you can give scientific fact to back-up every claim you make, and even have someone in the forum who is an expert on the subject, working with electricity and all facets thereof for a living, you can still have people who absolutely REFUSE to face facts. Que cera, cera. At least they're being true to who they are and their way of life: When facts outweigh your claim, ignore them and develop faith, lol.
QuoteThe mercury found in fluorescent lighting is a concern and needs to be addressed. But know that fluorescent lighting is not something new. It has been around for decades and isn't going anywhere anytime soon. If disposed of properly there is little threat but the average consumer is not likely to do so.
Isn't it true that the mercury in CFLs is no more than the amount contained in a standard thermometer?
I can't believe I'm about to say this and may regret it before its over, but here goes nothing...
Arguing technical issues with non-technical people is like debating politics with a first grader. Until you guys understand the definitions of the things I'm discussing you'll never understand what I'm talking about. I'm not going to argue medicine with a doctor, or law with RiversideGator because I know very little about these subjects and they are very educated in them.
Please do me a favor. Google the terms below, read what you find, and then build your argument. Hell, you might even come to your own conclusion that what I have been saying since my first post in this thread is not a load of B.S.
utility
watt
kilowatt-hour
lamp (light-bulb)
lumen
lumen per watt
fluorescent
compact fluorescent
incandescent
mercury vapor
metal halide
high pressure sodium
LED
HID
power consumption
temperature rating
light spectrum
heat generation
efficiency
Man, I hate to sound pompous but, personally, I believe that you have to have at least a basic knowledge of what your debating before you can accurately and effectively debate it. I work with power and lighting every day, its my job. I don't know everything but I have been in this industry long enough to have developed a firm understanding of it. Understanding these terms will likely save a lot of back and forth banter and limit any misconceptions or confusions. I have every manual, code book, catalog, and guideline available on this subject and every fact that I have stated on this subject can be cited and proven.
QuoteIsn't it true that the mercury in CFLs is no more than the amount contained in a standard thermometer?
Yes, it is true.
http://www.dem.ri.gov/topics/pdf/epabulb2.pdf
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf
http://www.nema.org/gov/ehs/committees/lamps/cfl-mercury.cfm
Quote from: Jason on January 07, 2008, 01:38:23 PM
There is not an agenda to ban the SUV and other pollution-generating industry, just make them cleaner and more effecient. And yes, I do support the plan to make these things more effecient because I do understand that the human race is quickly consuming every natural resource available and without movements like these we could run out. This has nothing to do with global warming, just the fact that there is only so much matter on this planet available to sustain our way of life. The SUV isn't going anywhere, its just going to use less gas or perhaps no gas at all by switching to hydrogen. The lightbulb isn't going anywhere either, just becomming more effecient by using less energy.
Jason, I'm all for efficiency and cleaner forms of energy, but only if they have the same amount of power quality or even better than current forms.
QuoteEverybody's utility bill is "connected to both the electricity they use and their heating/air". As far as the power company is concerned, a kilowatt-hour is a kilowatt-hour. It doesn't matter how they are used, just how much of them are used.
Not everybody's and gatorback pointed out an example of how. However, keep in mind that ambiant heat given from having the lights on can make a difference of 1-2 degrees in a home. Take away that ambiant heat, and I guarantee you there will be a few more people who turn their thermostat up. Let's not forget businesses like restaurants and hotels, either.
QuoteAnswer me this, if there is no gain to be had by switching to CFLs why would power companies (JEA for example) be airing commercials that recommend switching to save money? JEA is a publically traded utility. Do you think they stand to gain more money?
Two of the three largest light bulb manufacturers (Sylvania and GE) are base in North America. Philips (the largest) is based in the Netherlands. All three manufacture about every type of lightbulb under the sun and will not be losing money or laying off workers by manufacturing more CFLs than incandescents. And your statement that we would have to pay more for a "shitty product" is unresearched and false. Currently CFLs are more expensive but are getting cheaper by the day. As more of the market makes the switch the prices will continue to drop and will eventually cost as much as a standard incandescent.
Jason, are you purposely not reading the last part of several of my posts? It's
ALL about the money. Do some research on where these CFLs are being made, and you will find that it isn't in the US. Incandescent bulb factories remain in this country, but they won't be when this ban is made. Those plants are expensive to run and maintain because of labor costs, state health fees, and EPA regulations. It's more cost effective for those light bulb manufacturers to make a less effective, lower quality product, sell it at a higher price, and have it manufactured outside of this country. The analysis isn't false. Currently, CFL bulbs cost $3.00 as to an incandescent that costs 50 cents. Your argument ignores the basics of economics: taking out the competitor price isn't going to magically reduce the price of CFLs. Why decrease the price when people
HAVE to pay for it if they want lighting? A great example of this is the gas prices.
QuoteFor the same reason people still buy standard televisions versus plasma or LCD, the cost!!
Another apples to oranges comparison. The government is artificially creating demand. In the cases of tapes to CDs, VHS tapes to DVDs, and regular TVs to flat screen LCDs,
ALL of those changes were created by the market without government intervention. Consumers proceeded to buy products that got better in quality, durability, and practicality over time. With the bulbs and the cars, the market is being forced to accept these products as the market standard. We are being forced to accept products that WE DON'T WANT!
QuoteThey are not an imitation, they can be made to produce the same temperature rating as an incandescent. Is "different" a bad thing?
You just said in an earlier post that the CFL "mimicked" incandescent lighting. I've seen these lights, and they do nothing of the sort. The warmth and feel of a room/house/restaurant/hotel will be significantly altered.
QuoteI'm not sure what you mean by "industrial fluorescents". A standard 2'x4' fluorescent fixture that sits in an acoustical tile ceiling system uses a 4' long fluorescent tube lamp. Yes, that lamp is different in size, however, it still produces the same type of light and is not more "industrial" than a CFL. An "industrial" designation is reserved solely for the fixture itself and how that fixture is built. You would be hard pressed to find an incandescent light anywhere inside a hospital save some low-voltage accent lighting...
...Again, I'm sure about your terminology. I think you're confused. A single CFL will not replace 3 of the large tubes you speak of. Those tubes are already fluorescent and are already effecient.
Jason, have you seen how much light only one of those 2X4 tube lamps emits? By itself, it's pretty dim. So, a CFL will have the same light as one of those tubes. That's pathetic. One 60 watt incandescent is brighter than one 2X4 flourescent tube. That's a fact.
QuoteRight, there are more and more people everyday being born into this world which is a great reason to do whatever it takes now to increase our effeciency and reduce the amount of fossil fuels used to provide everyone with power. There is only so much on this planet available for consumption and it needs to be preserved.
Hence, my reasoning for more nuclear plants, which is the cleanest and most reliable source of energy available. But why the emphasis on fossil fuels, Jason? Again, you seem to want to follow the global warming crowd in your motivation for change, especially in agreeing with this BS bill. I'm all for alternative energy, but for different reasons, mainly energy independence.
QuoteMy examples may be a bit extreme when compared to the impact of outlawing incandescent lighting but the principle is the same. Sure lead paint, asbestos, freon, DDT, etc all have their uses but without the government's stance we would still be suffering these products negative side effects be those effect health related or other. The side effects of incandescent lighting are that they produce an unneccessary strain on our power grid and our wallets...
Extreme or not, it's not a legitimate comparison. How much power do you think your computer (among other millions of them) sucks out of the grid? TV sets? Stereos? Microwaves? (Why don't we just ban them with all the radiation concerns and tell people to cook on the stove again?) Ceiling fans? Incandescent lighting is chump change to the power grid and our wallets. What is apparent is that your approval of this bill means you give alot of credence to the pseudo-science of global climate change. And this bill will accomplish nothing in terms of "changing" the effects on the globe. It's a feel-good POS legislation. It makes politicians and companies look like they're concerned with the environment...continuing the self-destructive behavior that is political correctness.
QuoteFinally, a legitimate argument that has some substance. The mercury found in fluorescent lighting is a concern and needs to be addressed. But know that fluorescent lighting is not something new. It has been around for decades and isn't going anywhere anytime soon. If disposed of properly there is little threat but the average consumer is not likely to do so.
Well, I think that majority of the arguments are pretty legitimate, but at least we can agree on something.
2nd pancake, you mention facts. Please do not make me laugh. Tons of scientists have debunked these "facts"...it seems that the one "faith" you do have is in the Goracle. Have fun with that one. Oh yeah, please don't insult my intelligence by saying we deny that smog exists, Lunican. Again, as RG pointed out, man can affect the environment locally. But to say that man is powerful enough to change the climate of the planet is vanity.
Charleston, you're really not making any sense. A CFL puts out more lumens per watt than an incandescent, period. This means that you will use less energy lighting up your house with them. New CFL's have a temperature rating close to or equal to incandescents, making them look more yellow than harsh white or blue. Maybe you should just stock up on incandescent bulbs before this light bulb atrocity comes true.
QuoteJason, I'm all for efficiency and cleaner forms of energy, but only if they have the same amount of power quality or even better than current forms.
How many times do you need to hear that fluorescent light uses half of the power to produce the same amount of light. That, my friend, is efficiency.
QuoteNot everybody's and gatorback pointed out an example of how. However, keep in mind that ambiant heat given from having the lights on can make a difference of 1-2 degrees in a home. Take away that ambiant heat, and I guarantee you there will be a few more people who turn their thermostat up. Let's not forget businesses like restaurants and hotels, either.
What I've been trying to get across is that using your lighting to gain the 1 or 2 degrees of ambient heat consumes more power than simply turning up the thermostat. You are costing yourself more money by using your lighting to help heat your home.
QuoteJason, are you purposely not reading the last part of several of my posts? It's ALL about the money. Do some research on where these CFLs are being made, and you will find that it isn't in the US. Incandescent bulb factories remain in this country, but they won't be when this ban is made. Those plants are expensive to run and maintain because of labor costs, state health fees, and EPA regulations. It's more cost effective for those light bulb manufacturers to make a less effective, lower quality product, sell it at a higher price, and have it manufactured outside of this country. The analysis isn't false. Currently, CFL bulbs cost $3.00 as to an incandescent that costs 50 cents. Your argument ignores the basics of economics: taking out the competitor price isn't going to magically reduce the price of CFLs. Why decrease the price when people HAVE to pay for it if they want lighting? A great example of this is the gas prices.
I know where CFLs are being manufactured. As I stated before, two of the three largest light bulb manufacturers are located in the US. The third is in the Netherlands with multiple plants in the US, therefore, the majority of CFL light bulbs are manufactured in the US, not China. The competition between these companies will dirve the cost of the lamps down long before this bill goes into effect. Besides, even if the price holds at three dollars per bulb you will still come out ahead by paying less on your power bill and replacing bulbs less often. The three dollars spent on a CFL will be returned to you in about a year and a half (man i'm sounding like a broken record here) in the form of savings. An incandescent light bulb does nothing but cost you money and has absolutely no payback whatsoever. Why would you not accept something that will save you money an be virtually undetectable? I have a trained eye for lighting types and am not able to tell the difference between an incandescent bulb and a properly selected CFL.
QuoteYou just said in an earlier post that the CFL "mimicked" incandescent lighting. I've seen these lights, and they do nothing of the sort. The warmth and feel of a room/house/restaurant/hotel will be significantly altered.
In layman's terms yes, that's what I said. CFL can be built to produce the same light spectrum of an incandescent lamp and are readily available on every Wal-Mart shelf in America. They are made that way to reduce the impact on the consumer by limiting the noticeability factor. People are afraid of changing things they have grown fond of and are accustomed to. If the light looks the same but saves them money then its a win-win.
QuoteJason, have you seen how much light only one of those 2X4 tube lamps emits? By itself, it's pretty dim. So, a CFL will have the same light as one of those tubes. That's pathetic. One 60 watt incandescent is brighter than one 2X4 flourescent tube. That's a fact.
That is not a fact. One
60W incandescent A-lamp (shown below) produces approximately
850 lumens of light.
(http://www.smarthomepro.com/images/903303icn.jpg)
A standard
32W T8 fluorescent light tube (shown below) produces approximately
2,800 lumens of light.
(http://www.goodmart.com/images/prodimages/halco/prolume.jpg)
A
20W self-ballasted compact fluorescent light bulb (shown below) produces approximately
1,100 lumens of light.
(http://www.blog.thesietch.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/cfl_lamps_image.thumbnail.jpg)
Note that the fluorescent light bulbs shown above use 50% or less of the power (wattage) that a 60W incandescent and produce more light!
QuoteHence, my reasoning for more nuclear plants, which is the cleanest and most reliable source of energy available. But why the emphasis on fossil fuels, Jason? Again, you seem to want to follow the global warming crowd in your motivation for change, especially in agreeing with this BS bill. I'm all for alternative energy, but for different reasons, mainly energy independence.
I have yet to state a stance on either side of the global warming debate. I simply said that there are only so many fossil fuels on this planet to be consumed and when they run out we won't be getting them back. I also told you before that I agree with the necessity for a conversion to nuclear partially because of the limitations on quantities of fossil fuels and the clean power aspect of the nuclear.
QuoteExtreme or not, it's not a legitimate comparison. How much power do you think your computer (among other millions of them) sucks out of the grid? TV sets? Stereos? Microwaves? (Why don't we just ban them with all the radiation concerns and tell people to cook on the stove again?) Ceiling fans? Incandescent lighting is chump change to the power grid and our wallets. What is apparent is that your approval of this bill means you give alot of credence to the pseudo-science of global climate change. And this bill will accomplish nothing in terms of "changing" the effects on the globe. It's a feel-good POS legislation. It makes politicians and companies look like they're concerned with the environment...continuing the self-destructive behavior that is political correctness.
Technology does consume a lot of energy from the grid, hence the need to make these devices more effecient. I don't feel that this legislation is an end-all to the problems we are and will continue to face. It is in my opinion a good solid step forward into the 21st century and an example for other nations to follow. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
At the risk of making some even more furious, here is an article about an even more efficient bulb:
Quote
New LED Puts Incandescents, Fluorescents to Shame
(http://i.treehugger.com/brightled.jpg)
Seoul semiconductor has created a light emitting diode that emits roughly 240 lumens and claims the highest efficiency (amount of electricity to amount of light) of any light source. Fluorescents hit 70 lumens per watt, incandescents max out at 15, but this new LED emits roughly 100 lumens per watt. The results, if and when this technology gets cheap enough for the mass market, will be smaller, more efficient light sources, and lights that can exist in far different form factors than the current bulb or tube shapes. The devices also have applications in consumer electronics, specifically LCD back lights and projectors.
LEDs with similar efficiencies have been produced at universities, but this is the first time a corporation has begun creating these superefficient LEDs. Seoul Semiconductor says that, while this advancement is significant, they're moving forward with even more efficient LEDs. They expect, for example, a 145 lumen per watt LED by 2008, which would double the efficiency of standard compact fluorescents. We just have to wait and see how expensive they are.
Quote from: Lunican on January 07, 2008, 05:54:39 PM
Charleston, you're really not making any sense. A CFL puts out more lumens per watt than an incandescent, period. This means that you will use less energy lighting up your house with them. New CFL's have a temperature rating close to or equal to incandescents, making them look more yellow than harsh white or blue. Maybe you should just stock up on incandescent bulbs before this light bulb atrocity comes true.
I just may do that. What is being created is another form of Prohibition, and we all know how well that turned out. My point is that with the CFLs that I've seen, I truly believe the color and ambiance they give off is different. But that's not my main reason for hating this bill. It is government intrusion at the same level as Prohibition.
Quote from: Jason on January 07, 2008, 06:15:34 PM
How many times do you need to hear that fluorescent light uses half of the power to produce the same amount of light. That, my friend, is efficiency.
I'm talking about sources of power. The sources of power is what is important, and it shouldn't effect the standards that millions of households have in their equipment. Again, as I'm also repeating myself here, the intentions of this bill is to force people to use a product that many do not want. If the government wants to make power more efficient and cleaner, mandate innovations in power creation. Note that the bill did not address anything like that. My message to our government (including GWB, who I'm tired of defending and will not anymore): quit screwing with the average citizen.
Quote...Besides, even if the price holds at three dollars per bulb you will still come out ahead by paying less on your power bill and replacing bulbs less often. The three dollars spent on a CFL will be returned to you in about a year and a half (man i'm sounding like a broken record here) in the form of savings. An incandescent light bulb does nothing but cost you money and has absolutely no payback whatsoever.
I'm sorry, this is unproven. I'll believe it when I see it...then again, I can't really trust media sources anymore.
QuoteTechnology does consume a lot of energy from the grid, hence the need to make these devices more effecient. I don't feel that this legislation is an end-all to the problems we are and will continue to face. It is in my opinion a good solid step forward into the 21st century and an example for other nations to follow. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
I guess so. I think it is a step backward in the 21st century, IMO. At least we can agree on the "nuclear option".
While this technical discussion has been quite interesting, the fact remains that this so-called energy bill should have been returned to Congress with a request to craft a REAL energy bill.
This bill will do nothing to enhance effieciency or even begin to solve our energy supply problems. There is nothing in the bill to increase domestic energy production, streamline the nuclear power development process, or provide incentives for refinery construction. The first version of the bill from the House even included a provision for increasing taxes on suppliers which would have further increased the prices of an already artificially high commodity. Every alternative fuel at this point provides nowhere near the efficiency of current fossil fuel products. And if you think the magical alternative is going to show up in the next 20 or 30 years I have a bridge I would like to sell you unless you've found the efficient catalyst to crack hydrogen from seawater.
More efficient lighting = drop in the bucket. Smaller cars = better gas mileage = more miles driven(unless gov't plans on controlling that also) = no gain. Ethanol = lower efficiency = higher fuel prices = higher food prices = waste of resourses.
As has been correctly stated, this is government interference at it's most unproductive level. They have outdone themselves. Not content with interference on the supply side they have started to hit the demand side as well. You can't get any more efficient at creating an even larger problem.
The present administration and Congress seem content to wait for disaster to strike. Considering the current price spikes caused by speculators manipulating risk factors and the inaction of government to take any concrete steps to so improve energy matters, a single major disruption in supply will cause major problems for our economy and security. Unfortunately, I believe this will have to happen before there is enough of an outcry to take constructive action.
Quote from: Lunican on January 07, 2008, 08:40:13 PM
At the risk of making some even more furious, here is an article about an even more efficient bulb:
Quote
New LED Puts Incandescents, Fluorescents to Shame
(http://i.treehugger.com/brightled.jpg)
Seoul semiconductor has created a light emitting diode that emits roughly 240 lumens and claims the highest efficiency (amount of electricity to amount of light) of any light source. Fluorescents hit 70 lumens per watt, incandescents max out at 15, but this new LED emits roughly 100 lumens per watt. The results, if and when this technology gets cheap enough for the mass market, will be smaller, more efficient light sources, and lights that can exist in far different form factors than the current bulb or tube shapes. The devices also have applications in consumer electronics, specifically LCD back lights and projectors.
LEDs with similar efficiencies have been produced at universities, but this is the first time a corporation has begun creating these superefficient LEDs. Seoul Semiconductor says that, while this advancement is significant, they're moving forward with even more efficient LEDs. They expect, for example, a 145 lumen per watt LED by 2008, which would double the efficiency of standard compact fluorescents. We just have to wait and see how expensive they are.
That's it. I'm lobbying for a new law. LEDs FOR EVERYONE!!!! ;) ;D
Quote from: jaxnative on January 07, 2008, 11:36:09 PM
While this technical discussion has been quite interesting, the fact remains that this so-called energy bill should have been returned to Congress with a request to craft a REAL energy bill.
This bill will do nothing to enhance effieciency or even begin to solve our energy supply problems. There is nothing in the bill to increase domestic energy production, streamline the nuclear power development process, or provide incentives for refinery construction. The first version of the bill from the House even included a provision for increasing taxes on suppliers which would have further increased the prices of an already artificially high commodity. Every alternative fuel at this point provides nowhere near the efficiency of current fossil fuel products. And if you think the magical alternative is going to show up in the next 20 or 30 years I have a bridge I would like to sell you unless you've found the efficient catalyst to crack hydrogen from seawater.
More efficient lighting = drop in the bucket. Smaller cars = better gas mileage = more miles driven(unless gov't plans on controlling that also) = no gain. Ethanol = lower efficiency = higher fuel prices = higher food prices = waste of resourses.
As has been correctly stated, this is government interference at it's most unproductive level. They have outdone themselves. Not content with interference on the supply side they have started to hit the demand side as well. You can't get any more efficient at creating an even larger problem.
The present administration and Congress seem content to wait for disaster to strike. Considering the current price spikes caused by speculators manipulating risk factors and the inaction of government to take any concrete steps to so improve energy matters, a single major disruption in supply will cause major problems for our economy and security. Unfortunately, I believe this will have to happen before there is enough of an outcry to take constructive action.
Wow, jaxnative, I couldn't have said it any better. We can all get caught up in the technical aspects of a fricking light bulb, but it won't change the facts that you have just said and that I have been trying to convey. This bill is government counterproduction/inefficiency/bureaucracy at its best (or worst). Fantastic post!
QuoteI'm talking about sources of power. The sources of power is what is important, and it shouldn't effect the standards that millions of households have in their equipment. Again, as I'm also repeating myself here, the intentions of this bill is to force people to use a product that many do not want. If the government wants to make power more efficient and cleaner, mandate innovations in power creation. Note that the bill did not address anything like that. My message to our government (including GWB, who I'm tired of defending and will not anymore): quit screwing with the average citizen.
True, the source of power in this state is very dated and there is no desire to change that even at the state level. Nuclear power is very much needed, IMO, but requires a 15-20 year process to even get approval to finally start construction which can take another couple of years. In the long run I would love to see nuke plants springing up across this state and rest of the country. But in the short term we have to work with what we have, and what we have is an aging power generation system that relys on increasingly more expensive fossile fules (petrolium coke, and coal) that are harder and harder to find and very expensive to store. Doing what we can today to help releave some of the burden of power system will benefit us in the short term as well as the long term, if and when we finally get nuke plants or even some other form of electrical power generation.
If power generation becomes the target of legislation like this then we'll most certainly see increases on our utility bills. Besides, no matter how the power is produced (save some revolutionary new technology) only so much can be produced before the distribution system is spread so thin that brownouts still run rampant. And if a revolutionary new technology is discovered it will be decades before it can become mainstream. It is up to the consumer to do what they can to decrease their consumption and persue alternative methods of power generation themselves. Solar and wind power are gaining steam and companies are springing up that offer cheaper start-up costs, redundant power supply when a connection to the utility is maintained, and built-in emergency power during storm situations. If these consumer based power generation options become widespread we will all benefit from less pollution generating power plants, be them coal-fired or nuclear. Again, in the end it will be up to the consumer, IMO.
As far as the car discussion is concerned, almost every major advancement in the American automobile (from seatbelts to airbags to fuel-effeciency) has been the result of federal legislation. This bill extends over a 12 year period and is a slower paced "phase-out" of incandescent light bulbs and gas guzzling vehicles. Both of these industries are already advancing toward meeting these criteria. Not a year goes by that 10 new cars, trucks, or SUVs hit the market boasting increased fuel effeciency. Its going to happen one way or the other but this bill, IMO, hurries the process a bit. I can understand your concerns on the government toying with the market, but I don't see this as being a cataclismic doomsday for the US market. Its just a small push for the consumer to start doing more help the whole. The technology is already there, it just needs to be implemented.
QuoteI'm sorry, this is unproven. I'll believe it when I see it...then again, I can't really trust media sources anymore.
I did the math for you on the first page. I am in the process of converting all of my incandescent bulbs over to CFLs and when I get a couple of months of usage on my bill I'll share the numbers with everyone.
QuoteThat's it. I'm lobbying for a new law. LEDs FOR EVERYONE!!!!
LEDs are absolutely amazing. There are endless applications for the things and they are only getting better.
QuoteSolar and wind power are gaining steam and companies are springing up that offer cheaper start-up costs, redundant power supply when a connection to the utility is maintained, and built-in emergency power during storm situations.
Just to further emphasize this statement, if you produce your own power and remain 'on-the-grid', not only will your costs be offset by the power company, but you could even receive a check in the mail from them to you. What a change, eh? Imagine, getting a check every month FROM JEA instead of having to pay them!
^ That is true. However, JEA nor FPL currently participate in that program. I'm sure that they would consider it if the use of solar and wind power became more widespread.
Here is the website of a company that offers a cheap solar alternative by taking the amount you currently pay to the power company and locking in that rate for 20 years. The kicker is that they want a $500 deposit up front to design the system. You essentially rent it from them for 20 years at a locked in rate. They design, install, and maintain it and if you decide you don't want it they come and take it away. I've been considering this for quite sometime and am just waiting to find someone who has the system installed that would be willing to answer a few questions.
http://renu.citizenre.com/
Quote from: Jason on January 08, 2008, 09:36:15 AM
...I did the math for you on the first page. I am in the process of converting all of my incandescent bulbs over to CFLs and when I get a couple of months of usage on my bill I'll share the numbers with everyone.
Will you also include the $1200 cleanup charge for proper cleanup and disposal of a broken bulb into your math? Also, be sure to show your receipt for the total amount of bulbs you had to pay for.
QuoteWill you also include the $1200 cleanup charge for proper cleanup and disposal of a broken bulb into your math? Also, be sure to show your receipt for the total amount of bulbs you had to pay for.
We've already debunked your "hazardous materials" issue, so $1200 is not an issue. I'm sure he'll not only include the initial cost of the replacement bulbs, but will also factor in the cost of purchasing incandesent bulbs at least once a month, over the 2 year lifespan of a CFL.
Charleston and Second_Pancake... I'll include all you've requested in my full report! :)
The $1,200 clean up fee was by an environmental contamination expert. If a break a bulb I'll try to approximate the cost of vacuming it up with my bagless vacuum cleaner and then dumping the contents into a plastic bag and tying it shut. I could also assume the cost of a vacuum cleaner bag for those that don't have a bagless vacuum.
Jason, your comments have been amazing and I have learned so much. Thanks for taking the time.
Here is the info from JEA about their solar incentive program and net metering.
We are getting ready to install a PV system this month.
QuoteJEA will net meter for residential solar PV or wind generation systems. ....
Residential net metering requires first that the system be installed in accordance with JEA rules and regulations and that JEA inspect the system to ensure it complies. JEA will then install a meter that, essentially, turns backwards when the customer system is generating more electricity than the customer uses. This is subtracted from the amount of electricity that JEA has delivered to the customer. The amount of electricity that a customer is billed for by JEA is reduced by the amount of electricity exported to JEA.
JEA does not pay the customer for any electricity delivered to JEA. JEA, in effect, provides credit at the full retail rate. If the situation ever arises that the customer sends more electricity to JEA than JEA sends to the customer, the customer pays the basic customer charge for service.
Quote from: second_pancake on January 08, 2008, 10:00:47 AM
We've already debunked your "hazardous materials" issue, so $1200 is not an issue. I'm sure he'll not only include the initial cost of the replacement bulbs, but will also factor in the cost of purchasing incandesent bulbs at least once a month, over the 2 year lifespan of a CFL.
That issue was hardly "debunked", because it still is an issue in terms of being good stewards of the environment. Jason himself even admitted that was a legitimate argument.
Jason, I'm sure that is a good way of disposing it, but I don't think a plastic bag can eliminate the possibility of mercury seeping into the ground. If you truly want to help the environment, I'm sure you want to follow the government guidelines on proper disposal. I'd hate to see you get in trouble. ;) So, if you were following proper guidelines, I would think you'd include the disposal fee.
QuoteJason, your comments have been amazing and I have learned so much. Thanks for taking the time.
Here is the info from JEA about their solar incentive program and net metering.
We are getting ready to install a PV system this month.
What system are you installing, if you don't mind my asking?
QuoteJason, I'm sure that is a good way of disposing it, but I don't think a plastic bag can eliminate the possibility of mercury seeping into the ground. If you truly want to help the environment, I'm sure you want to follow the government guidelines on proper disposal. I'd hate to see you get in trouble. So, if you were following proper guidelines, I would think you'd include the disposal fee.
I'm going to look into the proper method to dispose of mercury. From what I do understand it is bagged up in a hazmat bag and taken to a special facility. I'll get back with you on what I find out.
Solar modules made by BP in Connecticut for flat roofs, 5KW system.
If you are worried about breaking a bulb in your house, buy CFLs that have a plastic bulb around the spiral tube.
^ Great poing Lunican. Many of these new bulbs actually look just like an incandescent bulb.
Here is a pic of what they can look like...
(http://www.dannylipford.com/images/article/cfl-bulbs.jpg)
Charleston Native, here is the EPA's recommended method of disposal...
QuoteFluorescent light bulbs contain a very small amount of mercury sealed within the glass tubing. EPA recommends the following clean-up and disposal guidelines:
Open a window and leave the room for 15 minutes or more.
Carefully scoop up the fragments and powder with stiff paper or cardboard and place them in a sealed plastic bag.
Use disposable rubber gloves, if available (i.e., do not use bare hands). Wipe the area clean with damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes and place them in the plastic bag.
Do not use a vacuum or broom to clean up the broken bulb on hard surfaces.
Place all cleanup materials in a second sealed plastic bag.
Place the first bag in a second sealed plastic bag and put it in the outdoor trash container or in another outdoor protected area for the next normal trash disposal.
Note: Some states prohibit such trash disposal and require that broken and unbroken lamps be taken to a local recycling center.
Wash your hands after disposing of the bag.
If a fluorescent bulb breaks on a rug or carpet:
First, remove all materials you can without using a vacuum cleaner, following the steps above. Sticky tape (such as duct tape) can be used to pick up small pieces and powder.
If vacuuming is needed after all visible materials are removed, vacuum the area where the bulb was broken, remove the vacuum bag (or empty and wipe the canister) and put the bag or vacuum debris in two sealed plastic bags in the outdoor trash or protected outdoor location for normal disposal.
Source: http://www.epa.gov/hg/spills/index.htm#flourescent
Quote from: lindab on January 08, 2008, 11:53:36 AM
Solar modules made by BP in Connecticut for flat roofs, 5KW system.
Check out this site if you haven't purchased anything yet. It might be worth looking into.
http://renu.citizenre.com/
Quote from: Jason on January 08, 2008, 12:30:30 PM
Charleston Native, here is the EPA's recommended method of disposal...
QuoteFluorescent light bulbs contain a very small amount of mercury sealed within the glass tubing. EPA recommends the following clean-up and disposal guidelines:
Open a window and leave the room for 15 minutes or more.
Carefully scoop up the fragments and powder with stiff paper or cardboard and place them in a sealed plastic bag.
Use disposable rubber gloves, if available (i.e., do not use bare hands). Wipe the area clean with damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes and place them in the plastic bag.
Do not use a vacuum or broom to clean up the broken bulb on hard surfaces.
Place all cleanup materials in a second sealed plastic bag.
Place the first bag in a second sealed plastic bag and put it in the outdoor trash container or in another outdoor protected area for the next normal trash disposal.
Note: Some states prohibit such trash disposal and require that broken and unbroken lamps be taken to a local recycling center.
Wash your hands after disposing of the bag.
If a fluorescent bulb breaks on a rug or carpet:
First, remove all materials you can without using a vacuum cleaner, following the steps above. Sticky tape (such as duct tape) can be used to pick up small pieces and powder.
If vacuuming is needed after all visible materials are removed, vacuum the area where the bulb was broken, remove the vacuum bag (or empty and wipe the canister) and put the bag or vacuum debris in two sealed plastic bags in the outdoor trash or protected outdoor location for normal disposal.
Source: http://www.epa.gov/hg/spills/index.htm#flourescent
Good to know, Jason.
Interesting that if a regular bulb breaks, all I've got to do is sweep it and put it with the rest of the garbage.
I mean, hey, with a newborn son, full-time job, and trying to maintain good health, I've got all the time in the world. :D
Facts about mercury...
QuoteMercury is a natural component of the earth, with an average abundance of approximately 0.05 mg/kg in the earth’s crust, with significant local variations. Mercury ores that are mined generally contain about one percent mercury, although the strata mined in Spain typically contain up to 12-14 percent mercury. While about 25 principal mercury minerals are known, virtually the only deposits that have been harvested for the extraction of mercury are cinnabar. Mercury is also present at very low levels throughout the biosphere. Its absorption by plants may account for the presence of mercury within fossil fuels like coal, oil, and gas, since these fuels are conventionally thought to be formed from geologic transformation of organic residues.
The mercury available on the world market is supplied from a number of different sources, including (not listed in order of importance):
Mine production of primary mercury (meaning extracted from ores within the earth’s crust):
either as the main product of the mining activity,
or as by-product of mining or refining of other metals (such as zinc, gold, silver) or minerals;
Recovered primary mercury from refining of natural gas (actually a by-product, when marketed, however, is not marketed in all countries);
Reprocessing or secondary mining of historic mine tailings containing mercury;
Recycled mercury recovered from spent products and waste from industrial production processes. Large amounts ("reservoirs") of mercury are "stored" in society within products still in use and "on the users’ shelves";
Mercury from government reserve stocks, or inventories;
Private stocks (such as mercury in use in chlor-alkali and other industries), some of which may later be returned to the market.
Mercury does not harm the environment, it IS the environment. The danger with mercury is to human beings and other organisms for which it is known to be toxic. If someone dumps a bunch of mercury into the St. John's, then our water supply is contaminated and we could get sick or die. If the mercury is put into a plastic bag (which takes approximately 1000 years to completely disenegrate), and placed into a modern landfill, there is little to no risk at all of any human/other organism contamination.
Here's information on our landfill systems: https://static.wmdisposal.com/files/brochures/modern_landfill.pdf (https://static.wmdisposal.com/files/brochures/modern_landfill.pdf)
As you can see, our modern landfills have complete leachete systems to prevent toxic leachwater from leaving the landfill and contaminating areas that produce product for human consumption. They also contain water monitoring stations and the soil and water in landfills go through testing for any levels of possible toxic waste. The modern systems are so effective in preserving the contained waste, that they are known to be very INeffective in doing what they were designed to do; composte waste.
QuoteGood to know, Jason.
Interesting that if a regular bulb breaks, all I've got to do is sweep it and put it with the rest of the garbage.
I mean, hey, with a newborn son, full-time job, and trying to maintain good health, I've got all the time in the world.
No doubt, I have an 8 year old, 1 year old and another on the way. The last thing I want to have to deal with is potential mercury contamination. The CFLs I'll be buying will have the protective plastic cover for sure! The good thing is that I can't remember the last time I've broken a light bulb, so for me having to worry about it is a non-issue anyways.
QuoteMercury does not harm the environment, it IS the environment. The danger with mercury is to human beings and other organisms for which it is known to be toxic. If someone dumps a bunch of mercury into the St. John's, then our water supply is contaminated and we could get sick or die. If the mercury is put into a plastic bag (which takes approximately 1000 years to completely disenegrate), and placed into a modern landfill, there is little to no risk at all of any human/other organism contamination.
Right, if it is properly disposed of (as outlined above). But the problem is that the average person is likely unaware that trace amounts of mercury is found in CFLs or even that it is harmful. Luckily the manufacturers are making moves to better protect the bulbs and contain the harmful materials preventing our ignorance from harming us. :)
Quote from: second_pancake on January 08, 2008, 02:07:47 PM
Facts about mercury...
...As you can see, our modern landfills have complete leachete systems to prevent toxic leachwater from leaving the landfill and contaminating areas that produce product for human consumption. They also contain water monitoring stations and the soil and water in landfills go through testing for any levels of possible toxic waste. The modern systems are so effective in preserving the contained waste, that they are known to be very INeffective in doing what they were designed to do; composte waste.
<Sigh> I find it amazing how you can rationalize something that indeed poses health risks. Ever hear of tears in plastic bags? They do happen. I mean, this is ridiculous. You're finding every excuse in the book to rationalize usage of these bulbs, yet you'll cry bloody murder with cars on the road. I'm done with this debate, guys. The bottomline is that you don't have to worry about disposal methods and health concerns with the old reliable bulb. I think a little common sense should be applied here. Next, you'll be rationalizing the federal government's ban on candy bars because of obesity. Thanks for the frustration...
Typical. When facts are presented contrary to your claim it's someone else's attempt at "rationalizing" ::). No wonder you're so frustrated. It must be very difficult to live life with a blind eye and a closed mind...oh, and let's not forget the deaf ear since no where in any of my posts have I EVER cried "bloody murder" about cars being on the road. It's nice to know there are still people in the world who have no desire to make a judgement based on the individual, but rather a group of individuals for which they have no first-hand knowlege. Warm fuzzies.
Oh, and just so you know, incandesent bulbs are made of glass. When glass shatters it poses a hazard to all exposed flesh as it can cut and become lodged underneath said skin. In fact, I just did it yesterday...stepped right on the glass with my barefoot.
Quote from: second_pancake on January 08, 2008, 04:23:54 PM
Typical. When facts are presented contrary to your claim it's someone else's attempt at "rationalizing" ::). No wonder you're so frustrated. It must be very difficult to live life with a blind eye and a closed mind...oh, and let's not forget the deaf ear since no where in any of my posts have I EVER cried "bloody murder" about cars being on the road. It's nice to know there are still people in the world who have no desire to make a judgement based on the individual, but rather a group of individuals for which they have no first-hand knowlege. Warm fuzzies.
Oh, and just so you know, incandesent bulbs are made of glass. When glass shatters it poses a hazard to all exposed flesh as it can cut and become lodged underneath said skin. In fact, I just did it yesterday...stepped right on the glass with my barefoot.
Good night! 2nd pancake,
your response is typical. I've wasted countless minutes explaining to you my opinion, using facts and common sense. It is you who have joined the new cult religion of environmentalism and who refuses to even acknowledge the possibilities, since you "know" that there is glo-bull warming, and the bulb changing will solve the problem. Then you use ridiculous arguments such as bulbs being made of glass...using that logic, we should ban many more things.
Talk about a closed mind...you're so intent on "saving us all from glo-bull warming" that you refuse to even use common sense. Logic. Rational thought. The only reason you love CFLs is because of its supposed benefits to the environment. Yet, you overlook the most obvious argument against using them. Talk about blind faith and allegiance. The only reason I'm frustrated is that I'm wasting my time debating this obtuseness. I've got better things to do.
We will just have to agree to disagree, as Jason said earlier.
Quote from: Charleston native on January 08, 2008, 05:21:21 PM
We will just have to agree to disagree, as Jason said earlier.
I have another idea. How about you come up with 5 scientific facts to support your claim (provide a link or quote the source) that CFLs are dangerous because of the levels of mercury. Not biased right-wing, opinion pieces/columns, but actual facts about mercury and the levels within a CFL that would make them a hazard to humans. If you can do that, then I will have no other choice than to concede my point about disposing of them.
pancake: I think you should do the research this way you can skew or change the numbers to prove your point a la the current administration!
Quote from: gatorback on January 08, 2008, 09:34:37 PM
pancake: I think you should do the research this way you can skew or change the numbers to prove your point a la the current administration!
Lol. I had to reread this a couple of times before I actually understood what you were saying ;)
pk: are you seriously saying an administration's politicized agencies don't skew data, muzzle scientists and generally lie to americans? Now that's funny. hahah
ps: this applies to both democrats and republicans so I don't want to hear any party bickering.
Quote from: gatorback on January 08, 2008, 10:33:56 PM
pk: are you seriously saying an administration's politicized agencies don't skew data, muzzle scientists and generally lie to americans? Now that's funny. hahah
ps: this applies to both democrats and republicans so I don't want to hear any party bickering.
I was agreeing with you, and I found what you said ironic and humorous is all. They DO skew data...and so do the representatives of said parties as was demonstrated in this topic post. Someone can show all day long how 2+2=4, but there will always be someone who comes along to claim otherwise and will come up with a million ways to make it add up to 5. It doesn't make it real.
guy walks into a job interview. the interviewer says "I've read your resume, verified your contacts, pretty impressive, let me ask you this. What does 2+2=? The guy said 4 and the interviewer said I'll get in touch with you.
next guy walks in, the interviewer says, "great college, awesome resume, what's 2+2?" The interviewee said "4". The interviewer said I'll be getting in touch with you.
the third guy walks in the interviewer said, "never heard of that college, couple of mistakes on your resume, and I've not verified your contacts. Let me ask you this question, what's 2+2".
The interviewee said, let me think about this....anything you want it to be." They guy said you got the job!
I love that joke. Sad but true. I know this first hand learning from the best--the Firm.
BTW, here is Steve Forbes' take on the light bulb debacle:
QuotePoisoned Bulbs
The idiocies emanating from congress have made its popularity ratings even worse than those of the current White House occupant. The latest example: Our national legislators are banning traditional incandescent light bulbs, which were invented by Thomas Edison more than 120 years ago. By 2014 these bulbs will be illegal. Instead, we'll be coerced into paying six to eight times the price of incandescents for supposedly more "efficient" compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) that last longer and consume less electricity. Well, if CFLs are so great, why do we need a law to force us to buy 'em? Why can't politicians set aside their Nanny Bloombergesque dispositions and let the markets work?
But there's a more immediate problem: Each CFL bulb contains about 5 milligrams of mercury, a highly toxic and indestructible substance. It's like bulbs with asbestos. Billions of these bulbs will be everywhere. If one drops and breaks, you've got a problem, especially if you have small kids or pets roaming around.
Here's a harbinger of the crisis to come from an item in Investor's Business Daily: "According to an article in the Apr. 12, 2007 issue of the Ellsworth [Me.] American, [Brandy] Bridges was installing one in her daughter's bedroom when it dropped on the floor and shattered. Luckily, Brandy knew CFLs contained mercury and called the store where she bought hers for advice. She was advised to call the Poison Control hotline, which in turn directed her to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection. DEP showed up and found that mercury levels in her daughter's room were six times the state's 'safe' level. The DEP specialist gave her a 'low-ball' estimate of $2,000 to clean up the room."
Think about the challenge of disposing of all this mercury when the bulbs ultimately burn out.
Too bad Edison isn't around to invent a suitable punishment for the dim bulbs who passed this legislation.
http://www.forbes.com/columnists/forbes/2008/0128/017.html
There was a lot of outrage in this thread over the banning of incandescent bulbs for the sake of the environment so I'd like to let everyone know that Home Depot now sells an LED bulb that looks identical to an incandescent for $9.97.
http://www.homedepot.com/p/Cree-6-Watt-40W-A19-Warm-White-2700K-Dimmable-LED-Light-Bulb-1-Pack-BA19-04527OMF-12DE26-1U110/203991778#.UgD7sW18wcs
The price of LED bulbs has fallen rapidly and the quality of the light and choices of bulbs has greatly expanded. We changed to all LED bulbs in our great room and kitchen and with everything turned on (requiring sun glasses!) we are only burning 70 Watts.
It's not the quantity of light it's the quality of the light, more specifically I guess the color spectrum, that's the problem. LED and CFL lights have too much harshness and glare for me.
That bulb I linked to is indistinguishable from an incandescent. Try it if you don't believe me.
My issue is the quality, and quantity of light produced. They are too bright to look at, and too dark to read from, more than a foot away. You can seen this especially with LED, versus Halogen flashlights. The LED is bright white light, but won't illuminate more than a few feet. The Halogen, or other incandescent will throw a beam of light far away. The color spectrum for CFL's is better, but not great. The brightness also diminishes rapidly further away from the source. I think there is still work to improve them, and also elimination of mercury, or other toxic elements.
^The new LED bulbs are not at all what you describe.
They also have a new streetlight bulb: http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-57597262-1/cree-$99-led-streetlight-could-come-to-a-city-near-you/ (http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-57597262-1/cree-$99-led-streetlight-could-come-to-a-city-near-you/)
Quote from: mbwright on August 07, 2013, 08:54:10 AM
My issue is the quality, and quantity of light produced. They are too bright to look at, and too dark to read from, more than a foot away. You can seen this especially with LED, versus Halogen flashlights. The LED is bright white light, but won't illuminate more than a few feet. The Halogen, or other incandescent will throw a beam of light far away. The color spectrum for CFL's is better, but not great. The brightness also diminishes rapidly further away from the source. I think there is still work to improve them, and also elimination of mercury, or other toxic elements.
Not sure what sort of LED you are referring to, but you can simply look at the LED headlights and see a world of difference.
Quote from: mbwright on August 07, 2013, 08:54:10 AM
My issue is the quality, and quantity of light produced. They are too bright to look at, and too dark to read from, more than a foot away. You can seen this especially with LED, versus Halogen flashlights. The LED is bright white light, but won't illuminate more than a few feet. The Halogen, or other incandescent will throw a beam of light far away. The color spectrum for CFL's is better, but not great. The brightness also diminishes rapidly further away from the source. I think there is still work to improve them, and also elimination of mercury, or other toxic elements.
You've clearly never seen a modern LED from the last year or two. I have a flashlight the size of a cigar that uses 3W and puts out almost 1000 lumens. That thing will practically blind you, it lights up my whole street at night. Even at that level the (single) battery will last for hours. It cost $17.
Quote from: mbwright on August 07, 2013, 08:54:10 AM
My issue is the quality, and quantity of light produced. They are too bright to look at, and too dark to read from, more than a foot away. You can seen this especially with LED, versus Halogen flashlights. The LED is bright white light, but won't illuminate more than a few feet. The Halogen, or other incandescent will throw a beam of light far away. The color spectrum for CFL's is better, but not great. The brightness also diminishes rapidly further away from the source. I think there is still work to improve them, and also elimination of mercury, or other toxic elements.
mb, you haven't looked at the LED's in a loooong time, about six months at least. Stuff has really changed quickly. You have at least three different color temperatures and MUCH better quality light than CFL's.
Home Depot has a really good selection and all Kelvins of all shapes, sizes and wattages of LED lights.
Like 30% of all men, I am red-green color vision deficient. Being older my eyes are even less sensitive than they used to be. I find the bright white, high Kelvin temperature LED's let me see colors and details better than any other lights. I've gotten to the point that the "warm white" incandescent color temperature is horrible to me.
Try them out, especially in the lamp you use for reading.
OK, I'm going to say it. I changed to mostly CFL's and saved a small but noticeable amount on my electric bill. I looked at this LED bulb last week, but am choking on paying $10 for a light bulb when a CFL is about $2 or less. They wattage isn't that much different. But I do see the point about the mercury. Looking forward to how quickly LED's come down the way CFL's did a few years ago.
Debbie, the LED's last much longer than CFL's and are actually cheaper to purchase in the long run as well as cheaper to run.
Well, maybe, but how much do they save? And how long does it take? LED's cost about 6 times more than a CFL without a huge difference in wattage used. (For a 60W incandescent bulb, CFL is 13 watts, LED is 9 watts.) Home Depot. 4 pack of 60w is $6, or $.75 each. 4 pack of 13w CFL is $7 or 1.75 each. One LED is $9.97. (Actually Homedepot.com says $12.97) So LED is 13 times more than 60w, almost 6 more than CFL.
How long does it take to recuperate the difference? Will I still be alive? Reason I ask. Everyone thinks moving into an old house, you should replace the historic windows in the name of efficiency. Do you know it takes 400 years to realize the savings? 400 years. I replaced windows in two houses, not historic houses, but they had old awning windows. I was so sure I would save money on my electric bill. The window salesman was full of stories about how much I would save. Know what I saved. Nada. Zilch. No difference in my electric bill. Ditto with replacing my window AC units with central. Didn't save a dime.
So....not trying to argue here. Just wondering how long it would take me to realize the savings in electric charges versus the difference between a $.75, a $1.75 and a $10.00 light bulb. It's not simple math, but simple math would say the $10.00 bulb is roughly 7 times more efficient (9w vs 60w) but costs 13 times more. The CFL fares better at about 2 times more, but 4 times more efficient.
Which is why I said when LED's come down like CFL's have, I'll be buying them. :-) At one time, CFL's were way more than they are now.
For 1000 hours of use, a 60W incandescent will cost ~$8.40 whereas a 9W LED will cost ~$1.26. The 13W CFL will cost ~$1.82. One thousand hours being 8 hours of usage for 125 days naturally, but you're getting close to washing out the difference in purchase cost at that point between incandescent and LED. That's with a kilowatt hour being $0.14, which is a fair estimate based on usage fees and taxes.
CFLs right now by-far represent the best bang-for-buck, whereas LEDs are the best bet for those looking to save, but also want the best lighting performance. Over the next few years, LED bulbs are only going to get cheaper, and the cost of kilowatt hours is only going to increase.
LED's also last over 50,000 hours. CFL's not so much. How many new CFLs would you have to buy in 50,000 hours?
Debbie, you are right on about "energy efficient" windows here. Maybe your energy savings would be more in Portland Maine, but not in Jacksonville. We just don't have the temperature extremes between inside and outside like they do in colder climates. Jacksonville, FL in winter; 32 outside 68 inside. Difference 36 degrees. Portland Maine in winter, 0 degrees outside 68 inside. Difference 68 degrees.
You can put clear IR reducing film on your old windows and make them as good as the new, ugly windows for a fraction of the cost.
"The End of the Light Bulb as We Know It"
In the electrical world they are known as "lamps".
Thank you, Josh. You did the math for me. So when LED's come down in price, I'll buy them. I already converted to CFL's when the price came down. Right now, I just have a problem with a $10 light bulb, unless it's an Edison style bulb for the antique light fixture in my dining room. That, I'm going to buy. Not so much for the table lamps I use a couple of hours a day, if that. 50,000 hours. Hmm....that LED light bulb may outlive me. Maybe not such a bad investment after all. I can leave them to my grandchildren! LOL
That adds a whole new twist to historic heirloom lighting fixtures! ;D