A good Monday discussion topic:

A good Monday discussion topic:

Doc Nickel
Doc Nickel

February 28th, 2011, 12:36 pm #1

Here's a good "open thread" topic for you guys (and occasional girl.) (Keep it civil.)

Two things that have struck me as odd lately:

One- we're banning incandescent bulbs in favor of more efficient fluorescents or LEDs, in order to save electricity... while at the same time we're actively pushing for a huge increase in "plug-in" all-electric cars.

Two- We're blocking oil exploration and production in favor of biofuels, ethanol and biodiesels made from corn and soybeans, in order to stave off global warming... while we're told that one of the looming GW-caused disasters will be widespread famines brought about by droughts and other extreme-weather-related crop losses.

Seriously- does no one see this kind of connection? Do greenies see each issue as wholly discreet and unrelated to any other issue, or something?

Doc.
Quote
Share

dsergison
dsergison

February 28th, 2011, 1:44 pm #2

the light thing is about using electricity where it makes sense, insted of needlessly burning it off for light. If you have efficient lights you can then use it for transportation.

i think bio fuel is just a greedy lobby. but,

Americans aren't starving. no danger of that in the reasonable future. it's the already famished places like Africa that would really suffer. We have food to burn quite literally. Fattest country on the planet. Perhaps we should make blubber fuel. liposuction fat powered cars. Disgusting image isn't it?
Quote
Share

Sian
Sian

February 28th, 2011, 1:55 pm #3

Here's a good "open thread" topic for you guys (and occasional girl.) (Keep it civil.)

Two things that have struck me as odd lately:

One- we're banning incandescent bulbs in favor of more efficient fluorescents or LEDs, in order to save electricity... while at the same time we're actively pushing for a huge increase in "plug-in" all-electric cars.

Two- We're blocking oil exploration and production in favor of biofuels, ethanol and biodiesels made from corn and soybeans, in order to stave off global warming... while we're told that one of the looming GW-caused disasters will be widespread famines brought about by droughts and other extreme-weather-related crop losses.

Seriously- does no one see this kind of connection? Do greenies see each issue as wholly discreet and unrelated to any other issue, or something?

Doc.
The greenies for no logical reason seem to refuse to accept that our temporary salvation will come via nuclear power, which is safer and less damaging to the environment than basically everything else, then it will all come together, with higher electrical capacity will come electric everything and then we can focus on developing advanced power solutions like fusion.
Quote
Share

Shives
Shives

February 28th, 2011, 2:47 pm #4

the light thing is about using electricity where it makes sense, insted of needlessly burning it off for light. If you have efficient lights you can then use it for transportation.

i think bio fuel is just a greedy lobby. but,

Americans aren't starving. no danger of that in the reasonable future. it's the already famished places like Africa that would really suffer. We have food to burn quite literally. Fattest country on the planet. Perhaps we should make blubber fuel. liposuction fat powered cars. Disgusting image isn't it?
How are we going to dispose of all those new light bulbs?

Shives
Quote
Share

Anon E. Mouse
Anon E. Mouse

February 28th, 2011, 2:54 pm #5

The greenies for no logical reason seem to refuse to accept that our temporary salvation will come via nuclear power, which is safer and less damaging to the environment than basically everything else, then it will all come together, with higher electrical capacity will come electric everything and then we can focus on developing advanced power solutions like fusion.
'The Greenies' are hardly a cohesive unit. The ones pushing for electric cars and the ones pushing for more efficient bulbs are likely completely separate entities, as are the ones shrieking for alternative fuels and the people warning that we're going to have severe starvation. (And even if that last group is right, we will need to have alternative fuels available for shipping food from the regions that still grow it to the regions that are no longer arable.)

But telling everybody that we need to embrace nuclear power and it will solve all problems is dangerously short-sighted. Nuclear waste is extremely damaging and an extremely long-term problem, and you can't even store all that much of it in any one area without compounding the risk. Making enough nuclear generators to meet all the needs of the western hemisphere and its nifty new electric cars would force us to also make scores of nuclear waste facilities, which are large and have to be built far off from major population centers. That means a lot of construction on zoned wilderness areas, transport to those isolated facilities on new roads because you can't risk a pothole or minimum maintenance stretch of ground, and a 'minimal risk' of containment failure times that many facilities. Even if you haven't watched the China Syndrome or seen what happened at Chernobyl, there's plenty of reason to not want to throw nuclear power plants everywhere as a solution.
Quote
Share

usagi_tetsu
usagi_tetsu

February 28th, 2011, 3:10 pm #6

How are we going to dispose of all those new light bulbs?

Shives
The eco-geeks are hoping a new industry will spring up to safely recycle and reuse all the toxic nasties in the light bulbs.

However, even if that doesn't come about, the fact that flourescents and LEDs last 10 to 100 times longer than incandescents means switching over to them is still more environmentally friendly. And using less elictricity means less of the harmful stuff coming out of the coal-burning plants (which America mainly runs on) is also a step in the right direction.
Quote
Share

sumdumguy
sumdumguy

February 28th, 2011, 3:11 pm #7

Here's a good "open thread" topic for you guys (and occasional girl.) (Keep it civil.)

Two things that have struck me as odd lately:

One- we're banning incandescent bulbs in favor of more efficient fluorescents or LEDs, in order to save electricity... while at the same time we're actively pushing for a huge increase in "plug-in" all-electric cars.

Two- We're blocking oil exploration and production in favor of biofuels, ethanol and biodiesels made from corn and soybeans, in order to stave off global warming... while we're told that one of the looming GW-caused disasters will be widespread famines brought about by droughts and other extreme-weather-related crop losses.

Seriously- does no one see this kind of connection? Do greenies see each issue as wholly discreet and unrelated to any other issue, or something?

Doc.
Light bulbs are kind of my area of expertise simply because my family has wholesaled light bulbs for over 25 years now. I dont pretend to know a lot about bulbs, because Im just getting started with the family business, but I have a good feel for the industry.

Much of the problems with light bulbs right now are caused by their own industry. Incandescent bulbs are going away because companies like GE lobbied to get them banned. They would rather sell a $5 CFL than a $.25 incandescent. People buy into the fact that they are energy efficient, and it saves them money in the immediate future, but in the long term it doesnt. Utility companies are being forced to raise their rates simply because people are no longer using enough electricity for them to cover their costs. Weve already seen this happen a number of times. So now we have to buy more expensive lamps and pay higher utilities.

We are still currently bringing in incandescent bulbs from China but in wont last to much longer. Stuck inside the Obama Health Care bill there was legislation that called for certain incandescent bulb to be outlawed. We are still allowed to bring in Rough Service lamps, which are tougher variations of normal incandescent lamps, and you can use them just like a regular bulb until they become wise to what we are doing.

One thing to look for in the near future isnt what light bulbs youre being forced to buy, but how you have to dispose of them. They are trying to engrain in us that light bulbs, mainly CFLs, are toxic due to mercury vapor. The truth is that there isnt enough mercury vapor in one CFL to hurt anyone. But the goal for them is to make it illegal to throw away any CFL or LED which forces you to recycle it. If you go to any big box store you can already find recycling bins specifically for light bulbs. Its free now but it wont be in the future.

So in the near future we will be forced to buy expensive bulbs which in-turn raise utility rates, and then we will be forced to pay to recycle them! Sorry for the long rant, but its the industry Im in and its all stuff you should know.
Quote
Share

Renegade_Azzy
Renegade_Azzy

February 28th, 2011, 3:22 pm #8

Here's a good "open thread" topic for you guys (and occasional girl.) (Keep it civil.)

Two things that have struck me as odd lately:

One- we're banning incandescent bulbs in favor of more efficient fluorescents or LEDs, in order to save electricity... while at the same time we're actively pushing for a huge increase in "plug-in" all-electric cars.

Two- We're blocking oil exploration and production in favor of biofuels, ethanol and biodiesels made from corn and soybeans, in order to stave off global warming... while we're told that one of the looming GW-caused disasters will be widespread famines brought about by droughts and other extreme-weather-related crop losses.

Seriously- does no one see this kind of connection? Do greenies see each issue as wholly discreet and unrelated to any other issue, or something?

Doc.
1 part are the people who really care about the environment. Those are the street level people. The next are the politicians who realize the power and money they can have from pushing this sort of regulation.

After a while, when the people start to ask what they can do, because so many things are illegal, they are under your control without even thinking about it.

the noisy freedom types are easy enough to push aside and be called flat earthers and cooks, or shills for Big"_____".


Lightbulbs are easy. GE is the government's biggest supplier of everything. They are a giant lobby, and now even in the cabinet. It made them more money to close domestic production plants here in the US, and push their new types of bulbs that are made for pennies on the dollar in a place like China, where they don't care about the environment or their people's liberty.
Quote
Share

sumdumguy
sumdumguy

February 28th, 2011, 3:28 pm #9

The eco-geeks are hoping a new industry will spring up to safely recycle and reuse all the toxic nasties in the light bulbs.

However, even if that doesn't come about, the fact that flourescents and LEDs last 10 to 100 times longer than incandescents means switching over to them is still more environmentally friendly. And using less elictricity means less of the harmful stuff coming out of the coal-burning plants (which America mainly runs on) is also a step in the right direction.
the fact that flourescents and LEDs last 10 to 100 times longer than incandescents means switching over to them is still more environmentally friendly.

When used in the right application, yes. The problem is that most people dont know where to use them. Flourescents and LEDs dont do well in cold weather so when someone puts a CFL in their garage to replace their outdated incandescent they quickly realize that when they flip the switch it takes a minute for the CFL to even fire, then it takes several minutes for it to even warm up! Because of this, people are leaving their lights on all the time which defeats the purpose. It just isnt the right bulb for the application.

Flourescents also dont do well with constantly being turned on and off. The ballasts inside them lose more lifespan every time they are turned on and off. Which makes them not practical in places like closets but makes them great for office buildings.

And when it comes to LEDs, the technology just isnt there yet. Some LEDs look great, but they also cost 10 times what an incandescent does. And for the most part their lifespan in grossly overstated. We dont bring LEDs into our inventory simply because we generally receive them back because the customer wasnt happy with them all around.
Quote
Share

OmniMech
OmniMech

February 28th, 2011, 3:39 pm #10

Here's a good "open thread" topic for you guys (and occasional girl.) (Keep it civil.)

Two things that have struck me as odd lately:

One- we're banning incandescent bulbs in favor of more efficient fluorescents or LEDs, in order to save electricity... while at the same time we're actively pushing for a huge increase in "plug-in" all-electric cars.

Two- We're blocking oil exploration and production in favor of biofuels, ethanol and biodiesels made from corn and soybeans, in order to stave off global warming... while we're told that one of the looming GW-caused disasters will be widespread famines brought about by droughts and other extreme-weather-related crop losses.

Seriously- does no one see this kind of connection? Do greenies see each issue as wholly discreet and unrelated to any other issue, or something?

Doc.
The reason we have so many conflicting arguments is because nobody knows exactly what we are and are not doing to the planet. One group says "Cars cause greenhouse gasses!"...while a study shows that farm animal waste and (pardon the crudeness) animal farts contribute more greenhouse gases than all the cars, trucks, trains, etc. combined.

Anyone know where their Hybrid car comes from? Do some research on what it takes to mine the nickel, refine it, turn it into battery material, and get it into a car. The results might surprise you. Do they save gas? Financially, yes. Not much, but its there. And with our Stupid Human mindset, we think 'Hey, im saving gas money...i can afford to drive more!' So they really don't help very much, at all.

Bottled water? Pass, thanks. In a lot of the cases, the 'pure mountain water' is usually just tap water run through a filter, put in a bottle, and priced at $2.50. In other cases, requirements on bacteria and such is non-existant. And barely any of the bottles make it to the recycling center.

Have you heard about the envirogroups talking about Co2 scrubbers? There are devices that can remove a good chunk, if not all, of the Co2 being tooted out of smokestacks and such. Heck, the US Navy uses the things on submarines to scrub the Co2 out of the air when the subs are on patrol. So why aren't the enviro guys shouting about these things from the rooftops? Because they don't like them. If Co2 is the problem...and enviro guys are up in arms about Co2...remove the Co2 and suddenly the enviro's have one less thing to beat us over the head with. Why get rid of a problem that gives a group purpose? No environmental group will ever champion Co2 scrubbers.

I think a lot of the things that we are discovering about the environment and all the good and bad things in it, is not because of us. I think its because we are more accurate in tracking situations and natural occurrences. We arent leaving a bigger 'carbon footprint' or whatever the buzzword is, these days. If you look at the 'carbon footprint' that the enviro guys want us all to have...humanity hasnt left a footprint that small since the early 1800's.

And global warming? I heard an interesting point about that. Geologically speaking, we are still coming out of the last ice age. After freezing comes warming... If thats true, the planet is going to warm up no matter what we do or dont do.
Quote
Share