|
Home > Archive > Alternative Power sources > February 2007 > California LIght Bulb Law is Based On Myth
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
California LIght Bulb Law is Based On Myth
|
|
| Sudden Disruption 2007-02-01, 9:25 pm |
| It's scary how myth becomes fashion, and fashion becomes law...
A California assemblyman wants to ban incandescent light bulbs...
A California lawmaker wants to ban the use of incandescent light bulbs
in order to conserve energy and reduce greenhouse gases which are
linked to global warming.
The "How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Light Bulb Act"
would ban the use of incandescent light bulbs by 2012. Instead,
compact fluorescent light bulbs (COLS) would become the alternative
for California residents.
The rest of the article is here...
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/st...=2839113&page=1
This new law would be based on a myth about light bulbs...
For years the Federal Energy Star program has perpetuated the myth
that if you buy appliances (or any electrical device) for the home
that uses less energy, you'll see proportional savings in your monthly
power bill. This is rarely the case.
Other eco-writers do similar simplistic math to calculate savings in
money, energy and carbon. A recent example is Charles Fishman's
September 2006 article in Fast Company magazine about WalMart's CFL
project, "How Many Lightbulbs Does it Take to Change the World?".
The claim is made that if a single light bulb using 45 watts less is
placed in 100 million homes, 6.57 billion Kilo-Watt-Hours will be
saved. The fact is, unless you are cooling your home, there is ZERO
savings. Charles focused on the bulb, but forgot about the home. His
entire premise is based on a false assumption. The savings are grossly
exaggerated.
"Wasted" energy takes the form of heat. And this heat helps heat your
house, if only just a small amount. For most of America, for most of
the year, that 45 watts will be automatically added back in by the
home heating system to maintain the same level of comfort. If the home
is heated with electricity, the savings in dollars, energy and carbon
production is literally ZERO.
The rest of the blog post is here...
<a href="http://suddendisruption.blogspot.com/2007/02/for-years-
federal-energy-star-program.html#links">Sudden Disruption: The Energy
Star Efficiency Myth</a>
Will someone please tell me what I've missed before this becomes law?
Sudden Disruption
--
Sudden View...
the radical option for editing text
http://www.sudden.net/
http://suddendisruption.blogspot.com
| |
|
| Sudden Disruption wrote:
> It's scary how myth becomes fashion, and fashion becomes law...
>
> A California assemblyman wants to ban incandescent light bulbs...
>
> A California lawmaker wants to ban the use of incandescent light bulbs
> in order to conserve energy and reduce greenhouse gases which are
> linked to global warming.
>
> The "How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Light Bulb Act"
> would ban the use of incandescent light bulbs by 2012. Instead,
> compact fluorescent light bulbs (COLS) would become the alternative
> for California residents.
>
> The rest of the article is here...
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/st...=2839113&page=1
>
>
>
> This new law would be based on a myth about light bulbs...
>
> For years the Federal Energy Star program has perpetuated the myth
> that if you buy appliances (or any electrical device) for the home
> that uses less energy, you'll see proportional savings in your monthly
> power bill. This is rarely the case.
>
> Other eco-writers do similar simplistic math to calculate savings in
> money, energy and carbon. A recent example is Charles Fishman's
> September 2006 article in Fast Company magazine about WalMart's CFL
> project, "How Many Lightbulbs Does it Take to Change the World?".
>
> The claim is made that if a single light bulb using 45 watts less is
> placed in 100 million homes, 6.57 billion Kilo-Watt-Hours will be
> saved. The fact is, unless you are cooling your home, there is ZERO
> savings. Charles focused on the bulb, but forgot about the home. His
> entire premise is based on a false assumption. The savings are grossly
> exaggerated.
>
> "Wasted" energy takes the form of heat. And this heat helps heat your
> house, if only just a small amount. For most of America, for most of
> the year, that 45 watts will be automatically added back in by the
> home heating system to maintain the same level of comfort. If the home
> is heated with electricity, the savings in dollars, energy and carbon
> production is literally ZERO.
>
> The rest of the blog post is here...
>
> <a href="http://suddendisruption.blogspot.com/2007/02/for-years-
> federal-energy-star-program.html#links">Sudden Disruption: The Energy
> Star Efficiency Myth</a>
>
>
>
>
> Will someone please tell me what I've missed before this becomes law?
>
>
> Sudden Disruption
> --
> Sudden View...
> the radical option for editing text
> http://www.sudden.net/
> http://suddendisruption.blogspot.com
>
But --
People generally only need to heat their houses part of the year; in
much of the country, air conditioning is a major component of peak
electric loads, and generating capacity must be sized for peak loads.
Many people heat with gas, propane, or heating oil.
--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
| |
|
| Your analysis is quite correct in that saving energy on light bulbs only to
spend it on heating is a net zero gain. To be honest though most office
buildings have a net heat excess during almost all of the year because of
the large number of humans contained therein. In those situations you have
to pay twice for the inefficiency of the incandescent light bulb - once when
you use too much electricity making light and end up with waste heat and
again when the air conditioning system has to pump that excess heat outside.
California is a state where the latter situation is typical although it does
seem that criminalizing the use of incandescent bulbs is a bit drastic.
What will the little girls use in their Mattel ovens.
It would seem that if The Bush Administration really had the slightest
interest in the energy independence of The United States they would provide
us with some guidelines on conserving energy.
"Sudden Disruption" <sudden.net@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1170384440.631519.243470@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
> It's scary how myth becomes fashion, and fashion becomes law...
>
> A California assemblyman wants to ban incandescent light bulbs...
>
> A California lawmaker wants to ban the use of incandescent light bulbs
> in order to conserve energy and reduce greenhouse gases which are
> linked to global warming.
>
> The "How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Light Bulb Act"
> would ban the use of incandescent light bulbs by 2012. Instead,
> compact fluorescent light bulbs (COLS) would become the alternative
> for California residents.
>
> The rest of the article is here...
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/st...=2839113&page=1
>
>
>
> This new law would be based on a myth about light bulbs...
>
> For years the Federal Energy Star program has perpetuated the myth
> that if you buy appliances (or any electrical device) for the home
> that uses less energy, you'll see proportional savings in your monthly
> power bill. This is rarely the case.
>
> Other eco-writers do similar simplistic math to calculate savings in
> money, energy and carbon. A recent example is Charles Fishman's
> September 2006 article in Fast Company magazine about WalMart's CFL
> project, "How Many Lightbulbs Does it Take to Change the World?".
>
> The claim is made that if a single light bulb using 45 watts less is
> placed in 100 million homes, 6.57 billion Kilo-Watt-Hours will be
> saved. The fact is, unless you are cooling your home, there is ZERO
> savings. Charles focused on the bulb, but forgot about the home. His
> entire premise is based on a false assumption. The savings are grossly
> exaggerated.
>
> "Wasted" energy takes the form of heat. And this heat helps heat your
> house, if only just a small amount. For most of America, for most of
> the year, that 45 watts will be automatically added back in by the
> home heating system to maintain the same level of comfort. If the home
> is heated with electricity, the savings in dollars, energy and carbon
> production is literally ZERO.
>
> The rest of the blog post is here...
>
> <a href="http://suddendisruption.blogspot.com/2007/02/for-years-
> federal-energy-star-program.html#links">Sudden Disruption: The Energy
> Star Efficiency Myth</a>
>
>
>
>
> Will someone please tell me what I've missed before this becomes law?
>
>
> Sudden Disruption
> --
> Sudden View...
> the radical option for editing text
> http://www.sudden.net/
> http://suddendisruption.blogspot.com
>
| |
| gfretwell@aol.com 2007-02-02, 3:25 am |
| On 1 Feb 2007 18:47:20 -0800, "Sudden Disruption"
<sudden.net@gmail.com> wrote:
>"Wasted" energy takes the form of heat. And this heat helps heat your
>house, if only just a small amount.
That is absolutely true as long as you have the heat on. I suspect it
is significant in Northern California but I doubt those people in San
Diego or LA turn the heat on very often and then it is probably at
night when they are sleeping anyway.
In my part of the country SW Florida the heating season is about 8
days a year.
| |
| Joe Fischer 2007-02-02, 3:25 am |
| On 1 Feb "Sudden Disruption" <sudden.net@gmail.com> wrote:
><a href="http://suddendisruption.blogspot.com/2007/02/for-years-
>federal-energy-star-program.html#links">Sudden Disruption: The Energy
>Star Efficiency Myth</a>
>
>Will someone please tell me what I've missed before this becomes law?
>Sudden Disruption
Just that much of California doesn't need heat
much of the year. :-)
Joe Fischer
| |
| Eeyore 2007-02-02, 3:25 am |
|
Sudden Disruption wrote:
> For years the Federal Energy Star program has perpetuated the myth
> that if you buy appliances (or any electrical device) for the home
> that uses less energy, you'll see proportional savings in your monthly
> power bill. This is rarely the case.
Since when did using less electricity cost more ?
Graham
| |
| Eeyore 2007-02-02, 3:25 am |
|
Sudden Disruption wrote:
> "Wasted" energy takes the form of heat. And this heat helps heat your
> house, if only just a small amount.
Not vey helpful in the summer is it ? You'll need more A/C to get rid of that
heat.
Graham
| |
| Gordon 2007-02-02, 3:25 am |
| "Jack" <grampajack@verizon.net> wrote in
news:_tywh.4207$Xf4.3890@trndny09:
> Your analysis is quite correct in that saving energy on light bulbs
> only to spend it on heating is a net zero gain. To be honest though
> most office buildings have a net heat excess during almost all of the
> year because of the large number of humans contained therein. In
> those situations you have to pay twice for the inefficiency of the
> incandescent light bulb - once when you use too much electricity
> making light and end up with waste heat and again when the air
> conditioning system has to pump that excess heat outside
Well not necessarily. Most modern office buildings have
systems that are smart unough to use the cooler outside
air to ventilate the building to draw off the excess heat.
Durring the hieght of summer they do run the air cooler.
| |
| Gordon 2007-02-02, 3:25 am |
| "Sudden Disruption" <sudden.net@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1170384440.631519.243470@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com:
> Will someone please tell me what I've missed before this becomes law?
1) In California they don't have much of a heating season. In fact
they run the air conditioning quite a lot.
2) Incandescent lightbulbs are terrible heaters. The heat that
replaces the heat not given off by the bulb probably comes
from a more effecient and less costly source.
| |
| Vaughn Simon 2007-02-02, 9:25 am |
|
"Sudden Disruption" <sudden.net@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1170384440.631519.243470@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
>The fact is, unless you are cooling your home, there is ZERO
> savings.
Nonsense. The only time that is true is for the actual time that you
happen to be heating your house with electrical resistance heating.
There is no point in reading your "blog" because you don't understand basic
physics.
Vaughn
| |
| news@mung 2007-02-02, 9:25 am |
|
"Sudden Disruption" <sudden.net@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1170384440.631519.243470@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
> It's scary how myth becomes fashion, and fashion becomes law...
>
The savings are grossly
> exaggerated.
>
> "Wasted" energy takes the form of heat. And this heat helps heat your
> house, if only just a small amount. For most of America, for most of
> the year, that 45 watts will be automatically added back in by the
> home heating system to maintain the same level of comfort. If the home
> is heated with electricity, the savings in dollars, energy and carbon
> production is literally ZERO.
>
>
>
> Will someone please tell me what I've missed before this becomes law?
unless you have air conditioning perhaps?
| |
| Tony Wesley 2007-02-02, 9:25 am |
| On Feb 1, 9:47 pm, "Sudden Disruption" <sudden....@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's scary how myth becomes fashion, and fashion becomes law...
[...]
> Will someone please tell me what I've missed before this becomes law?
An education?
Others have already adequately pointed out the flaws in your post.
| |
| Deputy Dumbya Dawg 2007-02-02, 9:25 am |
|
"Sudden Disruption" <sudden.net@gmail.com> wrote in
message :
: This new law would be based on a myth about light
bulbs...
:
: For years the Federal Energy Star program has
perpetuated the myth
: that if you buy appliances (or any electrical device)
for the home
: that uses less energy, you'll see proportional
savings in your monthly
: power bill. This is rarely the case.
:
: Other eco-writers do similar simplistic math to
calculate savings in
: money, energy and carbon. A recent example is Charles
Fishman's
: September 2006 article in Fast Company magazine about
WalMart's CFL
: project, "How Many Lightbulbs Does it Take to Change
the World?".
:
: The claim is made that if a single light bulb using
45 watts less is
: placed in 100 million homes, 6.57 billion
Kilo-Watt-Hours will be
: saved. The fact is, unless you are cooling your home,
there is ZERO
: savings. Charles focused on the bulb, but forgot
about the home. His
: entire premise is based on a false assumption. The
savings are grossly
: exaggerated.
:
: "Wasted" energy takes the form of heat. And this heat
helps heat your
: house, if only just a small amount. For most of
America, for most of
: the year, that 45 watts will be automatically added
back in by the
: home heating system to maintain the same level of
comfort. If the home
: is heated with electricity, the savings in dollars,
energy and carbon
: production is literally ZERO.
: Will someone please tell me what I've missed before
this becomes law?
Agreeing with you winter heated home case above the
following remains true:
1) In the summer your AC will not have to work as hard
to maintain thermostat settings by not being loaded by
the heat difference between the compact florescent and
an incandescent bulbs.
2) In places where there is no heat or air conditioning
just a grass hut with a bulb in in ( like Fiji or New
Orleans for instance) the more efficient CF light will
just use a third of the electricity producing visible
light period.
A watt saved is a watt earned.
Peace
dawg
| |
| Derek Broughton 2007-02-02, 9:25 am |
| Sudden Disruption wrote:
> It's scary how myth becomes fashion, and fashion becomes law...
It's scary how people turn reasonable legislation into myth.
> A California assemblyman wants to ban incandescent light bulbs...
>
> A California lawmaker wants to ban the use of incandescent light bulbs
> in order to conserve energy and reduce greenhouse gases which are
> linked to global warming.
>
> The "How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Light Bulb Act"
> would ban the use of incandescent light bulbs by 2012.
No, it would ban the sale and manufacture of "general use" light bulbs.
> For years the Federal Energy Star program has perpetuated the myth
> that if you buy appliances (or any electrical device) for the home
> that uses less energy, you'll see proportional savings in your monthly
> power bill. This is rarely the case.
How so. I use less power, I spend less money. It's working really well for
me!
> The fact is, unless you are cooling your home, there is ZERO
> savings.
Absolutely true. However, Southern Californians are cooling their homes
(or, if they're Green, suffering with excess heat) more than half the year.
I've been in LA in January, and it's shorts and t-shirt weather.
> "Wasted" energy takes the form of heat. And this heat helps heat your
> house, if only just a small amount. For most of America, for most of
> the year, that 45 watts will be automatically added back in by the
> home heating system to maintain the same level of comfort.
For most of America, _some_ of the year, but for ALL of America there's a
significant part of the year that that is not the case.
> If the home
> is heated with electricity, the savings in dollars, energy and carbon
> production is literally ZERO.
For the heating months...
> Will someone please tell me what I've missed before this becomes law?
Common sense.
--
derek
| |
| Derek Broughton 2007-02-02, 9:25 am |
| Gordon wrote:
> 2) Incandescent lightbulbs are terrible heaters.
Well, while I disagreed with most of what the OP said, I can't agree with
this either. They're _only_ terrible heaters because so much of their
energy is emitted as light :-)
However, they're generally placed very badly for heating - when you put your
heat source near the ceiling, too much heat escapes through the roof before
it warms you up.
--
derek
| |
| Steve Cothran 2007-02-02, 9:25 am |
| On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 04:16:57 +0000, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Since when did using less electricity cost more ?
In Tennessee, most of the electric companies are co-ops. Money is
needed to run the offices, and maintain lines and stuff, so the co-op
adds a cent or to to each kwh they resell. The volume of the
electricity sold allows them a margin to operate with. If we all
suddenly cut our usage 50%, then the co-op would then have to charge
more for each kwh.
I suppose that would work for a profit company also.
| |
| Eeyore 2007-02-02, 9:25 am |
|
Steve Cothran wrote:
> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> In Tennessee, most of the electric companies are co-ops. Money is
> needed to run the offices, and maintain lines and stuff, so the co-op
> adds a cent or to to each kwh they resell. The volume of the
> electricity sold allows them a margin to operate with. If we all
> suddenly cut our usage 50%, then the co-op would then have to charge
> more for each kwh.
Changing your light bulbs isn't likely to reduce energy concumption by 50% ! If
it did all our problems would be over.
Graham
| |
| Snap Whipcrack.............. 2007-02-02, 1:25 pm |
| Sudden Disruption wrote:
> It's scary how myth becomes fashion, and fashion becomes law...
>
> A California assemblyman wants to ban incandescent light bulbs...
>
> A California lawmaker wants to ban the use of incandescent light bulbs
> in order to conserve energy and reduce greenhouse gases which are
> linked to global warming.
>
> The "How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Light Bulb Act"
> would ban the use of incandescent light bulbs by 2012. Instead,
> compact fluorescent light bulbs (COLS) would become the alternative
> for California residents.
>
> The rest of the article is here...
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/st...=2839113&page=1
>
>
>
> This new law would be based on a myth about light bulbs...
>
> For years the Federal Energy Star program has perpetuated the myth
> that if you buy appliances (or any electrical device) for the home
> that uses less energy, you'll see proportional savings in your monthly
> power bill. This is rarely the case.
>
> Other eco-writers do similar simplistic math to calculate savings in
> money, energy and carbon. A recent example is Charles Fishman's
> September 2006 article in Fast Company magazine about WalMart's CFL
> project, "How Many Lightbulbs Does it Take to Change the World?".
>
> The claim is made that if a single light bulb using 45 watts less is
> placed in 100 million homes, 6.57 billion Kilo-Watt-Hours will be
> saved. The fact is, unless you are cooling your home, there is ZERO
> savings. Charles focused on the bulb, but forgot about the home. His
> entire premise is based on a false assumption. The savings are grossly
> exaggerated.
>
> "Wasted" energy takes the form of heat. And this heat helps heat your
> house, if only just a small amount. For most of America, for most of
> the year, that 45 watts will be automatically added back in by the
> home heating system to maintain the same level of comfort. If the home
> is heated with electricity, the savings in dollars, energy and carbon
> production is literally ZERO.
>
> The rest of the blog post is here...
>
> <a href="http://suddendisruption.blogspot.com/2007/02/for-years-
> federal-energy-star-program.html#links">Sudden Disruption: The Energy
> Star Efficiency Myth</a>
>
>
>
>
> Will someone please tell me what I've missed before this becomes law?
>
>
> Sudden Disruption
> --
> Sudden View...
> the radical option for editing text
> http://www.sudden.net/
> http://suddendisruption.blogspot.com
>
Anybody who hasn't replace all their incandescent bulbs with compact
fluorescent bulbs yet is a complete idiot. They are a dime a dozen in
wholesale club stores. Some stores even have rebate coupons from your
power company.
| |
| barry@sme-online.com 2007-02-02, 1:25 pm |
| On Feb 1, 11:11 pm, Joe Fischer <j...@westpointracing.com> wrote:
> On 1 Feb "Sudden Disruption" <sudden....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Just that much of California doesn't need heat
> much of the year. :-)
>
> Joe Fischer
And how about the fact that resistive electrical heating is purely
stupidly
inefficient? IMHO.
J
| |
| TRecupero 2007-02-02, 1:25 pm |
| For starters, I am a "nuke the baby whales then eat them, dyed in the wool
conservative hate monger" and I am also a very firm believer in
conservation. I own an off grid house with PV cells for the sole electrical
power source. I normally use 1.2 KW a day, measured. I the summer I can keep
the house cool without AC, but pumping 400 watts into the house to run the
lights is just stupid if I can use only 80 with CF lights.
I love those little things, I have them everywhere. I also have some
regular bulbs for OS floods. The CFs do have one drawback, they take 5
minutes to light up fully when it's 5 below.
Electric heat is the most expensive thing there is. You also fail to
take into acount cooling costs, some folks don't live where it's cold. You
also fail to consider interior rooms that require no heat. Is the law
stupid? Damn right it is, but not because it wouldn't save energy, but
because it's Govt getting into our lives and reducing our freedom to choose.
I can't wait till the nutjobs find out that the CFs are loaded with
mercury.
"Sudden Disruption" <sudden.net@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1170384440.631519.243470@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
> It's scary how myth becomes fashion, and fashion becomes law...
>
> A California assemblyman wants to ban incandescent light bulbs...
>
> A California lawmaker wants to ban the use of incandescent light bulbs
> in order to conserve energy and reduce greenhouse gases which are
> linked to global warming.
>
> The "How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Light Bulb Act"
> would ban the use of incandescent light bulbs by 2012. Instead,
> compact fluorescent light bulbs (COLS) would become the alternative
> for California residents.
>
> The rest of the article is here...
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/st...=2839113&page=1
>
>
>
> This new law would be based on a myth about light bulbs...
>
> For years the Federal Energy Star program has perpetuated the myth
> that if you buy appliances (or any electrical device) for the home
> that uses less energy, you'll see proportional savings in your monthly
> power bill. This is rarely the case.
>
> Other eco-writers do similar simplistic math to calculate savings in
> money, energy and carbon. A recent example is Charles Fishman's
> September 2006 article in Fast Company magazine about WalMart's CFL
> project, "How Many Lightbulbs Does it Take to Change the World?".
>
> The claim is made that if a single light bulb using 45 watts less is
> placed in 100 million homes, 6.57 billion Kilo-Watt-Hours will be
> saved. The fact is, unless you are cooling your home, there is ZERO
> savings. Charles focused on the bulb, but forgot about the home. His
> entire premise is based on a false assumption. The savings are grossly
> exaggerated.
>
> "Wasted" energy takes the form of heat. And this heat helps heat your
> house, if only just a small amount. For most of America, for most of
> the year, that 45 watts will be automatically added back in by the
> home heating system to maintain the same level of comfort. If the home
> is heated with electricity, the savings in dollars, energy and carbon
> production is literally ZERO.
>
> The rest of the blog post is here...
>
> <a href="http://suddendisruption.blogspot.com/2007/02/for-years-
> federal-energy-star-program.html#links">Sudden Disruption: The Energy
> Star Efficiency Myth</a>
>
>
>
>
> Will someone please tell me what I've missed before this becomes law?
>
>
> Sudden Disruption
> --
> Sudden View...
> the radical option for editing text
> http://www.sudden.net/
> http://suddendisruption.blogspot.com
>
| |
| harry k 2007-02-02, 1:25 pm |
| On Feb 2, 9:17 am, b...@sme-online.com wrote:
> On Feb 1, 11:11 pm, Joe Fischer <j...@westpointracing.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> And how about the fact that resistive electrical heating is purely
> stupidly
> inefficient? IMHO.
>
> J
And making heat by using a lightbulb is even more inefficient.
Harry K
| |
| harry k 2007-02-02, 1:25 pm |
| On Feb 1, 6:47 pm, "Sudden Disruption" <sudden....@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's scary how myth becomes fashion, and fashion becomes law...
>
> A California assemblyman wants to ban incandescent light bulbs...
>
> A California lawmaker wants to ban the use of incandescent light bulbs
> in order to conserve energy and reduce greenhouse gases which are
> linked to global warming.
>
> The "How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Light Bulb Act"
> would ban the use of incandescent light bulbs by 2012. Instead,
> compact fluorescent light bulbs (COLS) would become the alternative
> for California residents.
>
> The rest of the article is here...
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/st...=2839113&page=1
>
> This new law would be based on a myth about light bulbs...
>
> For years the Federal Energy Star program has perpetuated the myth
> that if you buy appliances (or any electrical device) for the home
> that uses less energy, you'll see proportional savings in your monthly
> power bill. This is rarely the case.
>
> Other eco-writers do similar simplistic math to calculate savings in
> money, energy and carbon. A recent example is Charles Fishman's
> September 2006 article in Fast Company magazine about WalMart's CFL
> project, "How Many Lightbulbs Does it Take to Change the World?".
>
> The claim is made that if a single light bulb using 45 watts less is
> placed in 100 million homes, 6.57 billion Kilo-Watt-Hours will be
> saved. The fact is, unless you are cooling your home, there is ZERO
> savings. Charles focused on the bulb, but forgot about the home. His
> entire premise is based on a false assumption. The savings are grossly
> exaggerated.
>
> "Wasted" energy takes the form of heat. And this heat helps heat your
> house, if only just a small amount. For most of America, for most of
> the year, that 45 watts will be automatically added back in by the
> home heating system to maintain the same level of comfort. If the home
> is heated with electricity, the savings in dollars, energy and carbon
> production is literally ZERO.
>
> The rest of the blog post is here...
>
> <a href="http://suddendisruption.blogspot.com/2007/02/for-years-
> federal-energy-star-program.html#links">Sudden Disruption: The Energy
> Star Efficiency Myth</a>
>
> Will someone please tell me what I've missed before this becomes law?
>
> Sudden Disruption
> --
> Sudden View...
> the radical option for editing texthttp://www.sudden.net/http://suddendisruption.blogspot.com
Hmmm...20 posts and going up. Not one supporting your point of
view. I would say you have been shot down.
Harry K
| |
| Sudden Disruption 2007-02-02, 5:25 pm |
| I was surprised at how many responded without even reading the blog
post. For those, I'll make it easy and paste the entire post on a
fresh thread. You'll still have to go the blog for Charles Fisher's
(author of the article) comments and my response.
I was honestly hoping for some good analysis, not just on the physics,
but on the economic and ecological aspects of misdirecting our
political resources.
But let me address your comments anyway...
CJT posted...
> People generally only need to heat their houses part of the year;
Noted in the blog. But the advantage occurs NOT JUST when heat is
required. Typically, more than half of home electrical consumption
stays in the home in the form of heat until lost from lack of
insulation. So these bulbs (and other electrical devices) are a
significant factor in why you DON'T need to turn your heat on. And
that's the point.
> Many people heat with gas, propane, or heating oil.
This too was addressed in the blog. It should also be noted that the
cost of natural gas heating approached that of electrical heating last
year when the natural gas price was near it's peak. The price of
natural gas is more likely to go up in the future, than down.
gfretw posted...
> That is absolutely true as long as you have the heat on.
And more as noted above.
> I doubt those people in San Diego or LA turn the heat on very often
> and then it is probably at night when they are sleeping anyway.
True. And noted in the blog. But heating from lights during the
evening delays that heat from coming on later - thermal inertia.
As long as you don't require significant cooling, light bulb energy is
used effectively.
Joe Fischer posted...
> Just that much of California doesn't need heat much of the year.
More than you might think - especially in the mountains. I've spent
much of my life in norther California and heat is used for many months
of the year. Truckee, California is often the coldest spot in the
lower 48 states.
Graham posted...
> Since when did using less electricity cost more ?
You fail to understand. The electricity doesn't cost MORE. I never
said it did. It's just that it doesn't cost as much LESS as they
claim. And the margin of error is significant and material. It's
that you're not using as much LESS as you think. And you may be
paying more for the bulb than you save in energy.
> Not very helpful in the summer is it ? You'll need more A/C to get rid of that heat.
Yes. As noted in the blog post. But for much of the US, A/C is only
needed a few hours a day for a few weeks of the year. And there's an
inverse relationship between the need for light and A/C as summer
provides more natural light. During these extra hours of light,
excess heat is not an issue.
Gordon posted...
> Incandescent lightbulbs are terrible heaters.
Wrong! As noted by others, light bulbs are EXCELLENT heaters. Much of
the non-visible energy actually takes the form of radiant infrared.
And since light tends to be used where humans are sitting (if applied
properly), this heat is EXACTLY where it's needed.
Vaughn Simon posted...
[color=darkred]
> Nonsense. The only time that is true is for the actual time that you
> happen to be heating your house with electrical resistance heating.
Not nonsense at all. You don't think all those electrical appliances
in your house help keep your heat from turning on? Let me sell you a
more effecient electric blanket.
> There is no point in reading your "blog" because you don't
> understand basic physics.
How do you know WHAT my understanding is until you're read the blog?
I'd like you to point out even one material error. Each point in this
thread was addressed and properly qualified in the original blog post
BEFORE this thread was started.
Tony Wesley
[color=darkred]
> An education?
> Others have already adequately pointed out the flaws in your post.
Then why bother posting a personal attack? As a typical American,
your lack of understanding is the VERY point of the blog post. It's
the only thing making your comment useful and relevant.
Deputy Dumbya Dawg posted...
> Agreeing with you winter heated home case above
Thank you for your understanding and acknowledgement.
> [Except] In places where there is no heat or air conditioning just a grass hut with a bulb
An exception also noted by the author of the Fast Company article,
Charles Fisher. (Effectively) outside light bulbs keep 100% of stated
savings. But my challenge is to the Federal Government's (Energy
Star) stated savings IN the typical American home. The challenge
stands.
> A watt saved is a watt earned.
Unless it's a watt that must be replaced by your electrical heating
system.
Derek Broughton posted...
> How so. I use less power, I spend less money. It's working really well for me!
Sorry. To a significant degree, your savings are an illusion as long
as you're not cooling your house. And the government should have told
you about it BEFORE you bought that CFL light bulb.
> For the heating months...
For MORE than just the heating months.
> when you put your heat source near the ceiling, too much
> heat escapes through the roof
Only if your ceiling insulation is less effective than the rest of the
house insulation. And only for the heat that is NOT radiant as noted
above.
[color=darkred]
> Common sense.
Then you think this proposed law reflects common sense?
Unfortunately, sense isn't that common.
Paul M. Eldridge posted...
> There's some truth in what you say but, on balance, you'll find the negatives far outweigh the positives.
How can they OUTweigh? Energy Star set the bar by claiming certain
savings and WalMart is selling light bulbs based on the bad math. Any
non-existent saving by definition can not be negative. I just need to
demonstrate that for SOME people the lack of saving is significant and
material. For many, these bulbs will NOT be cost (or energy)
effective. The rest of the country SHOULD buy the bulbs. We just
need to know which group we're in.
This is an excellent example of, "YMMV - Your Mileage May Vary". I
just believe if the federal government is going to spend millions of
tax payer dollars, they should not lie to us about our true savings.
> In summary, incandescent lamps are a poor choice for consumers and far more so for utilities and our environment.
This is not true for everyone. And we should be informed when it
isn't. Especially when we are paying for the information.
Jack posted...
> Your analysis is quite correct in that saving energy on light bulbs only to spend it on heating is a net zero gain.
Thank you. The reasons are obviously, not as obvious to everyone.
> To be honest though most office buildings have a net heat
> excess during almost all of the year because of
> the large number of humans contained therein.
I agree. This is why virtually all office buildings use fluorescent
lights. But the blog post is not about industrial or office
structures.
It's about Energy Star recommendations, Fast Company and WalMart,
which means it's about the typical American home.
> It would seem that if The Bush Administration really
> had the slightest interest in the energy independence of
> The United States they would provide us with some
> guidelines on conserving energy.
Jack, you nailed it! THAT'S IT! THAT is the point of the post!
We need good information about how to save energy and money and not
some illusion, or worse, some law based on bad math.
| |
| Eeyore 2007-02-02, 5:25 pm |
|
Sudden Disruption wrote:
> I was surprised at how many responded without even reading the blog
> post.
I did.
> Graham posted...
>
>
> You fail to understand. The electricity doesn't cost MORE. I never
> said it did. It's just that it doesn't cost as much LESS as they
> claim.
Yes it does.
> And the margin of error is significant and material. It's
> that you're not using as much LESS as you think. And you may be
> paying more for the bulb than you save in energy.
Nonsense. I recently bought a number of CFLs for 49 pence each. For comparison, a 100W GLS bulb is ~ 33 pence and I'll
have to buy 6 of those to last as long as the CFL at a total cost of £1.98 or 4 times *MORE* !
Even when CFLS aren't on special offer you can buy the regular ones for around that kind of price anyway, making the cost
of CFLs no worse than the same as incandescents and usually cheaper.
Over those 6000 hrs the 100W incandescent will use 600kWh ( costing ~ £60 ) and a 23W CFL will use 138kWh costing £13.80.
A saving on eaxh CFL installed of £46.20. That's about $90 saving per 23W CFL @ 20c/kWh rates.
Graham
| |
| Joe Fischer 2007-02-02, 5:25 pm |
| On 2 Feb "Sudden Disruption" <sudden.net@gmail.com> wrote:
>...........
>
>Only if your ceiling insulation is less effective than the rest of the
>house insulation. And only for the heat that is NOT radiant as noted
>above.
While there are good arguments, reading this made
me think about an oddity I have experienced since using
a new Vicks vaporizer part of the time to boost humidity
when it is low and it is close to bedtime.
I found that I had to lower my thermostats (they
are line current rated and do not have any numbers
on them) when using both vaporizers.
According to Pam, the absorption of heat during
evaporation should not change the heating demand,
or even might require more BTUs to maintain the
same temperature (my interpretation of his remarks).
But now I am thinking that there may be some
reason that the extra moisture or room air circulation
is moving warm air near the ceiling down lower to
where I lounge and where the thermometer is.
I tried to make a bathroom heater with a 6 inch
diameter double wall vent pipe and 4 or 5 100 watt
bulbs.
After an hour or so, the temperature in the
bathroom hadn't gone up at all, and that same
day I found a small electric heater that didn't have
a power cord, there are just two prongs on the back,
and it is all plastic, and the fan running seems to
cause lower pressure between it and the wall
holding it plugged in better.
So I didn't experiment any more with it.
I was attempting to make a heater that would
warm and circulate air near the floor, and warm the
air in the bathroom uniformly.
The small plug-in heater fan started to act up,
and I was afraid the shaft would lock up, and I quit
using it, and since, have installed a 451 watt "cove"
heater that does a great job, raising the temperature
in the bathroom about 4 or 5 degrees F above what
it would be.
But there is still something lacking, and since
there are a lot of old antique lamps with scenic images
or patterns on a pivot that the warm air from the bulb
turns as it rises, I feel that a light bulb in a pipe from
an inch off the floor up to near the ceiling might
circulate the air, and help equalize the temperature
between the ceiling and floor.
But there may also be an advantage in using
a vaporizer because moist air is lighter than dry air,
and both the density of the warmer air and the moist
air is less, providing double the circulation.
But I wouldn't use the moisture in the bathroom,
just in my room.
In any case, the circulation from light bulbs
might be an interesting study (when space heating).
Joe Fischer
| |
| Tony Wesley 2007-02-02, 5:25 pm |
| On Feb 2, 3:02 pm, "Sudden Disruption" <sudden....@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was surprised at how many responded without even reading the blog
> post.
If you want a reply here, then make your post here.
> I was honestly hoping for some good analysis, not just on the physics,
> but on the economic and ecological aspects of misdirecting our
> political resources.
Were you? Or are you just trolling for traffic to your blog? The
latter seems more likely.
> It should also be noted that the
> cost of natural gas heating *approached* that of electrical heating last
> year when the natural gas price was near it's peak.
[emphasis added]
So, at best time, the waste heat is still more expensive than natural
gas heating.
Electric resistive heating is the most expensive kind. And for one
third to half the year, it becomes unwanted heat, that I pay to take
away.
[color=darkred]
> Then why bother posting a personal attack?
It's an observation. Person after person points out the flaws in your
logic.
> As a typical American,
> your lack of understanding is the VERY point of the blog post.
So the blog wasn't about light bulbs? Okay, you've confessed to a
hidden agenda.
| |
| Vaughn Simon 2007-02-02, 8:25 pm |
|
"Sudden Disruption" <sudden.net@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1170446528.178722.101690@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>I was surprised at how many responded without even reading the blog
> post.
You shouldn't be. You display a woeful lack of basic scientific knowledge.
> Vaughn Simon posted...
>
> Not nonsense at all. You don't think all those electrical appliances
> in your house help keep your heat from turning on? Let me sell you a
> more effecient electric blanket.
Like I said, you show a woeful lack of scientific knowledge.
>
You still haven't sold me. Since you have already displayed your lack of
understanding of the scientific issues here, why would I have any further
interest in reading your material?
[color=darkred]
>
> How do you know WHAT my understanding is until you're read the blog?
You have already displayed your lack of understanding.
>
> I'd like you to point out even one material error.
I did that, and others did that.
> Each point in this
> thread was addressed and properly qualified in the original blog post
> BEFORE this thread was started.
I have no wish to be impolite, but how can I make this more clear? I have no
wish to read your blog. The scientific errors in your reasoning have been
adequately explained to you ad nausium by myself and others, yet you either
still don't get it or (more likely) you are some sort of troll. Either
way...good day.
Vaughn
| |
|
| > A California assemblyman wants to ban incandescent light bulbs...
>
> A California lawmaker wants to ban the use of incandescent light bulbs
> in order to conserve energy and reduce greenhouse gases which are
> linked to global warming.
>
> The "How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Light Bulb Act"
> would ban the use of incandescent light bulbs by 2012. Instead,
> compact fluorescent light bulbs (COLS) would become the alternative
> for California residents.
It kinda goes along the same lines as another similar subject I commented on
a long time ago. In relation to counties, and states banning mercury vapor
lights. And where the DOE finally made it illegal to produce ballast for
mercury vapor fixtures after a specific date. Thus, basically stopping
anyone from making new fixtures using mercury vapor lights.
My opinion is the government is overstepping it's bounds.
They have a right to tell me that I can't use a fixture with poor light
control that shines into the neighbor's window. But they have no right to
tell me what type of light to put in it. If I want to put in a light bulb
that waste energy, that's my problem, as long as I am the one that's paying
for the power.
As long as I pay for something, and I don't bother anyone else with it, I
should be able to do with it as I please.
As long as the light is in a fixture that stops it from shinning on other
people's property, and the fixture doesn't pose a danger to anyone, I should
be able to put any damned light bulb in it I want. Be it incandescent,
fluorescent, carbon arc, metal halide, high pressure sodium, low pressure
sodium, or even the evil mercury vapor.
If a user likes the orangish light, then they should be able to use a low
pressure sodium.
If a person likes pure white light, then they should be able to use metal
halide.
If a person likes blue light, then they should be able to use a plane old
mercury vapor light, without some eco nut looking over their shoulder
threatening to call the authorities if they put up a fixture that uses a
mercury vapor light. That is the type of crap you seen in the old CCCP.
I don't have any lights in the house that use incandescent lights. But be
damn, I will tell them to go to hell with the idea of banning a specific
type of light bulb. Especially the old incandescent light. I still us them
when I am working on a vehicle. I am not going to risk breaking a good CF
light, by dropping something on it, when I can just use a simple
incandescent. And a CF light isn't worth a crap as a hand warmer, when the
weather is cold outside. Out in the storage shed, a CF light is worthless
when the temps drop to -20F. Any florescent light is for that matter. You
may as well get out your BIC lighter. And a BIC lighter won't even work in
that temp. I guess I would just have to get out a set of matches.
The same as I will tell them to go F%#@ themselves if they try any stupid
outright ban on using mercury vapor lights around here.
While we are at it, why don't we ban some other "inefficient things".
Lets ban all tube type equipment. Like all those old guitar amplifiers. All
those old philco radios. All those old armature radio transmitters and
receivers out there that is so popular with some people. They are horribly
wasteful when it comes to power usage. Think of how many watts you would
save if you forced everyone using old tube equipment to upgrade to
transistorized stuff. I know a lot of hams, and antique radio collectors
will be mad, but if their old philco, or hallicrafters radio uses more power
to receive a radio station than a modern transistorized radio, which means
that it is causing unnecessary harm to the world, then they will just have
to like it or lump it.
All CRT TV's and monitors should be banned. When have you seen a CRT monitor
that used less power than the equivalent LCD monitor? I know gamers would
complain, but they if CRT monitors that they like to use, cause more
environmental destruction from power usage, then they will just have to like
it, or lump it.
All absorption cycle (ammonia) refrigerators should be banned. Think of how
much raw energy they take to keep running. A compression cycle system is far
more efficient. I know it will be hard finding electricity driven
refrigerators that will work for isolated systems, but technology is coming
along quickly, and heck, you got to ask if anyone really needs a
refrigerator. It's just a modern frill.
On that note, we also need to ban piltler junction cooling devices. They
take a lot more energy per BTU of energy drawn off, than compression cycle
systems. They are mainly used in small recreational coolers anyway. They
need to be banned from the face of the earth.
Oil lamps need to be banned. Think of the efficiency ratio of a modern oil
lamp. If that oil ran a diesel engine, that ran a CF light, you could get
many more lumens per drop of oil.
Candles don't compare to the efficiency of a modern LED flashlight. Lets ban
them from the earth. I know that a lot of people use them for decorative
lighting, but should they be allowed to do so, at the expense of the rest of
the population of the earth.
Coleman lanterns should be banned, look how much waste heat you get,
compared to the amount of light they put out.
All gas, oil, and electric cook tops should be banned. Look how much heat
comes off the top of one of those stoves, that isn't absorbed by the food. A
microwave is far more efficient at putting the heat into the food, and they
are widely available. I know that cooking methods may need to be changed,
but it is a small step to save the environment.
Large and oversized, computers need to be banned. Most of the time, the
power hungry processors in a computer are doing nothing. And most people can
get buy with a computer that has a slower, and less energy hungry processor.
Think of how much power we could save if we mandated a processor speed limit
of 667Mhz. That would do what most people want done. We could have an
application system so that people that can prove that they need a faster
processor can be granted the privilege of owning one.
Laser printers are notoriously power hungry. The pages per watt ratio is a
lot higher on ink jet, and dot matrix printers. For people that can prove
that they need to print out multiple pages quickly, then we can also have a
system for filling an application for the privilege of owning one.
Resistance heat systems like baseboard, and space heaters needs to be
outlawed. most places do just fine with heat pumps. I know a heat pump
system cost good amount of money, but it's the bare minimum you can ask of
someone to help stop environmental destruction. And there may be a few
people that freeze to death when their heat pump breaks down, and they can
afford to repair it during the winter, but that is just the losses we are
going to have to live with, if we are going to save the environment.
Large lawnmowers with big engines are hopelessly inefficient. The maximum
size of an engine on a riding, or push mower that is owned by an individual,
should be limited to 8HP.
Of course, those evil polluters will try to pollute anyway, so you will need
new agencies to hunt down those evil people. And you will also need to place
government controls on the supply channels that these evil people are
getting their contraband equipment.
You can go on and on from there.
When is enough, enough?
When you ban one thing at a time, you don't get much complaint, and the
general population can be talked into going along with it, because each
little thing only affects a small portion of the population, and the
majority can be used to control the habits of the minority.
The person that is against them banning tube type equipment, is perfectly
happy with the idea of banning oil lamps, And vice versa.
As each step comes along, you turn the majority of the population that isn't
really affected, against the minority that puts up a fight. And when they
are pressured enough, they will finally relent. Then, as the next stage
comes along, you use all the people that isn't affected buy the next ban,
including some that fought the first band, to put pressure against another
minority to ban something else. You never run across majority opposition
when you are getting a ban put in place, as long as you make your ban
specific enough. The rest of the activities that you didn't ban the first
time, can be taken out one by one, with bans that come in later years.
Like the refrigeration industry. When they enforced government oversight of
people that worked with refrigeration equipment, and the supply channels,
and manufactures of refrigerants, it didn't affect the majority of the US
population. There was only a few people that worked on their own
refrigeration equipment. And those people didn't have enough of a voice to
fight the public opinion that was fostered by the information that was feed
to the public by the environmentalist. The public was basically talked into
giving the EPA the unrestricted authority to regulate a industry as it seen
fit. Irrelevant of the logic that the EPA used to justify it's regulations
that it put in place.
So they turned all refrigerants that are used in refrigeration systems, into
controlled substances, that requires a government license to work with,
produce, and handle. Irrelevant of the refrigerant. And those people have to
follow EPA rules when working with any refrigeration equipment That has
basically given the EPA the unrestricted ability to regulate the
refrigeration industry.
Like propane. If you take a propane tank, and open the valve, to purge some
propane, you have broken no laws. But once you put that propane into a
refrigeration system, then it becomes illegal to vent the propane to the
air. It also becomes illegal to work on the system, or even hook hoses up to
it, if you are not properly licensed by the EPA.
If you build a home made refrigeration system, and fill it with propane, you
have broken laws. If you release that propane to the air, or use an
unregistered piece of recovery equipment to pull the propane out, and put it
back into a tank, then you have broken laws. If you hook a BBQ grill to that
home made refrigeration system to drain the propane out of it, while cooking
some nice steaks, then you can be prosecuted for improperly disposing of
refrigerant, and a whole list of other broken rules. Yet, someone at a
propane tank refilling station can purge all the propane he wants, and the
only complaint that he will get is from his boss.
It is kinda like the laws regarding stills. You have to have a government
license to build and operate a still. You can buy all the stuff you need to
build a still from the local hardware store, but it is illegal to put the
stuff together, and use it.
You can buy all the stuff to put together a refrigeration system legally,
but it is illegal to put the stuff together, and use it.
In states that totally ban the sale of refrigerants to the public, you can
still buy "air" dusters that have R134A right off the supermarket shelves.
It isn't being sold as a refrigerant, so it's perfectly legal to buy it, and
vent it to the air. Some people have complained about the obvious flaw in
the facade that the EPA is trying to present. So they have encouraged
companies that make "air" dusters to use R152A, which is a close cousin of
R134A. That way, the public can't point to the R134A air dusters and say
"Hey I thought that selling R134A to the public illegal! And that it's
illegal to vent!" They can say that it isn't R134A. But R152A is basically
the same thing, and it can be used in the exact same systems that R134A can.
It just has a bit different pressure curve. The EPA doesn't really care
about venting of refrigerants, like R134A and it's close cousins, they are
just using it as an excuse to gain control of an industry.
In a lot of states you are still lucky enough to be able to buy one
substance, that is sold as a "refrigerant", right off the store shelf if you
are not licensed. That happens to be R134A But a lot of states have put a
ban on even the sale of that.
But the majority of the US doesn't really care, because they have never
worked with their own refrigerator, or air conditioner on their house, or
car.
They just chip away at one little freedom at a time.
All in all, we all end up with a little less freedom, and we start to live
in a country that looks a little more like the CCCP.
| |
| Eeyore 2007-02-03, 3:25 am |
|
N9WOS wrote:
> All CRT TV's and monitors should be banned. When have you seen a CRT monitor
> that used less power than the equivalent LCD monitor? I know gamers would
> complain, but they if CRT monitors that they like to use, cause more
> environmental destruction from power usage, then they will just have to like
> it, or lump it.
It's the plasma screens that really eat the watts btw.
Graham
| |
| grumtac@sbcglobal.net 2007-02-03, 3:25 am |
| On Feb 2, 10:19 pm, "N9WOS" <N...@nobug.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> It kinda goes along the same lines as another similar subject I commented on
> a long time ago.
Enjoyed your "Common Sense" and truthful post. Those are rare these
days.
>states banning mercury vapor
> lights. And where the DOE finally made it illegal to produce ballast for
> mercury vapor fixtures after a specific date. Thus, basically stopping
> anyone from making new fixtures using mercury vapor lights.
yep, ban >mercury< vapor lights, then come up with a LAW to put
lights WITH Mercury and phosphorous in all our homes.
Brilliant. just brilliant. All in the guise of "how much we will all
save".
Not to worry. "Hilarious Care" (Hillary Clinton Care to be precise)
will then take care of their six legged mercury infested offspring,
and the government will care about the problem sooo much that they
will go after "Big Mercury" with a lawsuit to show them who's boss.
They will promise the settlement money to "help the people", but it
will all get redirected to some other really important expendature
like monkey butt hair studies or the like. NO mention will ever be
made in the "we're not leftist" newsrolls that it was the government
itself who came up with the stupid idea in the first place, and then a
bunch of foolish thinking people just marched along to their leaders
drumbeat.
Oh well, Not much anyone can do about it.
| |
| Dan Bloomquist 2007-02-03, 3:25 am |
|
N9WOS wrote:
> It kinda goes along the same lines as another similar subject I commented on
> a long time ago. In relation to counties, and states banning mercury vapor
> lights. And where the DOE finally made it illegal to produce ballast for
> mercury vapor fixtures after a specific date. Thus, basically stopping
> anyone from making new fixtures using mercury vapor lights.
>
> My opinion is the government is overstepping it's bounds.
A very long time ago there was a move to ban and encourage sodium in
Falgstaff. It was because of the observatory. One thing very noticeable
about Flagstaff when my wife and I visit, the sky is beautiful at night.
The lighting in the town is elegant. You can call it government, but it
is what a 'people' decided and it worked.
<snip a lot of stuff I don't have time to read>
| |
|
| Eeyore wrote:
>
> N9WOS wrote:
>
>
>
>
> It's the plasma screens that really eat the watts btw.
>
> Graham
>
If we're banning things on the basis of energy efficiency, SUV's should
be among the first to go.
--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
| |
|
| On Feb 2, 6:09 am, "Deputy Dumbya Dawg"
<Deputy_Dumbyaa_D...@whiteehouuse.gov> wrote:
> "Sudden Disruption" <sudden....@gmail.com> wrote in
> message :
> : This new law would be based on a myth about light
> bulbs...
> :
> : For years the Federal Energy Star program has
> perpetuated the myth
> : that if you buy appliances (or any electrical device)
> for the home
> : that uses less energy, you'll see proportional
> savings in your monthly
> : power bill. This is rarely the case.
> :
> : Other eco-writers do similar simplistic math to
> calculate savings in
> : money, energy and carbon. A recent example is Charles
> Fishman's
> : September 2006 article in Fast Company magazine about
> WalMart's CFL
> : project, "How Many Lightbulbs Does it Take to Change
> the World?".
> :
> : The claim is made that if a single light bulb using
> 45 watts less is
> : placed in 100 million homes, 6.57 billion
> Kilo-Watt-Hours will be
> : saved. The fact is, unless you are cooling your home,
> there is ZERO
> : savings. Charles focused on the bulb, but forgot
> about the home. His
> : entire premise is based on a false assumption. The
> savings are grossly
> : exaggerated.
> :
> : "Wasted" energy takes the form of heat. And this heat
> helps heat your
> : house, if only just a small amount. For most of
> America, for most of
> : the year, that 45 watts will be automatically added
> back in by the
> : home heating system to maintain the same level of
> comfort. If the home
> : is heated with electricity, the savings in dollars,
> energy and carbon
> : production is literally ZERO.
>
> : Will someone please tell me what I've missed before
> this becomes law?
>
> Agreeing with you winter heated home case above the
> following remains true:
>
> 1) In the summer your AC will not have to work as hard
> to maintain thermostat settings by not being loaded by
> the heat difference between the compact florescent and
> an incandescent bulbs.
>
> 2) In places where there is no heat or air conditioning
> just a grass hut with a bulb in in ( like Fiji or New
> Orleans for instance) the more efficient CF light will
> just use a third of the electricity producing visible
> light period.
>
> A watt saved is a watt earned.
>
> Peace
> dawg
Why make a law to force people to save money? Sooner of later people
will just stop buying incandescent bulbs anyway because they are
becoming obsolete technology just like typewriters.
Btw, really childish nickname.
| |
| Joe Fischer 2007-02-03, 9:25 am |
| On Sat, Dan Bloomquist <public21@lakeweb.com> wrote:
>N9WOS wrote:
>
>A very long time ago there was a move to ban and encourage sodium in
>Falgstaff. It was because of the observatory. One thing very noticeable
>about Flagstaff when my wife and I visit, the sky is beautiful at night.
>The lighting in the town is elegant. You can call it government, but it
>is what a 'people' decided and it worked.
>
><snip a lot of stuff I don't have time to read>
Could you take a little more time to read what
you write, how can sodium be both banned and encouraged?
Joe Fischer
| |
|
|
> A very long time ago there was a move to ban and encourage sodium in
> Falgstaff. It was because of the observatory. One thing very noticeable
> about Flagstaff when my wife and I visit, the sky is beautiful at night.
> The lighting in the town is elegant. You can call it government, but it
> is what a 'people' decided and it worked.
>
> <snip a lot of stuff I don't have time to read>
>
With that statement
You are taking the basses, for the laws out of context.
You are also leading people to a conclusion that isn't based in reality.
The IDA (international dark sky association) had similar line of stuff on
their website a few years ago. And I sent a couple very long Emails(a lot
longer than my first post) to them about two years ago, detailing my
distaste for their overall attitude that they presented on their website.
And the falsehoods they were obviously trying to imply on their website. And
the damage it was doing to community regulations.
There was also a bunch of lighting companies that were starting to put
pressure on them at that time, to try to get them to stop acting like a
bunch of idiots.
http://www.cooperlighting.com/conte...on/dark_sky.cfm
The results.
They have built a lot better web site since them. That I find a lot more
fair, and even handed. They don't try (as much as they use to) to brainwash
readers with irrational hatred of specific technologies any more. I don't
know if it was anything directly to do with the feedback they got from the
public like me, or the lighting industry it's self.
I can only hope that I helped straighten them out a bit. :-)
The problem I have with you statement is, you are making a strong
implication that the forced use of sodium sources, more specifically low
pressure sodium sources, and the outright banning of mercury vapor lights,
reduced the sky glow, and made the stars more visible.
And implications like that is what got me cranked at the IDA.
The thing that helped the sky glow to the naked eye is the mandated use of
full cutoff fixtures.
The use of low pressure sodium sources was primarily for the ease of
filtering out the man made light at the observatory. The light that still
made it to the sky even with full cutoff fixtures.
The use of the sodium sources do nothing to reduce sky glow to the human
eye. In fact, they help increase sky glow to a certain point. That is
because you have to use higher illumination levels to achieve the same
usability as other whiter sources like mercury vapor, and metal halide. So
total reflection and total sky glow is increased above the level that you
would have if you were using whiter light sources.
The use of full cutoff fixtures in what people need to push for, to help
reduce sky glow that the people at large, see. The mandated use of sodium
sources is something that I often see in other locations, that have no
reason for such laws. The reason they have such laws is because they are
drawing directly from legislation generated in areas surrounding protected
areas (telescopes) without any real understanding why the laws they are
drawing off of, were written like they were. Since the laws in Arizona have
a requirement for sodium sources, they think they need to put the same laws
in effect where they are.
They are also using the "efficiency" chant to try to push the use of sodium
sources while neglecting the fact that sodium sources are one of the most
worthless night time light sources. Even to the point that the actual usable
illumination per watt is lower than mercury vapor.
In the light from a high/low pressure sodium source, you basically have
tunnel vision. Your peripheral vision is degraded to the point that it's
almost useless.
http://www.lightcorp.com/indWhitePaper.cfm?id=6
http://www.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/29267-5.4.5.pdf
That is why a lot of cities are starting to ban the use of high/low pressure
sodium sources for public lighting. Because the lighting degrades the night
time vision of the people under it, to the point that it's dangerous.
The only problem is, with the forced end to mercury vapor lights, that
leaves metal halide lights as the only high power source for outdoor
lighting in a lot of areas at this time.
In 2004, 2005 time frame, the information about how bad sodium sources were,
was just coming out. And a lot of people in the lighting industry, and
regulatory branches were fighting it. It was basically saying that the
pushed changeover from mercury vapor, to high/low pressure sodium was a big
mistake. (That they caused)
That is about the time when they instated the ban on production of mercury
vapor ballast that starts in 2008. Which was a mistake, that was based on
faulty logic.
And now, it's starting to become widely accepted that metal halide is the
preferred light source. And that the only acceptable replacement for aging
mercury vapor fixtures that are being forced out of use, is a metal halide,
or fluorescent light source.
http://fm.colorado.edu/planning/pro.../LightingMP.pdf
That is why I think the government has no right impose regulations like
that. In this case, the damage is already done. And the results are
irrevocable.
| |
|
| > >A very long time ago there was a move to ban and encourage sodium in
>
> Could you take a little more time to read what
> you write, how can sodium be both banned and encouraged?
>
> Joe Fischer
>
He was basically referring to where they banned mercury vapor lights, and
encouraged sodium based sources.
| |
|
|
"Dan Bloomquist" <public21@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
news:%%Uwh.1828$B25.852@news01.roc.ny...
>
>
> N9WOS wrote:
>
>
> A very long time ago there was a move to ban and encourage sodium in Falgstaff. It was
> because of the observatory. One thing very noticeable about Flagstaff when my wife and
> I visit, the sky is beautiful at night. The lighting in the town is elegant. You can
> call it government, but it is what a 'people' decided and it worked.
>
> <snip a lot of stuff I don't have time to read>
>
Incandescent lamps are huge energy wasters.
Their lifespan is also very small. comparatively.
I am hoping the time will come when high efficiency LED lamps
will replace everything concerning lighting today.
| |
| Dan Bloomquist 2007-02-03, 9:25 am |
|
N9WOS wrote:
>
>
> The problem I have with you statement is, you are making a strong
> implication that the forced use of sodium sources, more specifically low
> pressure sodium sources, and the outright banning of mercury vapor lights,
> reduced the sky glow, and made the stars more visible.
The problem I have with your statement is that you are saying personal
observation is irrelevant. I find mercury harsh and invading at night. I
find sodium much more benign.
Of course, you don't have to like my opinion as lighting is subjective.
Visit Flagstaff and see how it 'feels'.
| |
| Dan Bloomquist 2007-02-03, 9:25 am |
|
Pluto wrote:
> "Dan Bloomquist" <public21@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
> news:%%Uwh.1828$B25.852@news01.roc.ny...
>
> Incandescent lamps are huge energy wasters.
> Their lifespan is also very small. comparatively.
This is not about incandescent. I haven't looked at the numbers, but, it
is likely that sodium and mercury are on par with each other.
> I am hoping the time will come when high efficiency LED lamps
> will replace everything concerning lighting today.
CFs are cost competitive and LEDs, (market), are not as efficient. I ran
down the numbers about a half a year ago. They came in at something like
ten times the cost and 70% as efficient. There is a thread back there
with references.
| |
| grumtac@sbcglobal.net 2007-02-03, 1:25 pm |
| On Feb 2, 11:41 pm, CJT <abujl...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> If we're banning things on the basis of energy efficiency, SUV's should
> be among the first to go.
Oh good,.... I can keep my 10mpg VANS then if you do that...... cause
I look quite foolish and if you didnt know, its inherently dangerous
to haul heavy goods on the roof of a honda civic.....
Of course, if it becomes too dangerous, we can then easily make
another law to then ban hauling sheets of ply, iron beams, scaffold
and the like on top of honda. In fact, we could make it a law that
ONLY goverment registered people can own certain vehicles, and each
can obtain permits to haul certain things. Where will you stop ?
SOME people NEED large vehicles, and no government should ever be able
to dictate what size vehicle you drive.
just keep making stupid laws. Sure. that will fix everything.
| |
| daestrom 2007-02-03, 1:25 pm |
|
"Steve Cothran" <fake@fake.com> wrote in message
news:2cp6s294b1ki9k1bv2l9it5tvs5a3vq91k@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 04:16:57 +0000, Eeyore
> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> In Tennessee, most of the electric companies are co-ops. Money is
> needed to run the offices, and maintain lines and stuff, so the co-op
> adds a cent or to to each kwh they resell. The volume of the
> electricity sold allows them a margin to operate with. If we all
> suddenly cut our usage 50%, then the co-op would then have to charge
> more for each kwh.
>
> I suppose that would work for a profit company also.
>
That supposes that all the costs of running the electric company are fixed.
They are not. Many are variable depending on how much electric is
generated. So cut the demand and the costs go down some (not
proportionally, but some).
And not all forms of generation cost the same, cut demand and you can shut
down the most expensive generation first.
It gets really complicated.
daestrom
| |
| Eeyore 2007-02-03, 1:25 pm |
|
N9WOS wrote:
>
>
> He was basically referring to where they banned mercury vapor lights, and
> encouraged sodium based sources.
How strange.
I loathe that orange light. It's gives lousy visibility.
Graham
| |
| Eeyore 2007-02-03, 1:25 pm |
|
Pluto wrote:
> Incandescent lamps are huge energy wasters.
> Their lifespan is also very small. comparatively.
>
> I am hoping the time will come when high efficiency LED lamps
> will replace everything concerning lighting today.
What's so special about LEDs ?
Graham
| |
| Eeyore 2007-02-03, 1:25 pm |
|
grumtac@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> CJT <abujl...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> Oh good,.... I can keep my 10mpg VANS then if you do that...... cause
> I look quite foolish and if you didnt know, its inherently dangerous
> to haul heavy goods on the roof of a honda civic.....
>
> Of course, if it becomes too dangerous, we can then easily make
> another law to then ban hauling sheets of ply, iron beams, scaffold
> and the like on top of honda. In fact, we could make it a law that
> ONLY goverment registered people can own certain vehicles, and each
> can obtain permits to haul certain things. Where will you stop ?
>
> SOME people NEED large vehicles, and no government should ever be able
> to dictate what size vehicle you drive.
>
> just keep making stupid laws. Sure. that will fix everything.
How many SUVs are used to haul sheets of ply, iron beams, scaffold and the like ?
Graham
| |
| Balanced View 2007-02-03, 1:25 pm |
| Eeyore wrote:
>
> grumtac@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>
>
> How many SUVs are used to haul sheets of ply, iron beams, scaffold and the like ?
>
> Graham
>
>
Granted, some people really need a SUV or halfton, but as you say many
you see on the highway are driven by some woman in curlers with nary a
2"x4" in sight. I would suggest purchasing a 4 x 8 ' trailer to pull
behind the Civic if all one needs is to haul bikes, plywood, skidoo's
etc.. a couple of times a year.
| |
| Eeyore 2007-02-03, 1:25 pm |
|
Balanced View wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
>
>
> Granted, some people really need a SUV or halfton, but as you say many
> you see on the highway are driven by some woman in curlers with nary a
> 2"x4" in sight. I would suggest purchasing a 4 x 8 ' trailer to pull
> behind the Civic if all one needs is to haul bikes, plywood, skidoo's
> etc.. a couple of times a year.
That sounds a lot more sensible to me.
Graham
| |
| Loren Amelang 2007-02-03, 5:25 pm |
| On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 23:19:19 -0500, "N9WOS" <N9WOS@nobug.sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
>They have a right to tell me that I can't use a fixture with poor light
>control that shines into the neighbor's window. But they have no right to
>tell me what type of light to put in it. If I want to put in a light bulb
>that waste energy, that's my problem, as long as I am the one that's paying
>for the power.
>
>As long as I pay for something, and I don't bother anyone else with it, I
>should be able to do with it as I please.
Of course current theory says that by using a less efficient light
source you _are_ hurting other people - the ones who care about polar
bears, the ones who will be first affected by Global Warming, and
eventually all of us.
The problem with the light bulb law is its mandating of specific
technology rather than bottom-line results. Unfortunately it is hard
to use "cap-and-trade" strategies to influence the behavior of the
general public. Maybe we need a system of "carbon microcredits" that
could be traded by individuals... Get one free with every CFL you
buy, and when you have enough saved up you can get a gallon of gas for
your SUV...
Loren
| |
| Joe Fischer 2007-02-03, 5:25 pm |
| On Sat, Loren Amelang <loren@pacific.net> wrote:
>Of course current theory says that by using a less efficient light
>source you _are_ hurting other people - the ones who care about polar
>bears, the ones who will be first affected by Global Warming, and
>eventually all of us.
Well, Loren, I believe in doing what is possible,
especially if it is efficient, but the polar bears have no
trouble keeping warm, I do.
I don't think everybody should take every
story line and video to heart, I turn the TV off or
change channels at a lot of things I don't want to
see or hear about if I can't do anything about it.
I suspect if a polar bear is stranded on an
ice flow, he made a big mistake not swimming to
stable ice when he could, and if somebody got
pictures, they should have been towing a small
boat or raft so they could rescue him.
>The problem with the light bulb law is its mandating of specific
>technology rather than bottom-line results. Unfortunately it is hard
>to use "cap-and-trade" strategies to influence the behavior of the
>general public. Maybe we need a system of "carbon microcredits" that
>could be traded by individuals... Get one free with every CFL you
>buy, and when you have enough saved up you can get a gallon of gas for
>your SUV...
>Loren
That might be workable, right after "we" are
elected King. :-)
Joe Fischer
| |
| harry k 2007-02-03, 5:25 pm |
| On Feb 3, 10:11 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> grum...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> How many SUVs are used to haul sheets of ply, iron beams, scaffold and the like ?
>
> Graham- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
It never fails that when the subject of SUVs comes up, some guy will
instantly aregue "but some people need them" Yep, true and totallly
immaterial. It does not address the following facts.
1. Most people who need something to haul material with would be far
better off with a 1/2, 3/4 (or even 1/4 ton) 2x PU.
2. 95% of the SUVs have never hauled anything except people and their
belongings. Actually a SUV is a pee poor vehicle to haul stuff in
anyhow.
3. About the same percentage have never needed to be in 4X.
Then the next thing the morons come up with "but what if I want to two
something. Same as above. A standard PU is better for that.
Harry K
| |
| Sudden Disruption 2007-02-03, 8:25 pm |
| >Paul M. Eldridge posted...
> Let me elaborate on my own situation, as it happens to be the one I
> know best. I heat my home with a heat pump that provides, on average,
> two and a half times more heat, per kWh, than electric resistance
You provide an excellent counter-example I hadn't considered. Heat
pumps are wonderful and efficient machines and you show CFLs are
indeed the way to go in your home.
But I think you would still agree, not ALL of the savings calculated
by Energy Star go into your pocket. Even though cost effective, your
heat pump still has to replace that lost heat at the cost you've
nicely defined.
Now if we could just convince 100 million home-owners to convert to
heat pump.
Maybe we should enact a law!
Thanks for the nice calculation and serious consideration.
Sudden Disruption
--
Sudden View...
the radical option for editing text
http://www.sudden.net/
http://suddendisruption.blogspot.com
| |
| Mauried 2007-02-03, 9:26 pm |
| On 3 Feb 2007 17:16:05 -0800, "Sudden Disruption"
<sudden.net@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>You provide an excellent counter-example I hadn't considered. Heat
>pumps are wonderful and efficient machines and you show CFLs are
>indeed the way to go in your home.
>
>But I think you would still agree, not ALL of the savings calculated
>by Energy Star go into your pocket. Even though cost effective, your
>heat pump still has to replace that lost heat at the cost you've
>nicely defined.
>
>Now if we could just convince 100 million home-owners to convert to
>heat pump.
>
>Maybe we should enact a law!
>
>Thanks for the nice calculation and serious consideration.
>
>
>Sudden Disruption
>--
>Sudden View...
> the radical option for editing text
>http://www.sudden.net/
>http://suddendisruption.blogspot.com
>
As an aside here in Australia there has been over the last few years a
massive rise in the number of people buying Heat Pumps, mainly for
cooling , and in one capital city , Adelaide , the entire power grid
crashed last year when on a number of ultra hot days , everyone turned
on their heat pumps for cooling.
Since then , The Govt has been trying to persuade people either not to
buy Heat Pumps, or not to turn them on on hot days , (sorta defeats
the purpose of having one.)
The real problem is actually defining what is energy wastage and what
should and should not be allowed.
And to make the whole situation even more silly, where I live the
local power utility activley encourages ppl to buy heat pumps by
reducing their electricity cost if they have one, 10 c/kwh down to 7
c/kwh.
Its almost worth buying one even if you never use it.
| |
| Dan Bloomquist 2007-02-04, 3:25 am |
|
Joe Fischer wrote:
> Well, Loren, I believe...
You should fuck off.
| |
|
| Don't need that with all the info that the Clinton Administration provided.
"Jack" <grampajack@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:_tywh.4207$Xf4.3890@trndny09...
> Your analysis is quite correct in that saving energy on light bulbs only
> to spend it on heating is a net zero gain. To be honest though most
> office buildings have a net heat excess during almost all of the year
> because of the large number of humans contained therein. In those
> situations you have to pay twice for the inefficiency of the incandescent
> light bulb - once when you use too much electricity making light and end
> up with waste heat and again when the air conditioning system has to pump
> that excess heat outside. California is a state where the latter situation
> is typical although it does seem that criminalizing the use of
> incandescent bulbs is a bit drastic. What will the little girls use in
> their Mattel ovens.
>
> It would seem that if The Bush Administration really had the slightest
> interest in the energy independence of The United States they would
> provide us with some guidelines on conserving energy.
>
>
> "Sudden Disruption" <sudden.net@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1170384440.631519.243470@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
>
>
|
|
|
|
|