|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 31, 2012 1:45:24 GMT
Hector: You made a slight mistake in the above. Yes, power plants potentially released 48 tons of mercury in 1998. However, since that time a lot of plants have put in more scrubbers.
Also, note the 48 tons is 40% or so of MAN/Operation emissions. In totality, mercury emissions man and natural in the US are approx substatially higher.
No big deal but thought you would like to know.
|
|
|
Post by hector on Jan 31, 2012 2:40:25 GMT
I fitted all brand new CFLs when I bought my house 8 years ago. So far, I've replaced one This is interesting. Using personal experience, Magellan claims 100% of CFLs fail within six months. Sugurdur says his average 1.4 years. You claim they last more than 8 years, with extremely rare (singular) exception. My experience is similar to yours, but that wasn't the case years ago. Then, they had poorer ballasts and I went by the turn em off and on as you pass through, thinking that was more efficient, but CFLs don't like being cycled. This means that CFLs are less efficient than the calculations show. A light left on as you leave the room for a minute is effectively running at 0% efficiency. Another issue not yet mentioned is that corporations rate CFLs by total light production instead of light that escapes the bulb. Light gets trapped in all those twists and is thus wasted. Perhaps magellan hasn't learned how to live with CFLs, and suffers from slow warmup and super-early burnout as a result. If I always got less than 6 months out of bulbs that are rated for 5 years or more, I'd start asking what it is about my behaviour that was causing the issue, instead of simply declaring the product worthless. A smart man would ponder, "Steve gets over 8 years from his bulbs, and I average 4 months and some of them actually explode. I wonder what is causing the difference in our experiences?" (have you had your wiring checked? Maybe you're living in a firetrap whose voltage surges and ground faults are baking your CFLs.) But this brings up the point that we shouldn't have to alter our behaviour to suit the whims of a light bulb. Nor should we have to wait for one to warm up. Magellan is entirely reasonable in wanting a light that just plain works, and works instantly. I'll be happy in a few years when CFLs and incandescents are a fading memory and LEDs are king. The efficiency regulations might hasten that day by a year or two, but in truth, there is no other possible future. Market forces, alone or aided by governmental action, will ensure that both CFLs and incandescents will die very soon. What the efficiency regulations might do is ensure that the US develops LEDs instead of letting yet another 21st century technology get gobbled up by other countries. If you hate the USA, please protest the efficiency regulations. Getting rid of them could keep Americans buying incandescents long enough to destroy the USA's budding LED lighting industry. I've gotta ask. Magellan, were you just fibbing when you said multiple bulbs explode and not a single one has lasted 6 months? If you're not fibbing, what odds do you give that you're just confused and in error, much like your claim about mercury-free (or unmeasurable) coal? And if not in error, what do you think explains your dismal results?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 31, 2012 2:58:47 GMT
hector: You are correct in the on/off thing. That is why my bulbs burnt out so quickly. I replaced them, and now leave some on 24/7 for two reasons: 1. During the winter, any excess heat is welcomed. 2. Yes, I get tired of the approx 2-3 mins it takes the bulbs to "warm up" enough to produce full light.
I am/was a stickler. IF I wasn't in a room, I turned a bulb off. It was frustrating to learn to leave it on.....took a change of habit thing.
As you noticed, I now leave them on for longer durations. That has helped in the average lifespan on the replacement bulbs. Some fixtures tho are double fixtures. I put exactly the same bulbs in some fixtures, and one bulb would burn out within a year, the other would keep working. Some bulbs didn't even make a month.........those I took back and had replaced on warranty.
As you have noted, CFL's are not the answer. LED's are. Yet, in doing research they are not ready for prime time either, but I do expect problems to be pretty much engineered out within a short time.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jan 31, 2012 3:11:54 GMT
$1.64 in climate control ;D ;D ;D CFL's are junk in my experience. Your glowing accolades for them are not based on reality for most people I know. My barn ceiling is 14 ft. I have grown tired of replacing those damned CFL's. Virtually none of them have lasted two years in the house, far less in the barn or any outdoor use. The porch lights have been replaced too many times to count, plus when I turn on the porch light I expect to actually see within a few seconds, not wait for a warmup period. Having been at this location for over 20 years, there is no way you're ever going to convince me the lifespan of a CFL is longer than an incandescent. I've tried every brand on the market. None of the CFL's are worth teets on a boar hog. Since incandescent bulbs transferred to China for production, they too are junk. Out of two packs I bought recently, 1 in each pack was defective, and they don't last. So this summer, I was at Menards and bought some good heavy duty incandescent bulbs made in the USA for the barn and porch. The brand is Aero-TECH. They are BRIGHT, don't break easy and thus far have outlasted every CFL....yes, six months. They are rated at 20,000 hrs MTBF. Next is your claim that a CFL, despite the mercury in them, is somehow emitting less mercury than an incandescent because of "burning coal". Such claims have zero hard data to back that up; it is just a math game. I'm sure the Chinese standards at their CFL production facilities are just as good as any of their standards for workers and pollution. Sure, when pigs fly. As with many, I've had two or three CFL's literally blow up, but you failed to mention that little problem. That happening in the barn is a very real fire hazard; another reason why I abandoned them. Finally, you did not state the number of hours used to calculate the "savings" of a CFL. Depending on how many hours per day the light is used will greatly affect the total cost. So what's your take on the Chevy Volt? Magellan, 1. "$1.64 in climate control ;D ;D ;D" Your smileys make no sense. That a CFL increases the need for alternative sources of heat and reduces the need for AC (when compared to incandescent bulbs) has no resemblance to a joke or error. Care to explain? 2. My guess is that you didn't get cold-start CFLs for the barn or porch. Getting CFLs for a barn seems unwise. Why not get a real fluorescent fixture? Even better, go LED for exterior. 3. On longevity, please re-read the posts. All of my posts went on the assumption that CFLs last the same time as an incandescent. Your claim that I tried to convince you that CFLs last longer is just plain wrong. Sigurdur and others have done so. The published data says so as well, but please, in the future, try to actually read my posts. You should have said, "Yes, I agree with your assumption that CFLs last as long as a standard incandescent." 4. Your choice to go with a heavy duty incandescent for exterior use is reasonable. It gives you light for a year or two, at which time you should buy modern LED bulbs. CFLs are best when used at room temperature. 5. Here you go off the rails again. Instead of claiming that there's "zero hard data" about power plant mercury emissions, just Google it. "The Environmental Protection Agency reports that U.S. electric utilities released 48 tons of mercury in 1999, the latest year for which data are available. This comprises about 40 percent of manmade mercury emissions in the U.S." www.mercuryanswers.org/plants.htm40% of all emissions is a huge percentage and shows your "zero hard data" claim to be bogus. In the age of the internet, spouting obvious garbage just reflects poorly on yourself as anybody can and will Google "CFL mercury" and find out that you're spreading disinformation. Stop it. 6. Yes, Chinese factories are not under EPA regulations and as usually happens with unbridled capitalism, worker safety and environmental effects are given little regard by many corporations. Obviously from your comment you are (if you're consistent, but that might be a stretch) a fervent supporter of the EPA and wholeheartedly endorse governmental regulation to reduce industrial pollution. 7. Your claims that you've never had a CFL last 6 months and that 2-3 have exploded shows that either you're the unluckiest CFL owner in the world, you're lying, you're mistaken, or you spend your time throwing rocks at your CFLs. Perhaps your house is so poorly wired that you get frequent voltage surges. Your claim that such experience is at least somewhat the norm ("As with many") is patently false. Posting outrageous stuff without citation just reflects on yourself. Folks will just Google and see that you're full of it. "The EPA says its records show the risk of a bulb exploding is extremely rare. And in most cases it has investigated, the bulb had been damaged at some point, such as having been dropped on the floor. According to the EPA, it's almost impossible for a CFL bulb to start a fire, as all UL approved bulbs have a safety shutoff fuse in the base. If the glass breaks, the fuse cuts out, and there no more current goes into the bulb." www.nbcactionnews.com/dpp/money/consumer/dont_waste_your_money/cfl-light-bulb-risks#ixzz1kz5r8J5zNote that explosions are "extremely rare", caused mostly by "bulb dropping", and THERE IS NO FIRE RISK! Thus, my not mentioning this extremely rare non-dangerous event is reasonable and your bringing it up and falsely attributing grave danger to it is unreasonable. 8. You claim that I didn't mention hours/day use of CFLs. Go back and read my post. I mentioned low-hours applications like closets, number of starts affecting the life of the bulb, and gave an exact number, 3 hours per day, for the calculations. Yes, you missed all that. Makes me wonder how accurate your non-cited claims are - well, not really, as I Googled and found out that they're pretty much all bunk. So, you're totally wrong on pretty much every one of your claims. Either admit it or post something substantiating your claims of less-than-CFL (or unknown) levels of mercury emissions from power plants, 100% failure rates of CFLs within 6 months, CFL fire hazards (here, you should link to perhaps 5 cases of CFL-induced fires), etc. Feel free to answer my points line by line. 9. The Volt? An interesting science experiment, but it gets lousy gas mileage. The Volt is rated at 37MPG using gas and an even worse 34MPGe using electricity. (Explanation: the EPA numbers leave out the inefficiency of electrical generation and transmission and the CAFE numbers introduce a 1/0.5 incentive factor. Backing out these lies, and the Volt is rated at 34MPGe.) The money? Taxpayers spent >$2billion funding suppliers and other research, news.yahoo.com/chevy-volt-gets-caught-washington-crossfire-174401452.htmlGM spent $750million, green.autoblog.com/2008/12/09/chevy-volt-will-cost-gm-750-milllion/and GM is getting $1.9billion in subsidies. ($7500 rebate* ~250k qualifying cars). Yes, when Corporate America gets involved, your tax dollars are often wasted (remember Solyndra?), and GM slurps up 250% of its actual costs. GM paid NEGATIVE $1.15 billion to develop the Volt! I think MIT and other universities could have done a better job of developing a new drivetrain. If MIT et al had done the work, we'd probably end up with a car that got better than 35MPG and we the people would own it. We could then license the technology to GM and others and perhaps make money on the work. What do you think? Should we give away money to Corporate America (Volt), loan them money at our risk (Solyndra), invest in ourselves through our universities, or simply not bother and risk the rest of the world eating our technological lunch? Does anybody here think it was a good idea to give US taxpayer dollars to foreign corporations like Toyota and Nissan to develop their Pruis and Leaf? First and #1, I gave MY experience. And yes, in the barn CFL's might last 6 months, which is what I said. Others here have had similar bad experiences, many others I know think the same way. Your smileys make no sense. That a CFL increases the need for alternative sources of heat and reduces the need for AC (when compared to incandescent bulbs) has no resemblance to a joke or error. Care to explain? Any time I see these micro-analysis type numbers, it is just a bit comical and reminds me of Jimmy Carter in his sweater telling Americans to turn down their thermostats, or Obama lecturing us to check the air pressure in our tires......yeah, those are great energy policies. 40% of all emissions is a huge percentage and shows your "zero hard data" claim to be bogus. U.S. power plants account for .5% of all U.S. mercury emissions. You have to be a complete moron to believe that eliminating even 90% of .5% is a meaningful number. Nature is responsible for the vast majority of mercury emissions, but don't let that get in the way of your unfounded paranoia. The EPA says its records show the risk of a bulb exploding is extremely rare. And in most cases it has investigated, the bulb had been damaged at some point, such as having been dropped on the floor. According to the EPA, it's almost impossible for a CFL bulb to start a fire, as all UL approved bulbs have a safety shutoff fuse in the base. If the glass breaks, the fuse cuts out, and there no more current goes into the bulb In a barn with dry hay and dust, any sparks can easily ignite it. Ever wonder why there is NO SMOKING signs all over the place in horse barns? I've seen the damned CFL blow up and emit sparks in my house turning the switch on. No more in the barn, period. I gave you the MTBF of the incandescent bulbs I now purchase; 20,000 hrs. If on for 3 hrs per day, that's not difficult to figure out is it? It isn't 1.4 years. Incandescent bulbs at some point were made cheaper and didn't last as long as earlier units. It's not unlike the old clunky telephones from 40+ years ago compared to ones made today which are cheap junk. I'm not saying that's the rule, but there are many modern appliances that don't last nearly as long as older designs, and much of that is due to government meddling. Yes, when Corporate America gets involved, your tax dollars are often wasted (remember Solyndra?), and GM slurps up 250% of its actual costs. GM paid NEGATIVE $1.15 billion to develop the Volt! Wow, I thought I heard it all....you're being serious? Why do you think people call GM "Government Motors"? You make it sound like Big Government had nothing to do with "wasting tax dollars" when the U.S. deficit is ~$1.5 TRILLION, national debt 10x of that and the dollar is collapsing. The government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers via subsidies and bailouts, and definitely shouldn't have a hand in designing cars which includes propping up phony companies making batteries for them. I don't think fascism is an American ideal do you? After reading your response, I'd say you do. I think MIT and other universities could have done a better job of developing a new drivetrain. If MIT et al had done the work, we'd probably end up with a car that got better than 35MPG and we the people would own it. Where do you come up with such silliness? Do you have any idea whatsoever how many combined thousands of years of experience goes into the development of an engine or transmission and the many hundreds of components in them? MIT wouldn't know where to begin. I worked in the Volt test development program for the transmission system. We knew two years ago it was destined for failure. The technology is advanced, but that isn't the reason it failed; for starters it is a four seater! Did GM actually think consumers are going to pay $42,000 for that? we the people would own it. Ah, yes "we the people"....the "people's car". That has a familiar ring to it doesn't it? Kind of like "99 percenters". "we the people would own it" is.gd/xQpcd9[/img] What do you think? Should we give away money to Corporate America (Volt), loan them money at our risk (Solyndra), invest in ourselves through our universities, or simply not bother and risk the rest of the world eating our technological lunch?
Name one country that has done what you propose that isn't currently about ready to go belly up. Honestly, just name one. See hector, at some point you run out of other people's money. Government doesn't give a rat's ass about meeting budgets or risking money because they have nothing to lose; it isn't their money. The universities are leaches no better than the Solyndra's of the world waiting for their handouts and government student loans to pay for overpriced tuition while sitting on untold billions of dollars in their endowment funds.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jan 31, 2012 5:00:12 GMT
hector "Good for you! You're doing the right thing for the planet, the country, and humanity. However, just to be a snit, let's play with some more fancy math."
Sorry I offended your sensibilities, you offended mine with a jingoist AGW mantra response.
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Jan 31, 2012 7:24:38 GMT
Does that mean the Government should regulate the type of bed and how high it can be?
No, nobody said it should. I for sure did not.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 31, 2012 13:10:00 GMT
8 years ago when I was buying my bulbs (remarkably it is not required that new-build houses are fitted with CFLs) I did buy 3 bulbs of an unknown make because of their shape as the choice was more limited then. Two of these bulbs failed almost straightaway and I returned them. The third still works, but it buzzes when it is on so has been relegated to a rarely used location. I do also recall that I bought my tenants some cheaper bulbs one of which has failed.
In the UK we have the Which consumers association. Checking their website they check CFLs not only for lifetime, but also for cycling - they turn them off and on 30,000 times. The top 5 or 6 bulbs all had 5 stars for this test indicating that turning off and on was not an issue. Certainly I was brought up to turn off lights when they are not needed, and still continue to do so.
So I guess sticking to Philips, Osram and the other big names is the answer on this side of the pond.
My number one reason for using CFLs is to cut electricity costs. Number 2 it cuts the effort replacing the bulbs in these fancy light fittings that need to be unscrewed that my OH insists on having fitted. The only downside is the slow warm up on a small number of my bulbs, but it's a minimal inconvenience that I could solve by changing them for another model.
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Jan 31, 2012 14:03:29 GMT
Does that mean the Government should regulate the type of bed and how high it can be? No, nobody said it should. I for sure did not. It was a rhetorical question designed to point out the ridiculous lengths that various govt.'s go to in order to control the lives of their citizens and extract money from them. You shouldn't be so literal minded that you miss the point. Which, again, is unwanted and unneeded expansion of regulations to achieve political objectives. The EPA is a prime example of this in the USA, but it is not limited to them.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Feb 1, 2012 14:59:08 GMT
Mr Green works his living dead magic on the U.S. economy. "The Cost of Obama's Green Appeasement" "This weekend’s Boston Globe Magazine will feature a gargantuan, 3600 word homage to rabid environmentalism in the form of a profile on 350.org founder Bill McKibben. The piece and President Obama’s disastrously short-sighted decision Wednesday to reject permitting for Transcanada’s Keystone XL pipeline are both symptomatic of a much larger ailment plaguing liberal politicking in general and the Obama administration in particular: a continual willingness to sacrifice the well-being of the majority for an elite, hypocritical minority." finance.townhall.com/columnists/bobbeauprez/2012/01/29/the_cost_of_obamas_green_appeasement/page/full/
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Feb 1, 2012 15:14:55 GMT
Mr Green works his living dead magic on the U.S. economy. "The Cost of Obama's Green Appeasement" "This weekend’s Boston Globe Magazine will feature a gargantuan, 3600 word homage to rabid environmentalism in the form of a profile on 350.org founder Bill McKibben. The piece and President Obama’s disastrously short-sighted decision Wednesday to reject permitting for Transcanada’s Keystone XL pipeline are both symptomatic of a much larger ailment plaguing liberal politicking in general and the Obama administration in particular: a continual willingness to sacrifice the well-being of the majority for an elite, hypocritical minority." finance.townhall.com/columnists/bobbeauprez/2012/01/29/the_cost_of_obamas_green_appeasement/page/full/This kind of thing is driven by Progressives’ unilateral wet dream of a green Utopia. Folks should read up on what Karl Popper had to say about Utopian future states. In a nutshell, one mans’ Utopia is anothers’ Totalitarian Hell. "Open Society and it's Enemies" www.archive.org/details/OpenSocietyAndItsEnemies , specifically Chpt. 9 . Or the readers digest version by Mark Levin; "Ameritopia".
|
|
|
Post by hector on Feb 2, 2012 12:38:19 GMT
Hector: Thank you for that link. That one has not appeared in any of my searches. I will have to check and see if they are actually full spectrum. There are a lot of claims out there, but upon careful examination, the claim is bogus. Most folks wouldn't know......I do as have observed the reaction to full spectrum that my daughter has exibited. I know the lit says 30 mins a day......that doesn't cut it tho. Once I switched the whole house......that made a HUGE difference. She may be a dramatic case, I don't know. I just know what the results have been. As far as the 1.3....well....claims made so I would mark the light change on the calander. It really was a wash as to whether it was economical, considering the waste heat output that was actually used. It is like buying a hot water heater. I use elec..no sense buying one super insulated as the "waste heat" generated is a welcome addition. As far as home construction. Even the newest and best houses in my area require heating approx 75% of the year. I am talking ones built with windows etc designed to capture all possable passive solar heat. We have too many cloudy days in the winter, just a fact of life. I didn't switch to fuel per se. I was on off peak elec, and the fuel oil furnace was the backup. At the time I changed the whole heating system, I bought the fuel oil furnace. It is approx 88% efficient, as I bought the best one I could at the time. I hate spending money.....LOL. I agree that the newer CFL's seem to be a better bulb than the older ones. I was very disappointed after the initial change over at the rate of bulb failure. When we learned of the SAD diagnosis tho, it wasn't so bad as they were burning out fast enough that we just switched the few left to rooms my daughter does not spend much time in. I am an early adopter of tech when it is a feasable replacement. From what I have read, it looks like LED are approx 12 months away from being feasable. Not so much the cost factor, as the realiability factor has to be considered. Thank you for the nice exchange of costs etc. Good luck to you and your family. Early adopter who doesn't like to spend money. That can lead to opposing self-viewpoints! I'm also going to put up with the damn CFLs for one more Moore's Law cycle, and then convert. I'm sure by then SAD LED lights will be well-established and the kinks will be worked out in the design. What are you going to do about exterior lights? I use ultra-efficient built-in straight single-tube fluorescents. The bulbs last forever, but when each fails, I'll switch to LED. For fluorescent fixtures, you have to bypass the ballast, so there's some work, but it's easy to cool a straight line LED. I'll end up with more efficient lights which last longer. I appreciate the discussion and have come to a conclusion on what was the original question in my mind, as to the wisdom of the Great Light Bulb Ban - it's a good thing, but it's probably not worth the angst. Non-CFL consumers will stockpile a few bulbs. Problem solved for them for at least three years. Then what? LEDs will be better and cheaper, and CFLs will also have advanced, spurred by the influx of new customers. Life post-Edison turns out to not be so bad after all. LEDs will get better and cheaper and electric rates will rise, so even the most die-hard incandescenter who has stockpiled a lifetime's worth will start buying LEDs within ten years, and probably five. I would rather see a rebate for LEDs. $10 a bulb for a year, $5 a bulb the next. Right now is the time to do it. I'm seeing prices under $40 for 75W equiv LEDs. Lots of people would go for $27. Bumps the economy in precisely the infrastructure way (they last a long time) we need to invest, gives manufacturers a good playing field, and helps consumers and the environment. And, unlike the big car rebates, it's something everyone can participate in. Everyone has the best candidate light in their house for a LED. A lot of porch lights are left on all night long. It's neat that you have a record of bulb changes and have calculated the personal economic data. I suggest that you should adjust the data to account for your current habit of leaving CFLs on when unneeded. Perhaps Edison still beats out CFLs in your case, especially since they give you a slightly better existence. When you were considering heating, how did ground-source heat pumps measure up in your area?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 4, 2012 15:18:23 GMT
Hector: Ground source heat pumps do not work real well in my area. We are just too cold, most winters.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 4, 2012 15:18:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Feb 5, 2012 3:12:10 GMT
Hector: Ground source heat pumps do not work real well in my area. We are just too cold, most winters. As long as the water lines are below the frost line, geothermal heat pumps will work. It is just a matter of exchanging the cold air above with more stable constant temperatures in the ground. There is no shortage of heat in the top 10 feet of the earth's surface as long as you have the land available to extract it. In fact, some systems are drilled diagonally deep down when insufficient surface area inhibits standard methods. If it's an open loop system the heat is taken from the well and dumped. Ours is a closed loop; more expensive but we didn't have a good place to dump, plus I questioned the minerals in our water having a negative effect on the furnace parts. Our highest monthly heating bill since installing the geothermal system is $64. The total yearly cost for heating/cooling/hot water in 2011 was $567. The days of being a slave to the corn/wood pellet stove and back breaking wood cutting are over in my life Since we hadn't used propane to heat our home for so many years, I didn't know what the cost was for a typical year, so I asked several neighbors, friends etc. I was shocked to hear numbers like $2500, $3000 and even higher. For us it was a no brainer to go geothermal, but it is understandable that many people simply don't have the capital or credit to purchase a geothermal system. Many folks are struggling to just putting food on the table. Hector, aside from your specious CFL argument, despite all your lecturing, I'd wager I'm more "green" than in your wildest dreams will ever be, and it has nothing to do with a belief in AGW or any other 'Greenie' philosophy. I also own a Hybrid, a Toyota Prius to be exact. Why? For our application is makes sense....dollars and cents that is. I didn't expect my neighbor to help pay for my furnace, or car and don't expect them to pay for my light bulbs either. Nor should I be forced to pay for yours.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Feb 6, 2012 3:59:12 GMT
Mr Green needs to send another envoy to China. "China bans airlines from joining EU emissions scheme" "(Reuters) - The Chinese government said on Monday it has barred the country's airlines from joining a European Union scheme to charge for carbon emissions from flights into and out of Europe and prohibit airlines from charging customers extra because of the EU plan. The hardening of the dispute, which comes a week before Chinese and EU leaders hold a summit next week, could potentially subject Chinese airlines to fines or prohibitions on use of EU airports. The aviation row also comes as euro zone countries have looked to China, with its big holdings of foreign exchange reserves, for a show of economic support while they grapple with the latest phase of their debt crisis." www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/06/us-china-eu-emissions-idUSTRE81500V20120206?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews&rpc=22&sp=true
|
|