utahpaw
New Member
The only thing that keeps us from learning is what we already know.
Posts: 15
|
Post by utahpaw on Oct 28, 2009 23:36:46 GMT
If CFL's truly prove themselves to be more cost/function-effective than incandescent, why is it necessary for the government to mandate their use? Because the free market does not work? Or because the politician wants his claws in my hide?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 29, 2009 1:27:27 GMT
Because a lot of people are short term price sensative. Instead of computing in their heads that the initial cost is higher, but the operating cost and long term cost are lower, hence saving money.
|
|
|
Post by itsthesunstupid on Oct 29, 2009 4:57:13 GMT
Because a lot of people are short term price sensative. Instead of computing in their heads that the initial cost is higher, but the operating cost and long term cost are lower, hence saving money. The difficulty for us is that the bulbs emit a type of light that makes it hard for my family member with retinitis pigmentosa to see. I agree that they are probably more economical than incandescent bulbs. I do wonder what will be the unintended consequences that seem to accompany most all government mandates.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Oct 29, 2009 5:42:22 GMT
CFSs are a good stop-gap measure until LEDs or some other technology is viable
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 29, 2009 8:40:46 GMT
Sigurdur, It's nice to agree sometimes The real future is the LED which has even less energy consumption and a higher lifetime does not require a period of time to warm up, emits more natural light without high frequency flicker, can be dimmed and is now being manufactured to emulate all 'standard bulb' shapes. LEDs also pose no threat to the water table with heavy metals. The incredibly successful political marketing of CFLs may well have been a panic effort to get them installed so the manufacturers had some ROI before people realized how much better LED lighting is.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 29, 2009 8:50:02 GMT
Subsidies and enforcement are useful when new things come along that are clearly going to be beneficial to the wider community than the individual purchaser, but where initial set-up cost/inertia of customers makes it hard for them to be accepted. Example in the UK might be the migration from leaded to unleaded petrol (gas), and the current subsidies for home insulation (again, the full cost of £3-400 and the hassle is enough to put people off despite a payback time of 2-3 years and despite the insulation giving people a more comfortable life).
When people ask in a rhetorical way "Is this because the free market does not work?", I do wonder whether their eyes have been open for the last couple of years.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 29, 2009 8:54:27 GMT
My Osram friend is a bit more sceptical about LEDs. They are more flexible in their application than CFLs and incandescents, but for mainstream use they've got a way to go and they won't be that much more efficient and have that much different lifetime from CFLs. I'm only the messenger so don't shoot me. I was disappointed to hear what he had to say as well as I've read the hype too.
I would say that while I like my LED head torch, you can't find a toilet tent in the dark with it.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 29, 2009 9:00:58 GMT
My Osram friend is a bit more sceptical about LEDs. They are more flexible in their application than CFLs and incandescents, but for mainstream use they've got a way to go and they won't be that much more efficient and have that much different lifetime from CFLs. I'm only the messenger so don't shoot me. I was disappointed to hear what he had to say as well as I've read the hype too. I would say that while I like my LED head torch, you can't find a toilet tent in the dark with it. And your friend in Osram which has a huge investment in design and manufacture of CFLs is an unbiased source of course. LEDs are where CFLs were around a decade ago but I can already purchase LEDs here in many shapes including replacement strip lighting and also security lighting where a CFL's warm-up time makes them almost useless. Ask the Osram expert about CFL oven and refrigerator lighting too
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 29, 2009 15:45:28 GMT
My friend wasn't trying to sell me Osram CFLs, and I think I said he is not a technical expert. He's just an insider. Osram also have an investment in design and manufacture of LEDs too, and I am using some of their products. The light is a little bit blue-ish and mono-directional so I'm surprised they're ok for security lighting. For basic room lighting I would not say that they are yet where CFLs were 10 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 29, 2009 18:40:47 GMT
Getting pretty far afield of O2 and N2 sucking the heat out of CO2 molecules and hurling IR through the IR windows.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Oct 30, 2009 19:07:32 GMT
Back on topic: The optical transmission ("greyness") of the atmosphere is thus: When we superimpose this over the outward radiation we get the attachment. Note: 20-30% of ALL outgoing thermal frequencies are "trapped" by the atmosphere as a whole (O2,N2 etc.) Since 70-80% gets through (except for greenhouse gas absorption) we call this a "window". But it isn't insignificant! When you integrate the area under the absorption curve, about 65% of the IR absorption & emission is due to atmosphere as a whole. (according to climate texts written before AGW propaganda) (For those who understand integration this will be immediately obvious, as it was to pre-Hansenite & Gorite climatologists(and still is to many)! Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 2, 2009 18:10:20 GMT
Kiwistonewall,
A few questions. 1. I didn't see any mention of N2 in the plot, so why did you say N2. Also O2 is only referenced at less than 1 micron, where there isn't much radiation. 2. Your overlaying of outward radiation is problematical, because this is outward radiation *after* the effects of the transmittance. Eg. transmittance at 14-15 microns is zero - which is a measure of transmittance from the surface to space I assume. But because there is emission from the atmosphere as a whole, there is still outgoing emission of radiation at 14-15 microns. 3. When we talk about the forcing of a doubling of CO2, we are talking about a change in outgoing radiation of 3.7W/m^2 which is about 2% of the average. So throwing around figures like 65% or 70-80% leaves a *lot* of wiggle room even if I don't really accept that the figures are meaningful/accurate.
In short, your plot basically dismisses the "saturation" argument that some people have, because despite 100% absorption of surface radiation at some wavelengths, the importance of emission and absorption of these same wavelengths is proven by the fact that there is significant outgoing radiation here. And it thereby leaves plenty of room for an increase in CO2 to have an influence as the emission around the CO2 wavelength is a significant fraction of the whole.
|
|
|
Post by jurinko on Nov 8, 2009 9:10:59 GMT
I have a question.
Mars has 15x more CO2 in its atmosphere than Earth. It does not have water vapor and methane, so its effective concentration of "greenhouse gas" is cca equal to the earth.
Why theoretical Mars temperature is 210K and actual temperature is... 210K? Where is the back ratiation heating the surface by 33K?
Hint: Mars atmospheric pressure is 600 Pa, Earth atmospheric pressure is 101 300 Pa.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Nov 8, 2009 9:29:35 GMT
Kiwistonewall, A few questions. 1. I didn't see any mention of N2 in the plot, so why did you say N2. Also O2 is only referenced at less than 1 micron, where there isn't much radiation. 2. Your overlaying of outward radiation is problematical, because this is outward radiation *after* the effects of the transmittance. Eg. transmittance at 14-15 microns is zero - which is a measure of transmittance from the surface to space I assume. But because there is emission from the atmosphere as a whole, there is still outgoing emission of radiation at 14-15 microns. 3. When we talk about the forcing of a doubling of CO2, we are talking about a change in outgoing radiation of 3.7W/m^2 which is about 2% of the average. So throwing around figures like 65% or 70-80% leaves a *lot* of wiggle room even if I don't really accept that the figures are meaningful/accurate. In short, your plot basically dismisses the "saturation" argument that some people have, because despite 100% absorption of surface radiation at some wavelengths, the importance of emission and absorption of these same wavelengths is proven by the fact that there is significant outgoing radiation here. And it thereby leaves plenty of room for an increase in CO2 to have an influence as the emission around the CO2 wavelength is a significant fraction of the whole. Steve, you have failed (like most) by confusing thermal (ALL molecules) with spectral (discrete absorption at specific frequencies). Oxygen & Nitrogen account for the 20-30% absorption over the WHOLE spectrum - i.e. the difference between the curve & 100% - this is what we call a grey body system. I understand this (its basic physical chemistry & thermodynamics). Some will. Most don't want to. Thermal radiation is a property of ALL molecules, and absorption and emission are equal in all cases (good absorbers are good emitters. Oxygen and Nitrogen cause about 65% of the greenhouse effect, and the bulk of the rest is water. ANY planet with an atmosphere WILL have a greenhouse effect, even with no (so-called) greenhouse gases. Those who understand will understand.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Nov 8, 2009 9:35:26 GMT
I have a question. Mars has 15x more CO2 in its atmosphere than Earth. It does not have water vapor and methane, so its effective concentration of "greenhouse gas" is cca equal to the earth. Why theoretical Mars temperature is 210K and actual temperature is... 210K? Where is the back ratiation heating the surface by 33K? Hint: Mars atmospheric pressure is 600 Pa, Earth atmospheric pressure is 101 300 Pa. Exactly, and this has been pointed out by me (and others) in past posts. Even allowing for the difference in distance from the sun, Mars should be mush hotter if CO2 was the culprit. On Earth, all frequencies of IR in the Earth Thermal outward band are blocked by at least 20-30% by O2 & N2.
|
|