report scams here at scam.com dont get scammed Scams and Scammers - Expose hypocrisy and spread respect ! Don't get ripped off! REGISTER
Go Back   scams > Scam Message Board > Science Scams
Register FAQ Register To Post Member List Promote Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #19  
Old 12-19-2011, 07:15 AM
Lord_jag's Avatar
Lord_jag Lord_jag is offline
I am God because I say I am. Prove me wrong.
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,800
Re: Light Bulb Scam

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spector567 View Post
Yes and no.

Are you sure there is that much competition? There are lots of other companies but do they have the pure manufacturing power and distribution?

As you said the problem is that supply is low. It is low for a reason. The big companies have been dragging there heals for some time on producing the better bulb. They have not devoted the manufacturing and R&D to the technology. Thus keeping the supply low.

In reality it's not really gouging the market. They are just optimizing there revenue streams.

Companies do this all the time and it's real easy to do when the better long term revenue comes from the cheaper product.
It's all a fine balance. They do have to control the market share. If the manufacturers flood the market, they all lose money. That's not good for anyone.

They have to try to meet the demand "just in time" (JIT). If they overshoot, they have leftover stock that has to be stored or liquidated. If they undershoot, they miss out on profits.

I do think there is a lot of competition though, and they are constantly making them cheaper and cheaper as mass production lines keep being completed.

I think we can agree, though, that if another company could see profit in making the same bulb for 10 cents cheaper, they would ramp up production. That's capitalism at work.
__________________
A real, honest, falsifiable claim made b.y Seer of dreams:(2011)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cnance View Post
I believe there will be a nuclear war in October of this year.
Oh Cnance.... Full of shit as always.


Reply With Quote

  #20  
Old 12-20-2011, 01:09 AM
LogicallyYours's Avatar
LogicallyYours LogicallyYours is offline
Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 6,378
Re: Light Bulb Scam

Quote:
Originally Posted by sodabread View Post
Sure it is a ban

http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com...it-is-ban.html

1. Setting a standard that does not allow certain products is of course the same as banning them.

2. Setting ****** efficiency standards (45 Lumen per watt by 2020 at the latest) that does not allow any of today's known or indeed announced incandescents - Halogen or otherwise, usually being around 20 lumen per watt, maxing at around 25-30 lumen per watt - is the same as banning them too.

3. To say that if I climb Mount Everest then I can smoke a cigarette,
does not really mean that I can smoke a cigarette.

4. Even if manufacturers could make
appropriate incandescents, they hardly would, since they searched for the ban in the first place on this comparatively unprofitable technology
http://ceolas.net/#li12ax
-- which nonetheless small local startups could easily make, if they were allowed, also since they can't make the more complex bulbs
-- sustainability, local jobs, enviro-green local transport , no mercury recycling needed etc etc...
but no, the Green thing is to ban
(OK "phase-out") the bulb
Truth about the "Ban"

Quote:
But The Law Does Not Ban Incandescent Light Bulbs

Act Allows For "****** Efficiency Standards" For "General Service Incandescent Lamps." Under Title III, Subtitle B of the ****** Independence and Security Act of 2007, according to the Library of Congress:

Title III: ****** Savings Through Improved Standards for Appliance and Lighting

[...]

Subtitle B: Lighting ****** Efficiency - (Sec. 321) Amends EPCA [the ****** Policy and Conservation Act] to prescribe ****** efficiency standards for general service incandescent lamps, rough service lamps, and other designated lamps.

Directs the Secretary of ****** to: (1) conduct and report to the FTC on an annual assessment of the market for general service lamps and compact fluorescent lamps; and (2) carry out a proactive national program of consumer awareness, information, and education about lamp labels and ******-efficient lighting choices. Authorizes appropriations for FY2009-FY2012.

[...]

Instructs the Secretary of ****** to report to Congress on: (1) federal measures to reduce or prevent release of mercury during the manufacture, transportation, storage, or disposal of light bulbs; (2) whether specified rulemaking deadlines will be met; (3) an NAS review of advanced solid state lighting R&D and the impact upon the types of lighting available to consumers of an ****** conservation standard requiring a minimum of 45 lumens per watt for general service lighting; and (4) the time frame for commercialization of lighting to replace incandescent and halogen incandescent lamp technology.

(Sec. 322) Sets forth minimum ****** efficiency standards for incandescent reflector lamps.

[...]

(Sec. 324) Amends EPCA to include within its regulatory oversight: (1) metal halide lamp fixtures; and (2) ****** efficiency labeling for designated consumer electronic products. [THOMAS, thomas.loc.gov, accessed 01/04/11]
NYT: "Congress Has Not Specifically Outlawed Incandescent Bulbs, Only Inefficient Ones." A New York Times article published the week the ****** Independence and Security Act was passed said that "when 2012 hits, stores can no longer sell the cheap but inefficient incandescent light bulbs that are fixtures in most homes" but later noted, "Congress has not specifically outlawed incandescent bulbs, only inefficient ones." [The New York Times, 12/22/07]
__________________
"Religion is a heavy suitcase: all you have to do is put it down."
-----------------------------------------------------------
"I have read the bible...more than once. I was not impressed nor was I so moved to give up my ability to think for myself and surrender my knowledge of facts for the unfounded belief in a mythical sky-fairy." - Me.

Reply With Quote

  #21  
Old 12-27-2011, 01:15 AM
sodabread sodabread is offline
Newbie Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 14
Re: Ban in legislation

Re Logically on Legislation

Whatever about "ban" definition in theory,
it is clearly one in practice


BACKSTOP REQUIREMENTó if the final rule [not later than January 1, 2017] does not produce savings that are greater than or equal to the savings from a minimum efficacy standard of 45 lumens per watt, effective beginning January 1, 2020, the Secretary shall prohibit the sale of any general service lamp that does not meet a minimum efficacy standard of 45 lumens per watt"


The ****** Information Administration at the Department of ****** confirms:
"The second tier of efficiency improvements becomes effective by 2020,
essentially requiring general service bulbs to be as efficient as today's CFLs"

(efficiency being a relative word, ****** efficiency not being the same as say performance efficiency with fast cars or the easy efficient construction of bright light bulbs!)



Reply With Quote

  #22  
Old 12-27-2011, 02:09 AM
sodabread sodabread is offline
Newbie Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 14
Re: Light Bulb Scam

Re some of the replies

As for CFL "power factor"
Sylvania and US Dept of ****** and other sources clearly state the basic greater power plant ****** use from unbalanced appliances, such as unbalanced CFLs, as do other references, also in regard to grid harmonic distortion etc
including New Zealand investigation that apparently influenced their abandonment of the switchover.
Mexico is also having grid issues with their present CFL switchover program.

The overall savings.
whether on personal and society level can always be questioned
- but if you are happy with your choice, why not.
My point is not the usual one of just criticising CFLs or LEDs - it is why any
safe to use product should be banned
on ****** usage definitions:

Those who favor the bans always ignore
1. That ****** saving is not the only feature that makes a good desirable product.
2. That an ****** saving demand compromises desirable product characteristics
(buildings sealed up, cars slower or lighter then they might have
been, washing machines no longer practically top-loading,
plasma screens with low cost high contrast advantages disappear,
and of course simple incandescent light bulbs have their own light
quality and other advantages also with respect to related Halogens)


The real point is therefore the overall, greater, issue,
of why an easy to use cheap safe popular appliance like a regular incandescent has to be banned ("phased out") in the first place,
for consumers who choose to pay for any surplus electricity use, of which there is no shortage, and if there was a shortage, the price rise would reduce use anyway.

Arguably the overall society ****** savings are as said small - even on the supposed figures used, which are always boosted by a multi-year consideration
- in any case, it is a lot more relevant and with much greater savings to deal with say coal plant efficiency (US only around 30%) and grid upgrades, (again US comparably poor transmission efficiency), and actual waste of consumption (eg unnecessary usage) than the petty prohibition of end user choice of appliances.

Certainly, "easier just to ban bulbs" some will say,
but the savings are as mentioned always construed in a long term perspective, when such alternatives should be taken into account.


Even if the bulbs had to be targeted, they could be taxed, and help pay for the price reduction of ****** saving alternatives,
people are "Not just hit by Taxes",
and the market is equilibrated while keeping choice.


Better still is simply to encourage competition,
all along the electricity supply chain,
also to "stimulate industry" to make better, and yes, ****** efficient, bulbs.

Competing Electricity companies in grids, and light bulb manufacturers themselves, to begin with then strive to keep down their own ****** costs.

Manufacturer competition also pushes them to make ****** saving products that people actually want to buy, and have always wanted, since savings are a marketable advantage
"Expensive to buy but cheap in the long run"? - look at Energizer
bunny rabbit commercials, washing up liguids etc - they don't run to regulators looking for easier profits.
New ideas (****** efficient or otherwise) can be helped to the market- also to compete with imported products.

Manufacturers naturally seek profits - and they should be consulted on legislation affecting them.
However, their active lobbying went way beyond mere consultation,
and politicians played along.

The neutral observer might also be rather surprised that the manufacturers welcomed legislation:
Would you welcome being told what you can or can't make?
If so, why?


Lighting manufacturers therefore got a much easier way to profits,
in successfully lobbying for
a ban on cheap unprofitable incandescents
(also blocking any small local start-up rival that might make such easily made and locally transported bulbs),
to sell their more profitable expensive complex wares.
http://ceolas.net/#li1ax and onwards
with documentation and copies of official communications.


// edit addition: The scam nature of the ban regulations (as already implemented in the European Union)
is acknowledged by more and more investigations now that the ban has taken hold.
Including articles, a documentary film,
remorse by original sponsors, EU admitting to false savings claims, a "CFL dumping crisis" in the words of an EU minister etc http://ceolas.net/#postEUBan //


Last edited by sodabread : 12-28-2011 at 10:10 AM.
Reply With Quote

  #23  
Old 12-27-2011, 03:47 PM
Lord_jag's Avatar
Lord_jag Lord_jag is offline
I am God because I say I am. Prove me wrong.
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,800
Re: Light Bulb Scam

Quote:

Those who favor the bans always ignore
1. That ****** saving is not the only feature that makes a good desirable product.
2. That an ****** saving demand compromises desirable product characteristics
(buildings sealed up, cars slower or lighter then they might have
been, washing machines no longer practically top-loading,
plasma screens with low cost high contrast advantages disappear,
and of course simple incandescent light bulbs have their own light
quality and other advantages also with respect to related Halogens)
1) The ****** savings of the CFL is NOT the only benifitial attribute.

2) There are two phases of power in your house. If you install CFL's or any other device with a transformer on both phases, the power factor change cancels out.

You're not dealing with 3 phase power in your house, and even if you were. That's just a third phase to balance. With two phase it's easy... if you even care about a tiny little load like a CFL anyways.

You'll do far more to your electric bill by using just one phase(and not the other) than any of your made up mumbo jumbo psudo math about power factor.

There are plenty of conspiracies out there. This isn't one of them.
__________________
A real, honest, falsifiable claim made b.y Seer of dreams:(2011)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cnance View Post
I believe there will be a nuclear war in October of this year.
Oh Cnance.... Full of shit as always.

Reply With Quote

  #24  
Old 12-28-2011, 02:34 AM
sodabread sodabread is offline
Newbie Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 14
Re: CFL (LED, Incandescent) Power Factor

Re CFL etc power factor

A hidden power plant ****** usage cost to consumers, which does not show on their meters, but which they collectively have to pay for


****** Dept explanation
http://www1.eere.******.gov/industry...fs/mc60405.pdf

Sylvania (manufacturer) on how
power plant ****** use is greater with CFLs, etc
http://www.ee.bgu.ac.il/~instlab/Experiments/05_FlurLamp/PowerFactor1.pdf

Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) magazine :
The Hidden cost of CFLs
http://ecmweb.com/lighting/hidden_costs_cfls_0109/

The Engineer, article by a circuit design engineer
http://www.theengineer.co.uk/opinion/led-is-the-answer/299821.article


Fobsun, for professionals of LED lighting
http://www.fobsun.com/blog/2010/09/u...-of-led-lamps/

Australian engineer
http://sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm#pf

More
http://ceolas.net/#15eux
(= link references, also to New Zealand Consultant reports etc advising the Government)

Businesses see to it that they have balanced supply, or they get penalized.
Households rarely have such balance.
EIA stated average 45 light American households means significant CFL load from switchover programs and regulations.

LEDs too need or benefit from "Active Power Factor Correction".
Incandescents are balanced, PF =1 from the way they operate.


Last edited by sodabread : 12-28-2011 at 09:55 AM.
Reply With Quote

  #25  
Old 12-28-2011, 03:35 AM
sodabread sodabread is offline
Newbie Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 14
Re: CFL (LED, Incandescent) Power Factor

LEDS too "need good drivers" to give good power factor performance
since they are DC circuits driven by conversion from AC

Plenty of PF correction solutions online for industrial users, as can be seen.
(businesses who are penalized as said for any extra current drawn out of voltage/current phase differences)

Households unlikely to have as good solutions, provided cheaply to entice purchase
- so again a hidden cost.....not being picked up on in political discussion.

http://electronicdesign.com/article/...input-to-.aspx
also
http://www.ledsmagazine.com/products/32609
.


Last edited by sodabread : 12-28-2011 at 09:56 AM.
Reply With Quote

  #26  
Old 01-03-2012, 07:54 AM
Lord_jag's Avatar
Lord_jag Lord_jag is offline
I am God because I say I am. Prove me wrong.
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,800
Re: CFL (LED, Incandescent) Power Factor

Quote:
Originally Posted by sodabread View Post
LEDS too "need good drivers" to give good power factor performance
since they are DC circuits driven by conversion from AC
Okay stop with this whole POWER FACTOR shit. You have made yourself VERY CLEAR that you have absolutely no idea what power factor is. I explained it to you before and you didn't read it.

You can VERY easily make any DC circuit run on AC without affecting power factor AT ALL. Have you ever heard of a little device called a bridge rectifier? How about a switching power supply? Both of those would make sure that your load is not inductive.

Switching power supplies after a bridge rectifier is the most power efficient way to produce DC power for constant loads.

A wall wart will do the job, inefficiently, and affect power factor A TINY LITTLE INSIGNIFICANT AMOUNT THAT IS BALANCED BY INDUCTIVE LOADS ON THE OTHER PHASE, but you wouldn't read any of that part would you?


Quote:
Originally Posted by sodabread View Post

Plenty of PF correction solutions online for industrial users, as can be seen.
(businesses who are penalized as said for any extra current drawn out of voltage/current phase differences)
Oh my god you are such a meathead. Industrial clients or anyone else who has use for more than 200 A of power will take a commercial 3 phase power line. With 3 phase power it is imperative that you balance your loads across all three phases. If you run a seriously large 3 phase(100A+) AC motor and one winding is damaged, the motor will still run but the balance will be way off causing back EMF, making "imaginary current" (that's not my term, it's what the phase difference is called) This will not only cause a draw of out of phase current, but will also move the poles of the 3 phase power, possibly damaging other devices on the service.

These are NOT NOT NOT the same as residential services using a wall wart or light transformer. (a 27W light uses 0.25A of power) And... any phase shift is canceled by another light on the other phase. How does that compare to a seriously large AC motor?

You may as well be criticizing a mountain bike for it's inefficiencies for not being aerodynamic. Power factor is just insignificant for power levels used by lights EVEN IF they were not balanced by inductive loads on the other phase.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sodabread View Post
Households unlikely to have as good solutions, provided cheaply to entice purchase
- so again a hidden cost.....not being picked up on in political discussion.

http://electronicdesign.com/article/...input-to-.aspx
also
http://www.ledsmagazine.com/products/32609
.
You know what's else? You admitted that an LED uses Direct Current or DC. What is the frequency of DC current? What is the time delay of a 10 degree phase shift on a DC load?

Now please get an education or shut the hell up about things you know nothing about.
__________________
A real, honest, falsifiable claim made b.y Seer of dreams:(2011)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cnance View Post
I believe there will be a nuclear war in October of this year.
Oh Cnance.... Full of shit as always.

Reply With Quote

  #27  
Old 01-03-2012, 10:17 PM
EvilZoe's Avatar
EvilZoe EvilZoe is offline
Je suis un travesti executif
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,979
Re: CFL (LED, Incandescent) Power Factor

Honestly, all I care about is that they ultimately are able to provide efficient bulbs that put out as much light in a desirable color as incandescents.

As it currently stands, I find the light to be extremely lacking in quality in spite of the fact that they ARE more cost-efficient.
__________________



"The one thing women don't want to find in their stockings on Christmas morning is their husband." ~ Joan Rivers

Reply With Quote

  #28  
Old 01-06-2012, 03:47 PM
sodabread sodabread is offline
Newbie Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 14
Re: CFL (LED, Incandescent) Power Factor

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord_jag View Post
Okay stop with this whole POWER FACTOR shit. You have made yourself VERY CLEAR that you have absolutely no idea what power factor is. I explained it to you before and you didn't read it.
Oh my god you are such a meathead.....
Now please get an education or shut the hell up about things you know nothing about.
Nothing to do with me:

Readers can make up their own minds who is right and who is wrong,
in the choice between yourself and the qualified engineers etc as listed,
as well as Sylvania manufacturer and other sources,
who - as anyone can read - write on the specific subject of CFLs in households, or on LEDs, and the Power Factor problems and issues involved,
not least the hidden ****** usage,
that I merely repeat.


Last edited by sodabread : 01-06-2012 at 03:54 PM.
Reply With Quote

  #29  
Old 02-29-2012, 06:02 AM
mikimack mikimack is offline
Newbie Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5
Re: Light Bulb Scam

How can that be when these bulbs donít last much longer? The truth is these bulbs are a 1,000 times worse for the environment because of the mercury gas they contain.

Reply With Quote

  #30  
Old 02-29-2012, 08:50 AM
Lord_jag's Avatar
Lord_jag Lord_jag is offline
I am God because I say I am. Prove me wrong.
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,800
Re: Light Bulb Scam

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikimack View Post
How can that be when these bulbs donít last much longer? The truth is these bulbs are a 1,000 times worse for the environment because of the mercury gas they contain.
They don't last longer? I used to replace my incandescent bulbs every year.... If they made it that long. I replaced all my bulbs with CFL 5 years ago and have only replaced two since.

And.... These aren't landfilled in my area. They are recycled. The phosphorous coating is removed, the mercury is recovered, the glass is melted down and re-used, and the metal is scrapped and reused too. Every part is recyclable, there are collection drops all over. Staples, Home depot, grocery stores.... No-one ever bothered recycling an incandescent, and many of those have white phosphorous coatings on the glass too.

Only people in the United States of Garbage don't bother recycling anything. I couldn't believe that there isn't even an option when I went to Florida. Everything all goes in the trash.
__________________
A real, honest, falsifiable claim made b.y Seer of dreams:(2011)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cnance View Post
I believe there will be a nuclear war in October of this year.
Oh Cnance.... Full of shit as always.

Reply With Quote

  #31  
Old 02-29-2012, 11:41 AM
Spector567's Avatar
Spector567 Spector567 is offline
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,232
Re: Light Bulb Scam

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikimack View Post
How can that be when these bulbs donít last much longer? The truth is these bulbs are a 1,000 times worse for the environment because of the mercury gas they contain.
In addition to lord jags comment.
There is more murcury released through the additional coal production required to power the old light bulbs than there is in the new light bulbs assuming that nothing is recycled.

http://www.energyrace.com/commentary..._cfls_updated/

Long story short. Even assuming you didn't recycle the bulbs CFL's are still better for the enviroment on mecury than the Old bulbs.

If you recycled the bulbs than it's much better then the old bulbs.

No where near your thousand times figure.

Reply With Quote

  #32  
Old 02-29-2012, 12:03 PM
sodabread sodabread is offline
Newbie Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 14
Re: Light Bulb Scam

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spector567 View Post
In addition to lord jags comment.
There is more murcury released through the additional coal production required to power the old light bulbs than there is in the new light bulbs assuming that nothing is recycled.
http://www.energyrace.com/commentary..._cfls_updated/

Long story short.
Even assuming you didn't recycle the bulbs CFL's are still better for the enviroment on mecury than the Old bulbs.
If you recycled the bulbs than it's much better then the old bulbs.
No where near your thousand times figure.

1. About incandescent related coal plant emissions and CFL mercury:

That 2007 link no longer holds given the 2011 90% mercury emission reduction mandate before 2016, by Lisa Jackson & Co at EPA (and savings are usually expressed in 2030 terms).

The argument of incandescents via coal plant is worse than CFLs was never true anyway
http://ceolas.net/#li198x


2. While saving energy and emissions is always good,
light bulb bans are irrelevant environmentally.

The light bulbs are being phased out largely on environmental
campaigns to reduce CO2 emissions, especially from coal:
Coal is by far the main fossil fuel environmental concern with electricity use.
They have around twice the CO2 emissions of natural gas or oil for equivalent electricity production - apart from more mercury emissions.

But effectively the same coal gets burned regardless of whether your light bulb is on or off::

Relevant domestic lighting is mostly used from 5pm onwards.
Coal plants are on all the time at basically the same output level.
Slow and cheap.
They can't really be turned down at night, as it takes too long to power up in the morning, and to some extent this is true of other base loading power, like nuclear energy.
Hence much fuel burned that noone uses. Hence cheap electricity at night. Hence the lighting causing no energy use and no CO2 or mercury emissions, that would not have occured anyway.

Even at peak times (centering around 5-7 pm temperate zones), limited coal use and emissions are caused relative to any electricity used.
Peak times brings on quicker responding electricity generation, such as gas or hydro powered turbines, because of heating, cooking stoves and kettles coming on (rather than any lighting).
Therefore at such times, the light bulbs proportionally use sources with much less emissions than from coal.

So the idea that even, generously, the 1-2% of grid electricity (Dept of E nergy etc data as per earlier comment http://ceolas.net/#li171x) saved from banning the incandescents translates into 1-2% less of any fuel burned, does not hold.
It may seem tongue-in-cheek to suggest that no coal savings at all apply:
But in a context of just 30-35% efficient plants overcoming 6-8% grid transmission losses (USA, UK and elsewhere) it is in practice true.

But of course, it is much more fun (and profitable) to indoctrinate kids to switch bulbs to save the planet!

As it happens, CO2 and other gas emissions may increase by switching away from incandescent light bulbs, especially in cooler climates, as shown by linked Canadian, Finnish and Icelandic research, independently of one another.
That is, when the electric light bulb heat from a low carbon emission (like nuclear, hydro, solar, wind) power plant source is replaced by CO2 emitting heat fuel (like coal, gas, oil).


A rundown of the common deception arguments used to justify light bulb bans,
and why they don't hold:
http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com...ght-bulbs.html
.


Last edited by sodabread : 02-29-2012 at 12:17 PM.
Reply With Quote

  #33  
Old 02-29-2012, 02:33 PM
Lord_jag's Avatar
Lord_jag Lord_jag is offline
I am God because I say I am. Prove me wrong.
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,800
Re: Light Bulb Scam

LOL!

I actually laughed out loud!

You heard it here first, folks! Toss out your dusty old natural gas furnace and go get some incandescent bulbs! We're saving the environment with.... Electic heating! WOOT

Electric heating in the most inefficent way possible. What a revolutionary idea!
__________________
A real, honest, falsifiable claim made b.y Seer of dreams:(2011)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cnance View Post
I believe there will be a nuclear war in October of this year.
Oh Cnance.... Full of shit as always.

Reply With Quote

  #34  
Old 02-29-2012, 04:25 PM
Spector567's Avatar
Spector567 Spector567 is offline
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,232
Re: Light Bulb Scam

Quote:
Originally Posted by sodabread View Post
1. About incandescent related coal plant emissions and CFL mercury:

That 2007 link no longer holds given the 2011 90% mercury emission reduction mandate before 2016, by Lisa Jackson & Co at EPA (and savings are usually expressed in 2030 terms).

The argument of incandescents via coal plant is worse than CFLs was never true anyway
http://ceolas.net/#li198x
Fair point but still pointless. the level and oppertunity for mecury exposer is still low no matter where it comes from unless you you plan on drinking a package of light bulbs.


I was mearly pointing out that the argument that CFL will release more mecury by over 1000 times is stupid.

Quote:
2. While saving energy and emissions is always good,
light bulb bans are irrelevant environmentally.

The light bulbs are being phased out largely on environmental
campaigns to reduce CO2 emissions, especially from coal:
Coal is by far the main fossil fuel environmental concern with electricity use.
They have around twice the CO2 emissions of natural gas or oil for equivalent electricity production - apart from more mercury emissions.

But effectively the same coal gets burned regardless of whether your light bulb is on or off::

Relevant domestic lighting is mostly used from 5pm onwards.
Coal plants are on all the time at basically the same output level.
Slow and cheap.
They can't really be turned down at night, as it takes too long to power up in the morning, and to some extent this is true of other base loading power, like nuclear energy.
Hence much fuel burned that noone uses. Hence cheap electricity at night. Hence the lighting causing no energy use and no CO2 or mercury emissions, that would not have occured anyway.

Even at peak times (centering around 5-7 pm temperate zones), limited coal use and emissions are caused relative to any electricity used.
Peak times brings on quicker responding electricity generation, such as gas or hydro powered turbines, because of heating, cooking stoves and kettles coming on (rather than any lighting).
Therefore at such times, the light bulbs proportionally use sources with much less emissions than from coal.

So the idea that even, generously, the 1-2% of grid electricity (Dept of E nergy etc data as per earlier comment http://ceolas.net/#li171x) saved from banning the incandescents translates into 1-2% less of any fuel burned, does not hold.
It may seem tongue-in-cheek to suggest that no coal savings at all apply:
But in a context of just 30-35% efficient plants overcoming 6-8% grid transmission losses (USA, UK and elsewhere) it is in practice true.

But of course, it is much more fun (and profitable) to indoctrinate kids to switch bulbs to save the planet!
This argument is interesting but also misleading.

Reducing 1-2% of grid power at peak. Will lower the amount of power required overall and open up more capacity.

Yes plants generally run at a consistant speed. However reducing the peak requirments at 5-7pm (when lights are on) Will reduce the amount of power load on the system.

Quote:
As it happens, CO2 and other gas emissions may increase by switching away from incandescent light bulbs, especially in cooler climates, as shown by linked Canadian, Finnish and Icelandic research, independently of one another.
That is, when the electric light bulb heat from a low carbon emission (like nuclear, hydro, solar, wind) power plant source is replaced by CO2 emitting heat fuel (like coal, gas, oil).
I'd like to see this study.

1. More energy is still used by "heating" with a light bulb. Your just tossing sources around.

2. There is this great and powerful thing known as SUMMER. Did the study factor the energy needed to cool a house being heated up by light bulbs? Did the study draw any conclusion for the rest of the US since it has a warmer climate?

These are important questions that seem to have been missed.


Last edited by Spector567 : 02-29-2012 at 06:48 PM.
Reply With Quote

  #35  
Old 02-29-2012, 05:48 PM
nomaxim's Avatar
nomaxim nomaxim is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Stow, OH SOL III
Posts: 2,517
Re: Light Bulb Scam

It appears that 'Dr. Peter Thornes' may be nothing but a blogger in Dublin, Ireland.
He may also use the username 'Peter Dublin'.

There are no returns for a 'Peter Thornes' with Wikipedia, Google Scholar, Scirus.com, Sciencedirect.com, or Ojose.com.

The website ceolas.net gives no information, that I can find, on whom Dr. Thornes is, what field his doctorates is in, nor where he earned it.

Reply With Quote

  #36  
Old 04-24-2012, 01:39 AM
mumbles's Avatar
mumbles mumbles is offline
Most Valued Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,803
Re: Light Bulb Scam

it's nonsense. my electric bill/use is not caused by my lights, it is caused by my refrigerator/freezer, water heater, heater/AC.

the government just gave an award to phillips for an led light bulb that will cost $50/$60 each, and put out the light od an old, cheap 60w.

http://www.newscenter.philips.com/ma...803_lprize.wpd

how many of those you going to have in your house before it's worth it for criminals to break in and steal them?

my bill is often $50 or $60 a month using incandescent bulbs, so the pay back on a $50 bulb is going to be a long time.

if burning incandescent bulbs was an expensive problem, i could have been using florescent tubes all these years.

nonsense.

who gonna pay for those expensive bulbs for poor people? here's a hint: it's not the poor people that will pay.


Reply With Quote

Reply

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Leftist Light-Bulb Freaks pwrone Political Chat 29 12-16-2011 12:29 PM
The creation of light Unbeliever Religious Scams 40 11-18-2007 01:51 AM
I've seen the liberal light gussser Political Chat 56 08-11-2007 01:40 AM
somebody shed some light please.... umdkook Political Chat 88 03-10-2006 12:33 AM

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump




This site may contain advice, opinions and statements of various information providers. Scam.com does not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement or other information provided by any information provider, any User of this Site or any other person or entity. Reliance upon any such advice, opinion, statement, or other information shall also be at the Userís own risk. Neither Scam.com nor its affiliates, nor any of their respective agents, employees, information providers or content providers, shall be liable to any User or anyone else for any inaccuracy, error, omission, interruption, deletion, defect, alteration of or use of any content herein, or for its timeliness or completeness, nor shall they be liable for any failure of performance, computer virus or communication line failure, regardless of cause, or for any damages resulting therefrom. Just because a business, person, or entity is listed on scam.com does not necessarily constitute they are scammers. This is a free open forum where people can debate the merits from the consumer's or business owner's perspective. Registration and participation is always FREE.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:31 AM.




Scam.com Is Proudly Hosted By Rackco and Protected By CloudFlare


Scams Message Board - Copyright 2004-2013 Scam.com , All Rights Reserved.