Posted on 03/14/2007 5:08:22 PM PDT by fanfan
Wouldn't a geothermal tap create problems with sulfur emissions, or do those stay in the ground (where they belong)?
"But the choice to put them in or not was mine and not some Washington or Springfield bureaucrats."
Amen. The crux of the matter.
Because there is no global warming due to carbon dioxide.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Their DDT Ban Killed Millions --
Their Global Warming Hoax Will Kill Millions More
CO2 doesn't precede temperature, it lags it and thus cannot cause global warming. Due to the much higher cost of green electricity such as solar and wind power, limiting countries that are trying to develop to green power means those countries can't develop. Those facts and much more is explained in the video.
GoogleVideo -- The Great Global Warming Swindle
YouTube -- The Great Global Warming Swindle
We switched to all LED Christmas lights for our tree last year. They're not very bright but the color doesn't flake off and they stay cool, keeping damage to any nearby ornaments down to a minimum. I also won't have to constantly replace them.
I hope LED standard bulbs to become a reality. I can't stand fluroscents -- they hum and their light gives me a headache.
It's none of the government's business what light bulbs we use.
It's none of the government's business how much energy we use. We pay for it!
It's none of the government's business how big our toilets are.
Or how high we set the heat in our houses.
Or how many doors we have.
Or windows.
Or smoke alarms.
Or how we decide to deal with our garbage.
Or how we raise our kids, for that matter.
Now, I'm wonderfully pleased that some people are wonderfully pleased with the twirly new light bulbs. Just keep your hands off of my old-style bulbs, and we'll be fine.
One question, though... have you ever broken a light bulb? Me, too. Do you really want to break one of the new ones, if they contain mercury vapor?
I'm betting we something much sooner. Look how fast LEDs have become mainstream in flashlight. They've moved into every segment with the exception of the brightest xenon bulbs.
LEDs will answer one of my big gripes with the CFL lights, a bulb that will work in a '3-way' fixture.
He is an idiot, I was going to compile a list of errors here, but I decided not to waste my time, it goes over so many heads here, and the desire to disbelieve what contradicts your beliefs is so strong anyways. Having said that, I DO agree with him that incandescent bulbs should not be banned. There is a use for all things...
"Look how fast LEDs have become mainstream in flashlight"
That's because they can fit into that application well and for a minimum amount of money. Combine it with their long life and low power consumption and flashights become a 'killer app' for LED lights.
But take a look at the current crop of LED 'edison base' bulbs:
http://www.superbrightleds.com/edison.html
There's a couple problems:
1. Rather expensive
2. Relatively low light output for 'standard bulb' clones.
They can do things like floodlights well - it's almost like a larger version of a flashlight with the throw pattern. The problem comes when they try to do something like a standard lightbulb throw - nobody has really come close to replicating a standard bulb throw and power yet.
So right now few people are going to pay $30 to get a 30 watt equivalent LED bulb unless they're really, really into LED lighting and it meets their needs. Something is going have to change drastically in order to get them into widespread usage for any sooner than around 2010.
You nailed it right there. You have also summed up Politics in a single sentence.
Could you list maybe 5 or 6 major ones?
I think the point was to expose that CFLs are not a solution to reducing energy usage. The author is not saying that the CFLs are evil but when it comes to energy savings, the case may be wildly overstated and maybe even wrong.
Testimonials of "i installed CFLs and it saved me over $1000" cannot be trusted because they are anecdotal and easily subject to placebo effect.
The only valid point in the entire screed that I can see is:
"There was not a hint of democracy in this crackpot decision..."
Not that that isn't enough...
I wouldn't sell the superiority of the CFL for its energy/cost savings as much as I'm interested in obtaining the best lighting possible for vision and performing related tasks.
As most people are aware, when people hit 40 or 50, they begin requiring reading glasses that are extremely cumbersome and annoying -- which is meliorated greatly by full-spectrum lighting, of which the compact flusorescents seem to be the best at producing.
Also, since lighting effectiveness is greatly affected by the distance away from the source, only a light that produces a low level of heat can be placed close to the user. So the light must have the proper fixture to be optimally useful -- which is the desk lamp.
As for ambient lighting, I think it is less useful and the LEDs are probably the better solution because of low power consumption -- while producing much less light, but the difference between a little and none can be huge -- when say, like camping, or foraging in a closet or basement.
So while I think there are appropriate uses for different types of lighting, that optimality, has never been recognized and addressed.
Even if a bulb costs 10 to 20 times more, if it does something the others can't -- that's the price it is, which is still only $10 or $20, for pretty much a longterm if not lifetime solution. Not only the full=spectrum lighting cure one's vision, it is used in light therapies to heal all kinds of afflictions -- many caused by artificial lighting! So if one can avail themselves of healthful lighting, the impact and benefit to one's life and everything else one does, may be immeasurable. That's the world we live in now.
It's like the difference between looking at a low-resolution cathode ray tube with its notable effect of destroying visual acuity and getting laser sharp LCD images -- and buying the former because it's cheaper as the only consideration.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.