60- and 40-Watt Bulbs Banned for 2014: What You Need to Know | Decorating Guide - Yahoo Shine
I had not seen this before, nor knew the 100 and 75 watters had gone to the dust bin of history. Maybe stocking up on a couple hundred and putting them away may be worth it in 20 years or so...just like the old PCs and video games today.
Turns out there are (at least) two different types of CFLs. The one I was aware of simply steps up the voltage to ionize the mercury vapor causing release of photons of two specific spectral lines, which strike phosphors on the inside of the tube and - voila! Light.
But it turns out there's a second type of CFL that doesn't have electrodes. Instead, it creates a high frequency (1-100MHz) emf field that ionizes the mercury. The advantage is: No electrodes to fail. These are "long life" bulbs.
I also came across some other interesting tidbits of information. As I already knew, the light created by CFLs is actually UV, it strikes the phosphors on the inside surface of the tube which then reradiate the energy in the visible region of the spectrum. Which raises the question of UV leakage? Cataracts anyone? It turns out that the phosphors are also poisonous, so it's not just the mercury vapor. And I didn't realize that fluorescent lights in general had to have both fluorescent and phosphorescent properties. Since the field reverses 120 times per second, the fluorescent output rises and falls with the sine wave. But by adding phosphorescence, the light is "carried over" during these "dark" spots.
And this is interesting: In regard to the "dirty electricity" bulbs, the harmonic production can potentially damage (over time) the power company transformers (or so it is claimed). This means CFLs of the second type may increase maintenance costs - and hence, the cost of electricity. In general, because all fluorescent lamps involve use of inductive elements, the power factor of the source will probably have to be adjusted. It's not a big deal when a few lights add to the inductive load. But over the next few years as every house converts most lights to CFL (if that happens) the PF could become an issue for power companies. Too, these types of bulbs have EMI filters that shunt the unwanted harmonics to ground, so the problem may never manifest itself to an observable extent. Since the "dirty" bulbs have to convert AC to DC to drive an oscillator, there may actually be useful components in defunct bulbs for the electronics experimenter (like mosfets/hexfets and tranformers - components you can use to build your own low-current power supplies).
Circline fluorescents turn out be be one of the best tradeoffs between power, efficiency, longevity of all fluorescent lamps. These are the circular fluorescents (6"-16" in diameter) or the type you generally find in articulated magnifier lights and in ceiling fixtures. Who knew?
Interestingly, HID lights, metal hydride and sodium vapor are among the most efficient. NaV is pretty "orange", but the metal hydride lights look interesting. Think "football stadium" lights. Also, "HID headlights" on some cars. High temperature seems to be a factor for home use.
As for the health effects of CFLs (related to the hf emf) at a guess, if you're not terrified of your cell phone, there's probably little to worry about in that regard. It turns out that the caution regarding interference comes from the fact that television, AM radio and FM radio all occupy parts of the 1-100 MHz band. If a bulb is "transmitting" in the band, it could easily interfere with nearby receivers. But "nearby" is most likely a relative term. If you put a lamp on top of your AM radio, you're more likely to have problems than if you put it a few feet away.
Incidentally, I received my Sylvania 60W bulbs today. It's a little discouraging. They're ratd at 855 lumens at 130VAC, but carry the caveat, "This product is designed for 130 volts. When used on the normal line voltage of 120V, the light output and energy efficiency are noticeably reduced." The 120V ratings (on the bottom of the box) indicate light production of 665 lumens... a reduction of about 22%. Given the non-linear response of the human eye, I don't expect this to be a big deal... but it galls a bit.
Overall, for most applications, if you want high-quality light, the halogens seem to be the best bet. LEDs are pretty good - but high-wattage LEDs aren't cheap and if for any reason the heat sinking fails, your 50,000 LED can become a 10-second LED! After that, incandescent, and CFLs. Incandescents won't improve. CFLs will.
In a year or two CFLs will probably be the low-cost general-purpose king, but right now, the metal halide is reputed to be the fastest-growing light tech. Must be a lot of retrofits going on.
Regards the nasty bits in the lights - LEDs, incandescent, halogen generally get a pass. I sense that the mercury and tube coating of CFLs (and fluorescents generally, for that matter) are largely overblown. Metal halide is interesting because the gas inside can be at pressures as high as 70 atmospheres! That's right, almost 1000 psi. And they get HOT. That's why they have an "inner" bulb and an "outer" bulb and are NOT recommended for uses where spewing 700F glass pieces might present problems. In industrial use, these lights typically have a housing to catch any hot shards. Oh yeah. And they require a ballast, with is an additional cost (often more than the cost of the light).
Halogen, fluorescent and LED look pretty good to me. In a few years, I may add CFL.
When you can just use incandescent bulbs to do the same thing? Talk about inefficiency.
The German study said in part:
"But the German scientists claimed that several carcinogenic chemicals and toxins were released when the environmentally-friendly compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) were switched on, including phenol, naphthalene and styrene."
These chemicals, in addition to the growing reports by doctors of skin and other health issues from using CFLs too close. Add to this the emissions from Smart Meters, about to be forced upon us, and we will all face the Obamacare death panels.
How much will our heating costs rise, when the old lights bulbs no longer help keep us warm as we sit by them on dark cold winter days? Government does not care, smart meters will still turn down our electric.
How many of us can afford a Hazmat team when we break a CFL? How long before we are charged, as in Britain, to dispose of the evil things, at the Ministry of Light Bulbs. Rand must be turning in her grave, even though she predicted it in "Anthem".
Andreas Kirchner, of the Federation of German Engineers, said: “Electrical smog develops around these lamps.
That said, the GOAL of CFLs is laudable, but the execution is the technical equivalent of Obamacare. CFLs don't produce uniform light per use, or over their lifetimes. They also do not last anywhere near their rated lifetimes (in my experience). In some uses, an incandescent is no less efficient, if only because the heat they produce would be needed to heat a home anyway.
When it comes to "more efficient" lighting, my personal favorite is halogen for most uses. It's ~40% more efficient than regular incandescent lights, and produces the best quality of light you can get for anything like a reasonable price. LEDs are also a pretty good choice - but buy them on EBay, not in the local store.
Finally, if you want to stock up on 60Watters before they become unavailable, you can buy a case of 24 for $9 on Amazon. At 37 cents a bulb (and free shipping if you have "Prime"), it could be a nice bridge from "banned bulbs" to "reasonably priced, comparable quality light" replacements.
I've a stack of 100 watt bulbs in my closet. I'd like to get more if I can. But I have no use for dim bulbs like 60 watters.
The implementation may be evil, but that is quite separate from the goal.
I suspect that lighting technologies would have eventually overtaken the incandescent bulb - at least in warmer climates - because there's no point to a light source that produces far more heat than light once more efficient and cost-effective alternatives are developed. Yes, there are still people using candles to light their homes instead of those "newfangled Edison things", but that's no longer the norm. Lighting accounts for something like 10-20% of the average home energy budget (if sources are to be believed). Reducing that usage by half reduces overall domestic energy usage by 5-10%. That's not the solution to the meaning of life and the universe and everything - but it's a pretty substantial start, and as energy prices rise, the efficiency becomes more persuasive.
wow-that comma is important!
"the goal of using less energy is not evil." depends on what the goal is. Your examples are not evil- efficiency based on cost and heat output. But I get into the argument all the time-what's wrong with saving energy? cutting down on emissions? the Kyoto Treaty?
there's always those opportunity costs and false premises. So, please understand my concern over "reducing that usage by half reduces overall domestic energy usage by 5-10%" Why do I need to consider the drop in domestic energy usage by 5% or 10% is necessarily good? Here is where "my" goal becomes "the goal" and that's on the road to evil...
Reducing demand by 5%-10% means less plant is needed, less fuel is needed and demand is decreased. That means lower prices and less consumption of natural resources.
Where's the evil?
The analogue is gas prices/auto efficiency. As gasoline prices rise, consumers naturally look for options that reduce the impact on their bottom line. Your argument would be that this is evil too.
What the government has tried to do is the equivalent of forcing everyone to buy a Prius. That's insanity. But the goal of everyone using more efficient auto technology is not in any way "evil". It's just that the implementation should follow from market demand.
Unfortunately, while the market eventually figures things out, it can be very slow to respond because it is comprised in large part by imbeciles.
Not to defend the government, but imagine how things might be different if, instead of waiting until gasoline was expensive to develop efficient auto tech, it had been done 50 years ago? At the very least, demand would be less and gas prices would be lower. But there wasn't any profit in it because at that time gas was cheap and the microcephalics buying cars saw no need for efficiency.
Unfortunately, the average person is a moron. They see no farther ahead than what expenses will do to their bottom line THIS week. Most will buy a 500 hour bulb as readily as a 2000 hour bulb - never factoring the the operational cost of the former is FOUR TIMES the latter. If the purchase price of the 2000 hour bulb is up to 4x that of the 500-hour bulb, it's a better deal. But people don't think that way. They see the former is 67 cents and the latter is $1, and they buy the cheap bulb… BECAUSE THEY'RE STUPID.
While I don't doubt that there's corruption in the government's implementation of the high-efficiency bulb efforts, the intention is to flatten the curve - to avoid the spikes in electricity pricing that we've seen in gasoline pricing. In effect, the goal is akin to keeping the price of gasoline below $2/gallon, not by rationing it, not by subsidizing it, but by reducing demand through more efficient vehicles.
What's evil about that?
Oh, and if you want to buy gasoline, wheat and electricity just to waste it - that's your privilege. But you don't need light bulbs to waste electricity. Just keep the heat running in your house at all times, and use fans to exhaust the air that is too hot to be tolerable. Or buy a big resistor and just run your electrical feed directly into it. You'll be able to waste megawatts every month.
CFLs? I have two of them. They're both burnt out and I have not been impressed with them. I have no plans to buy any more for the foreseeable future - but I do understand the tech will improve, probably already has improved, and may some day revisit the option. For now, most of the bulb replacements are LEDs bought on line at EBay.
Personally, what's most important to me is the utility and quality of light. I use halogen bulbs for most general lighting. For close work, I use fluorescent ring magnifier lights. For reading and other intermediate/close work I use LED lights (typically converted from incandescent). I have a few incandescent lights that rarely get used (the light kits on ceiling fans). I have two incandescents in the kitchen, and incandescents in the bathrooms (where the failed CFLs reside) but plan to replace them with halogen/LED at some point. I'm in no hurry. For outside lights, I use halogen and incandescent spot lights. And no one had to twist my arm to go with any of those. The LEDs, and fluorescents especially are welcome because of the low levels of heat they produce, which is important when you're working close to the light. The halogens produce the best quality of light.
and here we go-
you have no idea what trades people make-you have no idea if they are stupid or not. If I am renting a house and leaving in 2 months-what is the advantage to me in buying a 2000hr bulb? even if we said everyone is willing to do it-this assumes that this is the best possible return for everyone in the economy. there s no way that could be true.
and YOU are making assumptions that natural resources are meaningfully scarce. The scarcity argument has never been shown to be important. Peak whale oil, peak bat guano...peak oil.
Plans made to these assumptions, laws passed etc have always backfired and not achieved their stated goals and created new problems.
utility and quality are perfectly reasonable attributes defining the value of a product.
and thanks for the rest of the info on the different characteristics of each type of bulb
What percentage of Americans move in a two-month period? (Answer: About 2%.)
Given the relative prices I offered, what is the payback period for the 500 v. 2000 hour bulb?
(Answer: 746 hours not including the time/effort to do a second bulb change.)
Will a 500-hour bulb last 500 hours?
(Answer: About half the time. Failure intervals are generally expressed as MTBF, which means roughly half of all 500 hour bulbs will fail before 500 hours.)
When the Germans buy 2000-hour bulbs and move out in two months, they take the light bulbs with them. And they still save money over your approach because they get $2.68 worth of light bulb for a buck as compared to the loser's choice… your choice.
Now if you plan to DIE within 500 hours of bulb use, go right ahead.
If you could ignore supply side economics, the cost of any commodity would only be the cost to procure it and transport it plus profit. So of course gasoline is $3.50 a gallon because it costs 10x as much to distribute as it did 40 years ago (or the dollar has lost 90% of its value in 40 years). Right?
Wrong.
We've never had shortages of gas in America, right? Wrong.
You seem incapable of comprehending that the fact that there's relative plenty of some resources NOW does not mean that those resources will be plentiful FOREVER. Energy is one area where demand is outstripping supply. Take a look at California and its rolling brownouts, a result of NOT ENOUGH POWER. Guess what? If their demand had been 10% lower, NO BROWNOUTS. Global demand for energy is expected to rise by 35% over the next 30 years. That means that if morons keep buying YOUR argument, we'll need a new power production plant for every three that already exist. OTOH, if we were to reduce consumption in current usage by 25% over the same period, we might be looking at one new plant for every 10. Are you really so dense that you cannot see that? Or do you think power plants are free and grow on trees?
The majority of people (esp Americans) ARE morons. And they're getting dumber. What's your alternative explanation for electing Obama… twice?
http://hallingblog.com/sustainability-is...
http://www.dirtyelectricity.ca/cfl_light...
While CFLs are indeed more efficient, reducing energy usage (and costs to me), I am more inclined to skip to the LED bulb, when I can find one that is half decent. It did take 2 years to get to where they made LEDs bright enough that flashlights now are brighter with LED than they were with hot, nasty burn your car (yes they did, a police van in Dallas, TX burned up when one was accidently switched on) halogens.
Turning to his first error - only a moron would employ the Second Law of Thermodynamics to argue that the Brundtland Report goals are impossible. Of course, in a literal sense, they are, because, at some point the universe will run down. What makes his "analysis" fail as a matter of gross stupidity is that there's no evidence that homo sapiens will ever operate on the time line that he suggests - billions of years. So is it literally true that "sustainability" cannot continue FOREVER?
Yes.
Is it relevant to anything?
No.
Creating a boundary about the solar system and pronouncing that "some day it will all wind down" in the context of establishing resource policy is at best pointless mental masturbation. The author's limited intellect would be better employed definitively establishing how many angels may dance on the head of a pin. And yet he seems oblivious to that. Instead, he appears to argue that it has some relevance to life.
As a practical matter (and there's no point to the discussion unless it addresses practicality), sustainability has real and local applications, and we've scarcely had the ability to deplete resources for long enough to provide a reliable guide to the extent of our ability to overcome shortages. This is the author's SECOND major failing. He effectively argues that because he was able to pay his rent this month, and his power bill, and that he has successfully done so for the past 4 months, that he will forever and always be able to do so. That is, when he needs a resource, he will simply conjure a solution to provide that resource, or, failing in that particular resource (say dollars), he will be able to come up with a different resource (say, gold) - which may be used in its stead. Moreover, he makes the argument that he is so resourceful that he will be able to do this forever, regardless of whether his power bill quintuples, his rent has to be expressed in scientific notation or he suddenly has 10 billion more relatives to support.
Applying the author's own absurd methods, and positing that there is a total of 71 trillion tons (~6.4E16 kg - about 1000 times the total of all known reserves) of phosphorous available to homo sapiens, WLOG, assume 1% of human body weight is phosphorous and that an average human masses 70kg. When the world population reaches 92,000,000,000,000,000 people, technology will provide a way for the human body to use a different chemical element in the place of phosphorous.
khaling - your ability to plumb the depths of irrelevancy and ignorance continues to entertain and amaze. I don't know how you find such falderal, but surely you must have a method for locating the most twisted, pathologically stunted pseudo scientists ever to grace the internet. For this latest gem, I can only offer Wolfgang Pauli's observation, "Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!" I can only surmise that you have offered this link for its comedic effect, and had no intention of making a serious argument.
Thank you. I got quite a good laugh from it.
1) The Brundtland Report goals are impossible because they violate entropy, they are an attempt to make a system that has 100% efficiency that is impossible.
2) Why is this relevant? Because attempting to create the impossible always results in failure. As your California electrical power example proves. For years, CA focused on conservation which resulted in the lack of infrastructure that result in the rolling brown outs. The solution of the sustainability crowd was more conservation, which was the cause of the problem in the first place.
3) Inventions are the way man changes the world to meet his needs. The sustainability crowd wants us to renounce our tool for survival our mind and renounce technology (inventions) to solve our problems, which is the only tool we have. Instead they want to use the point of a gun instead of logic to force us to revert technologically to the stone ages, while pretending they are for new technologies such as the low power light bulbs.
4) Phosphorous: First of all estimates about the amount of a resource we have on Earth almost always turned out to be incorrect. Second of all you have limited your thinking to the Earth. Third of all you have ignored that chemical elements can be made. Your ‘limited resource’ thinking is without basis in fact, history, or logic and is based on a lack of imagination. If you had been alive for the nitrogen problem, instead of learning to fix nitrogen you would have suggested rationing at the point of gun.
5) Ultimately you don’t care about lack of resources, what you care about is controlling people.
2) Conservation was NOT the cause of rolling brownouts. How could it have been? If everyone used LESS power, there would not have been MORE demand on resources.
3) I don't know what the "sustainability" crowd wants. I don't care. Are you unable to comprehend that if we use LESS of something we may not be forced to innovate at a higher rate than possible? Are you incapable of imagining a case where a resource is limited, and there IS NO ALTERNATIVE?
4) Again, you need to read and at least TRY to comprehend. You'll note I started out assuming 1000 times the sum of all known phosphorous deposits. **poof** There goes your whole "limited resource" thinking. But what tells me you have no idea what you're talking about is that you accepted the possibility of more than 92 quadrillion people living on earth. That's THIRTEEN MILLION TIMES as many as are here now. Seriously? 13 million Los Angeles? 13 Million Mexico Cities? 13 million New York Cities? If you don't understand that you have no clue of the scope of the mathematics - quit now.
5) B.S.
1) Conservation was the cause of the lack of power. Conservationists stopped the building of new power infrastructure in favor of conservation. More people live in California now and conservation cannot shrink demand as fast as the growth in population. Your complete lack of understanding of basic math and physics is outrageous.
2) Your hypothetical is not reality. What if we discover an asteroid with a billion times the phosphorous? What if we evolve to not need phosphorous? What if the proven reserves are billion times bigger than you think? We can play the hypothetical game all day long. That is not reality, it is not physics, it is not logic, it is BS. BS designed to allow you to justify using a gun to force other people to your agenda. You are a nothing but a two-bit statist.
Here's proof:
1) I posited 6.4E16 kg of pure phosphorous.
2) You came back with "What if we discover an asteroid with a billion times the phosphorous?"
3) That would be 6.4E25 kg.
4) The mass of the EARTH is 5.97E24 kg.
Only a fool would offer, "What if we discover an asteroid with [MORE THAN TEN TIMES THE MASS OF THE EARTH of pure] phosphorous?", as a solution to the problem of scarcity of a resource.
Note, this is characteristic of ALL of your arguments.
What if pigs had wings?
What if you had a brain?
Never mind. They don't. You don't. Apparently your husband doesn't.
Having definitely established that you ARE a fool, I will no longer engage your foolishness - lest (heeding the old adage) people not recognize the difference.
Try dealing with facts. And the facts are your proposition to force everyone to buy certain light bulbs is Tyranny and not good economics, but typical of people who believe they know how to run everyone's life
What is the greatest possible rate of human innovation?
Why would we ever want a situation where we're not driven to innovate?
"Are you incapable of imagining a case where a resource is limited, and there IS NO ALTERNATIVE? "
Yes.
If you have children, may they be among the 15 million who die each year of starvation.
Oh… I guess they just didn't "innovate" fast enough. Too bad. At least we know from you that it wasn't a shortage of food that caused them to starve.
Enjoy your christmas dinner.
ace, then your solution is to conserve
1) True. Of course, that's why I mentioned, "Creating a boundary about the solar system…" because the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is only known to apply in a bounded space. But you apparently missed that, because:
a) You don't know what you're talking about, and,
b) You don't read carefully.
2) Sustainability is not, "an attempt at creating a perpetual motion machine." That's some dimwit jackass' characterization of the effort.
Let me give you an example you might be able to understand. You have a two-years supply of corn and a fallow field. You have to eat. Do you,
1) Eat a portion of the corn and plant a portion (sustainability), or,
2) Eat all the corn and plant nothing trusting that you will "invent" food when you need it? (your approach)
From a business perspective, which is smarter?
1) Mining bauxite for aluminum at a cost of $1750/ton of Al++, or,
2) Recycling used aluminum at a cost of $1600/ton?
Of course, in YOUR world, we not only throw away aluminum cans and the like, we then pay people to pick them up and put them in waste dumps.
The "Morin" who states that inventing is "the only way" to "increase" our standard of living is, at best, narrow-minded. (It is also perhaps a bit self-serving for a patent attorney to declare "inventing is the only way".) If he earned his degrees and actually understood what he was studying, he should know his argument is self-defeating.
Allow me to demonstrate.
When the "Morin" says, "inventing is the only way to increase our standard of living", he asserts that no existing method can be used to accomplish that goal.
But if that were true, innovation would not help either. Why?
Because as soon as something is discovered/invented, it becomes an "existing" method and, under "Morin" logic, it can't help us. What the "Morin" overlooks is the fact that there is a vast wealth of known technology that has not been implemented, and that conservation is about using those existing technologies to make more efficient use of resources.
To illustrate: Gasoline is a resource that has had, in this Country, periods of shortages (whether man-made or natural does not matter). In 1975, the average efficiency for a car was about 17mpg. In March of 1981, gas prices hit a local maxima of $3.61/gallon. Demand for fuel efficacy increased, and by the early 1980s, average efficacy was up to about 25mpg - an improvement of ~ 47% in a period of less than 5 years. This wasn't due to any new discoveries. It didn't rely upon previously unknown information. It was primarily a result of people WANTING to apply current technology to achieve a better result. Conservation. Did it improve people's "standard of living"? To the extent that they could now travel 47% farther for FREE, I'd argue it did. Efficeincy increased by a further 3mpg between 1983 and 1987.
Fuel prices declined until about 2000 with their greatest rate of sustained decrease between about 1984 and 1987. Note that this is the expected result. A reduction in demand presages a decline in price. But eventually, the number of vehicles on the road overtakes the increase in efficiency and the price begins to rise again.
Efficiency went flat between 1987 and 2005, and the rate of decease in gas prices flattened substantially and then began turning upwards.
By July, 2008, gas prices had climbed to another local maxima of $4.36.gallon. It should not be surprising that between 2005 and 2010, once again driven by public demand, fuel efficiency again increased, this time by about 4mpg. In 2009, gas prices briefly plunged - a direct result of our government's stupidity with regard to money policy (the 2008 crash) rebounding over time, but not yet returning to the July, 2008 levels.
Now you may think that some magic technology was invented in 1981 that radically changed the amount of gaoline required by the average car. You would be wrong. The fueleconomy.gov site lists 5 technologies associated with improved gas mileage. They are:
Variable Valve Timing - dates to the age of steam engines
Cylinder Deactivation - late 19th century
Turbochargers & Superchargers - 1860
Automatically turn engine off while idling - 1980s
Direct Fuel Injection - 1902
Only one of these technologies was derived in the 1980s, and it has not been widely implemented. The other four predated the rise in efficiecy by decades. What was missing was implementation of existing technology.
Now I put this question to you: Given that the technology to do most of this improvement in efficiency was available at the turn of the century, why in the early 1970s did we have 17mpg automobiles?
The answer is, "Morins" saw no need to conserve.
The interesting thing about the government's programs to force the populace to use more-efficient lighting technology is that it's TOO far ahead of the curve. No, I don't like government force either. In fact, I don't much care for government. It's like the government announcing that cars have to get 25mpg... in 1975. The IDEA is correct. We'd be better off if we did it. Don't waste resources. The IMPLEMENTATION is... "morinic".
Actually, fuel efficiecny is a very good illustration of the extremes of ignorance and stupdity in the conservation debate. On the one hand, there are policians who won't be happy until the government is demanding 100 mpg internal combustion engines. They seem to think that the laws they pass trump the laws of physics. They are blissfully unaware of thermodynamics and the limitations imposed by the Carnot cycle. These imbeciles often regard the "laws of phyics" as "the suggestions of physics".
On the other end of the spectrum are "Morins" who should know better, who declare that when resources run short, we'll just have to invent an internal combustion engine that's more efficient than the Carnot engine. What the former don't understand is that a Carnot engine is not practical and what the "Morins" apparently don't understand is that physics doesn't just suggest new solitons - it also places limits on what's attainable.
No, you're right; it is an attempt to enslave people under a false religion.
Sustainability- a nice sounding word which has no meaning that can be used except in appealing for support for the new religion.
'Enslave' a strong word, not too strong as can be seen from the effects of legislation put up by the progressivistas.
that scientist is my husband. EE, MS Physics, JD.
This one's a physicist, another one's an engineer, another one's a lawyer...
Just teasing...
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." - Heinlein
At least we know how you were able to find the resource.
"Reducing that usage by half reduces overall domestic energy usage by 5-10%."
My personal energy usage is not 5-10% of overall domestic energy usage.
I will use... and waste... however much energy I can afford to acquire, and from that however much energy I choose.
My energy usage is mine, not the nations.
It's like those productivity measures that declare how much productivity is "wasted" by people not working 24/7/365.
None of my productivity is wasted if I choose not to produce for a period. My productivity belongs to me, and I sell it to whomever I choose, it does not belong to the collective.
If you want to cut down on energy waste...
figure out how to shut down the sun.
Or surround it with solar panels.
I need no more reason to use incandescent bulbs than that I *want* to use them.
No one who lives in a house in the U.S. should ever whine about "efficiency".
>>>> True, but the whiners are just wasting their own money, like the ones who stick to 100w incandescent bulbs for spite. Just like the unknown truism that "EVERYONE who owns a house lives in Affordable Housing." And ALL housing is "affordable" although not affordable by EVERYONE. So should the goal be to make ALL houses affordable to everyone?
Again, I took advantage of rebates and discounts and tax credits and put 20 solar panels on the roof of my home, with an expected payback of 6-8 years... even faster if electric rates go up. THEN I continued to replace most of the incandescent bulbs in my home with LEDs. Pricy? Certainly! Same light output at 1/4 the power consumption (energy use, electric bill) as an equivalent incandescent? You betcha! And nobody forced me to do it.
Except by making other, already inexpensive sources of energy more expensive.
Except by picking the pockets of rational people to subsidize your choice.
Nah, you weren't 'forced' to do it... the rest of us were 'forced' to accept it, by legislative fiat and media brainwashing.
By your "logic," as you just stated, I should continue to use "generally accepted solutions" if they're cheapest because using alternatives will make the cheap ones more expensive...
What is that? A "Common Good" goal? C'mon...
"Picking the pockets of rational people to subsidize my choice"???
I made my OWN rational and financial decisions based on the availability of solutions which were available to me in the marketplace. Are you saying that accepting a tax break or credit or "discount" on anything is stupid or "unfair" because refusing it might make the product or service cheaper for "everyone else"? You've got to be kidding me.
Yes, I was NOT "forced into the decision." I had the same opportunity decades ago when I lived in California. In fact, my home there would have been MUCH more suited to solar electric than my current home due to its location, climate and "way the roof pointed." But the payback would have been something like 20-30 years, and that's a crappy investment in my book.
The credits, rebates, discounts and whatever were put in place BY legislative actions and were available to ANYONE who chose to sign up for them. Nobody forced into or out of the program.
In fact, it's "us" early adopters who pay the HIGHER up-front costs of new and better technologies which help grow the production volumes of the industries which ENABLE the industries to drive the selling prices DOWN for "everybody." You should THANK ME for that. I'm voluntarily giving up my future retirement dollars to help make these new things available to YOU in the future (if you ever choose to buy them,) and to anyone else who so chooses.
I bought a $20k list-price system, fully installed, for a NET out-of-pocket cost of about $8k, which, again, made the payback period even shorter.
And the "legislative fiat" was put in place by legislators ELECTED BY THE GENERAL POPULATION... Trust me... I only voted once for anyone who might have been elected, and odds are I voted against the folks who enacted the legislation. Blame someone else, ok?
Do you deliberately avoid stores that have "SALE" signs in their windows?
It's the irrational people who vote bozos into office who enact these laws, stupid as you might think the voters OR the laws might be.
I was taking advantage of the Free Market Choices available to me. I'm not in business to subsidize anyone else, but if some moron(s) are that willing to subsidize ME, I'm a fool to not take advantage of what's offered.
And I don't feel "immoral" at ALL about it.
I'll give you one example that initially shocked me until I understood how the guy's decision was made...
A VERY conservative friend described his job. I said, "why the HELL do you need a job? You're retired and well-off!"
He replied, "Well, here's the deal: they give me full insurance benefits, a retirement plan, other financial benefits, and I don't have to work more than about 4 months of the year! And the pay is nice, too! Why should I be so stupid as to turn down such an offer? They hired ME under those agreements and enjoy the benefits of MY skills that I'm being paid for!"
But, H, here's the punch line... who's his employer with all those perqs and benefits for "so little work"? The local IRS office.
If I had skills marketable or useful to an employer like that, that would be me in the lobby filling out the application forms.
Merry Christmas.
I made my OWN rational and financial decisions based on the availability of solutions which were available to me in the marketplace. Are you saying that accepting a tax break or credit or "discount" on anything is stupid or "unfair" because refusing it might make the product or service cheaper for "everyone else"? You've got to be kidding me. "
A tax *credit*, or a government mandated discount, are taking money collected via taxation and putting it toward your solar home.
Note I didn't condemn you for what I regard as a frivolous waste of time and effort; that's your right. You need no more justification for it than that it amuses you.
I don't recall calling you stupid for taking money offered. But, if a store offered you a discount on a Rolex, what would your position be if he was able to give you the discount because he stole it? Or forced others at the point of a gun to give you part of the money to pay for it?
Any and all of the discounts, credits and bargain elements which were made available to me were available, and legally, to anyone who chose to do so. If you don't like the situation of "the common man" being taxed by the State to enable me to enjoy those discounts, the root cause problem is not me taking advantage of them, it's in the hands of the majority of voters and the people they elected who ENABLED all of those benefits.
Personally, I'd like to see ALL government subsidies eliminated so that the markets of all kinds can be "freer," but I've met VERY few people who seem to be willing to give up their home mortgage interest deduction as a "fair trade" for cutting subsidies to people and companies just so those beneficiaries can enjoy higher profits or monopoly pricing.
Mild, sugar, corn... what if the US lowered corporate taxes to be "competitive" with other countries? Maybe fewer companies would have to pay their financial and legal beagles as much money to hide and "offshore" their profits?
Nobody wants to give up anything. So the status will be quo for a long, long time.
Oh, and again, as an "early adopter," I paid upwards of $15 for some of the earliest screw-in fluorescents and CFLs, helping get that industry on the road (albeit in a tiny way). Just as I did with LED lighting in my home.
The good news, on my part, is that paying those exorbitant early market-clearing prices didn't impact my lifestyle very much at all, including the LEDs. When tubular LED lamps come down a bit more, ALL the fluorescents in my house will go. But I'm retired now, supported solely by SocSec and IRA withdrawals, so i'm a tiny bit more stingy.
Merry Christmas and happy holidays!
"Nobody wants to give up anything. So the status will be quo for a long, long time.
"
I don't want to give up 100 watt incandescent lightbulbs. Yet I'll be forced to once my stockpile runs out. The status is already no longer quo.
I was objecting to tax credits and rebates and discounts made possible by government force, not tax deductions. A tax credit is where the government gives one money, which it takes out of the pocket of taxpayers. Government mandated rebates and discounts either come out of the pocket of the seller of the product (which he will pass on to his other customers) or out of the taxes other people pay. Both of these are nothing less than redistribution.
"In fact, it's "us" early adopters who pay the HIGHER up-front costs of new and better technologies which help grow the production volumes of the industries which ENABLE the industries to drive the selling prices DOWN for "everybody.""
You wouldn't be an early adopter if it weren't for government coercion of the rest of us to buy into the Green religion. If left up to the free market, nobody would buy CFLs. When left up to the free market, solar power couldn't compete.
And if you want 100w lighting, try a fixture that holds three or so 40w bulbs.
If I cared, I'd design, patent and offer a screw-in adapter that held three of four bulbs and screwed into a standard bulb socket, mainly for desk and floor-style lamps.
That way, in the winter, you get about the same supplemental heating for your home from the wattage consumed. Of course, my home is heated by natural gas, which just might be cheaper, in total cost, than partial heating supplement of incandescent bulbs... Have you done the math on that?
ps. New LED lamps can replace 60-100w incandescents and do NOT look glaring-white like many CFLs or early LEDs. I prefer the 24-2700K LEDs' warmer color. Oh, and they're less prone to vibration damage than CFLs OR incandescents, so I even put them in the lamps I use over my lathe... and range hood. and living room ambient lighting... and in the six-bulb chandelier over our kitchen table... replaced six 60w incandescents with 15w CFLs and then dumped them for 7W or so LEDs. 42<360... Actually tried 10w LEDs, but they were too bright.
But then again… that's not new.
Someone try it and let me know how it turns out.
I don't know if it's a law or not (I'll have to look it up)... but I've got these two old halogen torichiers I mentioned. They use halogen bulbs, and full rheostats, not the 3-click things which are all you can get nowadays.
I wonder if I could make some sort of lamp-kit people could buy to build themselves halogen lights with the ability to set the light level to whatever suits them at the moment. Without violating the Green church doctrine (aka, "gov't regulations").
Incidentally, dimmed halogens reportedly burn out sooner than those operating at full power. Don't know why that's.
Of course, dimmers make "dirty electricity". (Actually, turning lights on/off do too.) Not that it's usually a problem.
I had to replace the rheostats on them a few years ago, picked up the replacements for 12 each at Ace Hardware.
I must have had them for 10 years before I had to replace a bulb, and I *couldn't* turn them both on full tilt... everything plastic in the room would have melted, and I'd have been blinded. lol
Hey, there's a thought... furnace is having trouble keeping the cold out... I may crank those babies up tonight...
Usually, the parts that fail are the bulb, the mounting hardware for the bulb, the pot - pretty much in that order. Typically the mounting hardware just keeps going through the heat/cool cycle until it just sort of gives up. When that happens, you can pick up new mounting hardware for a couple bucks. Pots are usually in the 50cent to $3 range, depending on where you get them. I probably have 3-4 of those old torchiere lamps that just keep going on forever.
I'm pretty surprised you got 10 years out of the bulbs!! Mine are usually good for couple of years - unless I buy the Harbor Freight Halogens… then the lifetime can be rated in hours. ;-O
One package slipped and broke a bulb (hey, it happens), and as I was cleaning it up, I checked the filament to make sure it wasn't fluorescent, since that would have required hazmat clean up procedures.
BTW, there is mercury in the coal burned to make the electricity. The higher wattage incandescent lights actually produce more mercury for the atmosphere than the CFLs.
LEDs use zero mercury.
Have you looked into the process for extracting mercury? The process releases sulfur dioxide.
So maybe the global warming on Venus was really caused by people making CFL bulbs and releasing all that S2O4 into the atmosphere...
I thought the post about the failure of LED runway and street lights informative. Seems snow just kinda covers them up. With the incandescents? Not so much.
As usual, the government can't act without screwing things up.
But, my living room doesn't have any planes landing in it. I run air conditioning in the summer and think electricity is an obscenely expensive way to heat.
So, I've opted for LED lights. It's nice to be able to turn them down low and warm with the fireplace going.
But building the things was always an entertaining experience.
There was one person we built a fireplace for. Oh, he was big on energy efficiency and weather sealing and all that.
We built the fireplace as he requested... days later he demanded we come back because the darn thing wouldn't draw.
He started a fire in the firebox to demonstrate...
My father just walked over to the nearest window and opened it a crack.
The fire burst into life.
Fireplaces are not exactly energy efficient, and when you're not using them, even with a damper and fire doors, you lose heat up the flue.
If you have a fireplace, and your incandescent bulbs are making that much heat... just open the damper and let the heat be drawn outside.
No need for air conditioning.
We still can buy incandescents in the gulch. Imagine being a criminal for bringing them into the US.
I personally go for LEDs but I understand the point about ambiant lighting.
I abhor CFLs. They take to long to get going and they make that noise sometimes and they are bulky and ugly. But good op GE makes bank. Get in bed with the govt and get them to make it a crime to not buy the product you really want to sell. And not hardly a peep from the populace.
There are people in the stores right now saying where did the cheap bulbs go?
Sometimes a craftsman creates a gem, then spends too much time polishing it. Doubtless, there are some parts that could be better. But time spent making those revisions would be better spent on a new work.
So what happens when the FG budget gets cut by 25%? Forget the congressional wrangling over what amounts to less than 1% of the budget - what happens when they have to slash 25%? If China won't loan money, who will? And at what price?
The Fed's policies MUST drive up inflation. That makes money more expensive - loans have to pay higher interest rates. But if that happens, the interest rate on the $17 trillion we already owe will eventually (sooner than later) reset and service on the debt will balloon. We've already seen interest rates at 21% within the past 50 years. Do the math! What happens if interest rates go to HALF that level? 10.5% of $17 trillion is $1.785 trillion. At present, the Feral Government takes in about $2.5 trillion from all sources! So between no one loaning us more money, and the crushing weight of debt service, the end result is slashing of the FG budget by ~77%.
So imagine the result when all the welfare recipients get their money slashed by 70% or more. When every Federal worker is looking at a bite of 70% being taken out of their paycheck. No money to pay the troops. No money to spy on Americans. No FBI, DEA, ATF, OSHA. No ability to control Americans - and a significant portion of the populace that is angry and desperate because they no longer get Federal candy in the mail. And don't forget inflation. Those dollars that are dispensed won't buy what they did just a short time before.
Most of the Federales who will be called upon to control Americans can't shoot for shit. They're cannon fodder. But it does explain the 1.6 BILLION rounds of hollow-point ammo recently purchased. It can't be used by the military. It's not suitable for training (because it's 2x as expensive as FMJ) and it's 5 times the amount needed to shoot every American.
I don't doubt that the political elite is desperate to maintain control. I think it adequately explains all the surveillance programs, the ammo purchases, the expanding federal police, the NDAA indefinite detention, the murdering of Americans without due process via drone strike.
My point is simply that the reason Obama can't send his brown shirts to attack and terrorize the citizenry is because they'd get shot all to shit. It's one thing to send two dozen cops to overwhelm the inhabitants of a single dwelling. It's quite a different matter when everyone in the neighborhood is willing to fight back.
I think the next American Revolution will be a violent one. It may not last long. Perhaps the enforcers will quickly learn that there's no point in dying for their political masters. But I don't doubt that at some point Obama will sick the dogs on the American People.
Far too many don't know about or failed to understand the significance of the police a nat. guard removing guns from everybody they encountered in New Orleans following Katrina. Ordinary citizens who were just trying to survive on their own were disarmed and left defenseless against the criminals who kept their guns.
People say it can't happen here, but it did, does and will again.
This was not a presidencal order or a govenors decree. A mayor decided that the constitutional rights of these citizens had to be ignored "for their own safety".
Here in Illinois, several politicians from the Chicago area have proclaimed that they would remove every gun from private ownership if they could. That only the military and the police should be allowed to have guns. If you think we'd ever trust these guys with enough authority to move on such a desire, get another thought.
Diane Feinstine has said many times that she would order the military to disarm the American people. These sort of politicians need to be impeached as soon as they are discovered.
Stay watchful folks.
Back when California implemented its "assault weapon" ban, the SKS rifle was initially considered a "good gun" that needed to be registered, but not disposed. Later, the state "changed its mind" and decided citizens couldn't own SKS rifles either. This set up a very interesting situation - precisely the situation that Second Amendment advocates have been warning about in regard to ANY registration system. The government knows you have (had?) the firearm. You haven't proven you no longer have it. They've made the firearm "illegal". http://www.wnd.com/1999/07/3745/
I recall seeing video of AR-15 owners shortly after the "ban" shooting at a local range and inviting law enforcement to come out an arrest them. None took them up on their invitation.
At the time I was speculating whether Gray Davis and "Celibate Bill" Clinton would coordinate an SKS roundup. The way I pictured things going down was a seizure here, a government-sponored home invasion there, a few more, a few more - AMBUSH! The assault team wiped out to last man. Snipers taking out cops at police stations. Cops being baited and executed. Politicians being targeted for assassination.
But it hasn't happened. Yet.
The battle of Athens comes to mind. For those not familiar;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5ut6yPr...
Or
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgspMlPP...
And they may be right.
I agree totally about the top brass, particularly after Obama's house cleaning of senior commanders. What is it up to now, some 180 or so?
Years ago there was a brouhaha over the Marines at 29 Palms being given a quiz containing the question, "If ordered to do so, would you fire on American citizens?"
The reaction of the Marines pretty well demonstrated that they were not (at least at that time) the president's "Brown Shirts".
I call it a wet dream because for me the events would be.
The Falkenberg Legion series takes place in a future where the U.S. and Soviet Union banned together and formed the "Co-Dominium". We've colonized dozens of worlds. Society on Earth is collapsing, with the big nuke war coming between the U.S. and Soviets.
The CoDominium navy, dedicated to preserving peace and the human species, had been trying to make the colonies stable and self-supporting for after Armageddon, but the personal interests of some corrupt CoDo Senators keep interfering.
The high Admiral of the fleet is forced to fire his best officer, and then sponsor him as a mercenary unit, to get the job done. This has earned him and the officer the animosity of ambitious and powerful Senator Bronson.
One of the successful colonies is Sparta, set up by academics, based upon the Hellenistic principles, and a dual monarchy. One must earn citizenship, but anyone can who tries, and those who don't retain protection for their rights.
Bronson wants to turn Sparta into one of his client states, and employs one of the most evil villains ever conceived in literature, Skida Tibideau of Belize.
Near the end of Prince of Sparta, the Admiral is dead, and Bronson has sent the CoDo Line Marines, the baddest asses in the universe, to bring Sparta to heel, and to capture the mercenaries' families and dependents.
The Spartans won't give them up, even when the mercenary in charge advises it.
And so the battle of Sparta city ensues. Rebel trash that had been formed into a viscious army by Tibideau attack at the same time. The main Spartan forces are still hundreds of miles away mopping up the last of the "official" rebel army, and all that are left are the Spartan auxillaries... citizens, to defend the city.
The Line Marines begin losing units.
For example, one Lieutenant and his sergeant are observing operations against Spartan snipers, and down the street comes a shopping cart pushed by half a dozen helots (rebels). In the shopping cart is a screaming Spartan citizen, tied to it with barbed wire, and burning alive.
The lieutenant turns off his radio and tells his men to clean house and rescue the Spartans. His sergeant's reply is that he hopes they *never* get that M-F radio working again.
At the Line Marine's headquarters, the 2nd in command is wrestling with his conscience; between his duty to his orders, and his sense of morality. When the king is killed trying to defend the flag of Sparta in front of his palace ("Spartans! The Helots have killed the king!")
He rebels. One of his men says, "Thank God", and at his questioning look says, "It was the helots, not us".
The Line Marines turn to save the Spartans, as the commanding colonel is relieved of his command.
(the story makes it clear that the colonel was obeying *politics* on Earth, rather than duty...)
Like I said... a wet dream. The actual case histories of decent armies turning against their governments are few and far between.
Why I should trust that progressive more than others... I can't answer.
LEDs have another advantage. You can change the level without the color changing. You can change the color to anything you want as easy as the level if you buy one that changes color.
Got a new LED TV that eats 100 w. It's bigger than the CRT I had that digested 400 w. The picture is better and it's a "smart" TV.
Things are getting much better, less expensive, last longer, and are more versatile.
Oh man... I just got an idea for a Portal/Obamacare poster...
...The costs for LED bulbs are not likely to go down as long as the government continues its fascistic practice of controlling the means of production and distribution via laws, taxes and regulations, or with subsidies for their cronies, like Jeff Immelt at GE.
When there is profit in innovation, industry NEVER needs government to redistribute the nation’s wealth to them. Only crony capitalists who purchase and own the loyalties of Congressmen and Women depend on the taxes of working Americans to subsidize their crooked enterprise.
If you are concerned skip the CFL step and go directly to LEDs.
http://www.earthtechling.com/2011/10/the...
http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/cfl...
http://www2.epa.gov/cfl/recycling-and-di...
http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/waste...
and this one:
http://www.cleanairpurewater.com/mercury...
Mercury is bad stuff and so there should be no "less than" or "better than", the coal burning power plants do indeed produce large amounts of mercury as well. Which is why they are supposed to have mercury removal devices on their exhausts.
Yes, we need more wind, nuclear, and hydro power.
Whatever the current whim of your current Marxist Overlords tell you to do, Winston.
Who are you to question?
Yours is to be the face for our boot, forever.
>>", besides some vague "market demand" what would you do to solve the energy and pollution problems?<<"
Besides the 'free market' of individual freedom, demand, cost, want, available resource, innovation, etc., work, can't think of much else.
Just picture the philosophical advances made during the enlightenment and the magnificent advances made in sciences and technologies during the 18th and 19th centuries.
Imagine what today could have been like had we not let progressives and collectivist take over our lives and minds for the last 100yrs.
Stem cell research has the potential to save lives, regrow limbs, fix spinal cord injuries, and a bunch of stuff we can't imagine yet.
But stem cell research has ben hindered by religious nuts.
Fact is that LEDs don't need high voltage energy hogging electric supplies.
Another fact is that LED displays don't need pounds of lead to shield folks from X-rays produced by CRTs.
Fact is overall LED screens use generally less than 1/4 of the power a CRT uses.
LED screens generally produce better color than even high end CRT monitors like Ikegami. In fact most folks can't even tell the difference between 720 and 1080 until sizes are above 40 inches.
Large screen CRTs are huge and expensive. Large screen LEDs are relatively cheap.
CRTs are old obsolete technology.
In searching for a 150W incandescent replacement a huge number of reviewers complained about the 42W GE CFL that dies in 1 to 4 months of daily usage - 1 to 4 hours.
Plus the "brighter" CFLs (over 24 watts) seem hugely overpriced compared to the 13watt or 23 watt bulbs.
A lot of people, me included, have serious concerns about the real life in CFL's.
Then you have the initial costs ($10 to $20 for
a 150W incandescent replacement), whether it will fit in the fixture (both bulge near base, and also overall length), and significant dimming performance.
I think the CFL will become a dinosaur in less than 2 years. The future of LED's looks very bright, and the projected manufacturing costs
look to be steadily and significantly dropping.
Not that our govt would allow anyone to make them here in the US though...
However they can be had for a good price. See at Costco: http://www.costco.com/Feit-Electric-100W...
Dimming is a serious problem with CFL.
LEDs are actually the best. They can be easily dimmed without changing color and they will last a very long time.
LEDs will come down in price.
The LED problems for photo and video are completely solved. See: http://www.barbizon.com/portfolio/televi...
ESPN is using LEDs for all of their new build-outs and retrofitting as time permits.
CNN, CNBC, Fox, and bunches more are using them.
New studio construction with LEDs is taking advantage of huge cost savings. The LEDs generate less heat so the need air conditioning is less expensive and quieter. The lighting grid doesn't have to support as much weight. The wiring for the power requirements is much less. The controls are much more compact.
The television industry is switching to LEDs as quickly as one can imagine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphor#Wh...
http://taxfoundation.org/blog/maryland-s...
"Q: How many Snouts does it take to screw in a lightbulb?"
"A: None; they've invented torches".
Just saying....
http://www.nrdc.org/energy/lightbulbs/fi...
:D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eK3KankNi...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cawk2cMTn...
Microwaves have actually been proposed for heating homes (and would probably have been implemented had not people started cooking their meals with them at around the same time). Probably workable to dry clothes as well.
http://www.baenebooks.com/chapters/06717...
In Heinlein's "Farmer in the Sky", as I recall, the farms had power microwaved to them from the central power plant...
Gee, the future sure used to be a neat place.
I think it's a combination of things.
But mostly I think it's a failure of will. We didn't want it badly enough.
Ask the lightbulb changing union.
How many yankees does it take to change a lightbulb?
None. They're standing in line waiting for Apple to invent the iBulb.
How many Marxists does it take to change a lightbulb?
ans: 5... because we said so!