Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

parados wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

As for the screw-in florescent bulbs, they do not provide the same light intensity (i.e., lumens) in my house as do the cheaper 60 watt incandescent light bulbs.

Let me repeat this for those that don't seem to understand how light works. If you use a fluorescent rated to replace a given incandescent you may not get quite as many lumens.

This is EASILY overcome by upsizing your fluorescent to the next size which will give you MORE lumens than that 60 watt.

Thanks, professor. Are you a light expert now on top of everything else?

0 Replies

parados wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

As for the screw-in florescent bulbs, they do not provide the same light intensity (i.e., lumens) in my house as do the cheaper 60 watt incandescent light bulbs.

Let me repeat this for those that don't seem to understand how light works. If you use a fluorescent rated to replace a given incandescent you may not get quite as many lumens.

This is EASILY overcome by upsizing your fluorescent to the next size which will give you MORE lumens than that 60 watt.

This is funny isn't it?

I have 3 CF lights lighting up my 3 car garage (equalivent to 150w each). They are plenty bright enough. It helps to go further up the spectrum (5100k-6500k) and the light appears much brighter.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

...
There's more mercury in old-style thermometers then CFL's, but you don't see those being hated on by anyone.

Your house is full of dangerous and toxic chemicals, which can be harmful if you use them incorrectly. The fact that you have to take a small amount of care with CFLs is not a valid reason to not use them.

Also, mercury is released into the environment by burning coal. The amount of mercury released into the environment by burning coal, over the lifetime of a conventional bulb vs. a CFL, dwarfs the amount that could be released by a broken one.

Cycloptichorn

Let's get rid of the old style thermometers too, because that will reduce our chances of exposure to mercury.

I was in a grocery store when a box containing 6 to 12, 4 foot florescent light bulbs dropped and broke in one of the store's isles. Customers were quickly ushered out of the store by the store's employees and manager, and not allowed back in until a protected waste disposal crew could be assembled to clean up that toxic mess.

As for the screw-in florescent bulbs, they do not provide the same light intensity (i.e., lumens) in my house as do the cheaper 60 watt incandescent light bulbs.

Yes there are other sources of mercury in our environment, but we are stupid if we add to it by our choice of light bulbs.

Yes there are other sources of toxic substances in my household that require care not to expose us to them. I neither want nor need any more such sources.

I wasn't aware you were in favor of getting rid of old, inefficent and pollutive things in the name of safety. Let's have a discussion about coal plants and why you want them replaced sometime.

Your grocery store story is only indiciative of the ignorance of the manager of the store. There is no significant health risk from broken fluorescent lights; if you would bother to do the math you would see this.

I agree with Parados that you are incorrect about the amount of Lumens. The idea that CFL's put out measurably less light, yet are rated the same way, is ludicrous and unsupported by fact.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

okie wrote:

parados wrote:
ican711nm wrote:

As for the screw-in florescent bulbs, they do not provide the same light intensity (i.e., lumens) in my house as do the cheaper 60 watt incandescent light bulbs.

Let me repeat this for those that don't seem to understand how light works. If you use a fluorescent rated to replace a given incandescent you may not get quite as many lumens.

This is EASILY overcome by upsizing your fluorescent to the next size which will give you MORE lumens than that 60 watt.

Thanks, professor. Are you a light expert now on top of everything else?

Are you contesting parados's post or just pouting?

T
K
O?

0 Replies

I have no objection to improved lights. It makes sense that incandescent bulbs burn some energy in the form of giving off heat, at the expense of light. Question here that I just thought of, if incandescent bulbs give off more heat than the newer bulbs, does that affect your furnace bill slightly? For example, what if it takes $150 per month in gas, and by using more efficient bulbs that don't waste energy in heat, perhaps your gas bill goes up $5.00 per month. What if you only save $5.00 in electricity? Is it a wash? In other words, has anyone thought of this factor? Of course, that doesn't work the same way in the summer, and it may depend upon where you live and so forth, but there is much more daylight in the summer so less light usage anyway.

Just bringing up things here that people may not have thought of. I still say the better method is to turn the lights off when not in use.

0 Replies

If I were to wager a guess, I'd say that the net change (loss) in heat from switching bulbs is quickly compensated in terms of a home's heating system.

That is my guess without knowing certain things about a home like insulation and architecture.

Turning off the lights when not in use is an excellent way to contribute. I'd add the suggestion to turn off your monitor when you are not at your computer if you must keep it running.

T
K
O

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I have no objection to improved lights. It makes sense that incandescent bulbs burn some energy in the form of giving off heat, at the expense of light. Question here that I just thought of, if incandescent bulbs give off more heat than the newer bulbs, does that affect your furnace bill slightly? For example, what if it takes $150 per month in gas, and by using more efficient bulbs that don't waste energy in heat, perhaps your gas bill goes up $5.00 per month. What if you only save $5.00 in electricity? Is it a wash? In other words, has anyone thought of this factor? Of course, that doesn't work the same way in the summer, and it may depend upon where you live and so forth, but there is much more daylight in the summer so less light usage anyway.

Unless you live in some magical and mythical part of the country that prices gas the same per btu as electricity this can never happen.

If you use electricity to heat your home then it would be the same cost during heating months but you would quickly lose that during cooling months.

0 Replies

Probably, Parados, but light bulbs are hardly the answer to the energy crisis. I have a few of the newer ones, but my biggest problem is just not disciplining myself to turn the lights off, etc. I am not crazy about fluorescent bulbs, specifically the type of light given off.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Probably, Parados, but light bulbs are hardly the answer to the energy crisis. I have a few of the newer ones, but my biggest problem is just not disciplining myself to turn the lights off, etc. I am not crazy about fluorescent bulbs, specifically the type of light given off.

Light Bulbs are the answer to the energy crisis. Why?

I saw the Dalai Lama last year, and he had an over-riding message: 'you may not be able to change the world, but you can change yourself.'

Personal responsibility and personal change is the key to solving our energy crisis. I know you can get behind this.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I don't care about your light bulbs, cyclops. I can manage my own utility bills, thank you. I don't need you to tell me what kind of light bulbs to buy. I am happy to compare my utility bills with anyone, and mine are lower than most, and besides that it is none of your business.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I don't care about your light bulbs, cyclops. I can manage my own utility bills, thank you. I don't need you to tell me what kind of light bulbs to buy. I am happy to compare my utility bills with anyone, and mine are lower than most, and besides that it is none of your business.

Pretty defensive there.

I'm sure you agree with me that efficiency is a good thing, and that self-sufficiency is a good thing. If you don't want to change yourself, fine. That's fine with me. But you are only hurting your bottom line in the long run. Maybe that's cool with you. But sooner or later you won't have a choice but to buy more efficient products.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

okie wrote :

Quote:

Question here that I just thought of, if incandescent bulbs give off more heat than the newer bulbs, does that affect your furnace bill slightly?

if you have air-conditioning in your house , the old-style bulbs will certainly boost your hydro bill if you have any lights on in the house when your air-conditioner is running . your a/c sysytem would have to work against the - minimal - heat output from your old-fashioned bulbs .

our utility will be switching all households to a "demand meter sytem " within the next two years - our house is in the "test phase" now .
so we'll have to pay MORE for electricity used during pre-set high-demand hours .
i'm sure we'll be keeping a sharp eye on our use of electricity and switch as much as possible to use our appliances during LOW rate hours .
hbg

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:
I don't care about your light bulbs, cyclops. I can manage my own utility bills, thank you. I don't need you to tell me what kind of light bulbs to buy. I am happy to compare my utility bills with anyone, and mine are lower than most, and besides that it is none of your business.

Pretty defensive there.

I'm sure you agree with me that efficiency is a good thing, and that self-sufficiency is a good thing. If you don't want to change yourself, fine. That's fine with me. But you are only hurting your bottom line in the long run. Maybe that's cool with you. But sooner or later you won't have a choice but to buy more efficient products.

Cycloptichorn

You don't understand, cylcops. I do change myself, and I have very reasonable utility bills. I just don't want the light bulb police to be in charge here, to somehow suggest anyone that doesn't buy the new light bulbs are somehow evil in some way. Some of the most vocal greenies are some of the most wasteful. It is the hypocrisy and group think here that I reject. Light bulbs are fine, but how long ago was it some celebrity suggested how much toilet paper per trip to the bathroom we should use? Besides, who owns stock in the companies that sell the energy efficient bulbs? I am a skeptic and I am not a groupee. I don't jump on silly bandwagons that are more hype than substance.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
okie wrote:
I don't care about your light bulbs, cyclops. I can manage my own utility bills, thank you. I don't need you to tell me what kind of light bulbs to buy. I am happy to compare my utility bills with anyone, and mine are lower than most, and besides that it is none of your business.

Pretty defensive there.

I'm sure you agree with me that efficiency is a good thing, and that self-sufficiency is a good thing. If you don't want to change yourself, fine. That's fine with me. But you are only hurting your bottom line in the long run. Maybe that's cool with you. But sooner or later you won't have a choice but to buy more efficient products.

Cycloptichorn

You don't understand, cylcops. I do change myself, and I have very reasonable utility bills. I just don't want the light bulb police to be in charge here, to somehow suggest anyone that doesn't buy the new light bulbs are somehow evil in some way. Some of the most vocal greenies are some of the most wasteful. It is the hypocrisy and group think here that I reject. Light bulbs are fine, but how long ago was it some celebrity suggested how much toilet paper per trip to the bathroom we should use? Besides, who owns stock in the companies that sell the energy efficient bulbs? I am a skeptic and I am not a groupee. I don't jump on silly bandwagons that are more hype than substance.

You're welcome to have any opinion you like. The lightbulbs themselves are unchanged by it. CFL's use 1/10th the energy and have a hugely expanded lifespan over regular bulbs. That's not a groupee thing. That's a fact.

I know we've had discussions before about how Solar panel technology and energy-efficient technologies benefit those who live in the country far more then the city. Why be against things which add to self-sufficiency?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You're welcome to have any opinion you like. The lightbulbs themselves are unchanged by it. CFL's use 1/10th the energy and have a hugely expanded lifespan over regular bulbs. That's not a groupee thing. That's a fact.

I know we've had discussions before about how Solar panel technology and energy-efficient technologies benefit those who live in the country far more then the city. Why be against things which add to self-sufficiency?

Cycloptichorn

I doubt the 1/10th figure. To be honest, I haven't studied this, but a simple search found this:

http://www.nbc5.com/money/15188564/detail.html

So if I have to replace my carpet or spend a ton of money to have somebody clean it if a bulb is broken there, how economical is that, cyclops? Remember the lead paint panic?

My whole point is light bulbs are not something that should be legislated, that often we end up with the law of unintended consequences kicking in. I have owned compact fluoresent bulbs, going back probably a dozen years at least, possibly before you ever bought any, and the fact is I only like that kind of light in some places. I have also read about the possibility that certain kinds of fluorescent light may not be as easy on the eyes, or as healthy, perhaps we need more research along these lines.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You're welcome to have any opinion you like. The lightbulbs themselves are unchanged by it. CFL's use 1/10th the energy and have a hugely expanded lifespan over regular bulbs. That's not a groupee thing. That's a fact.

I know we've had discussions before about how Solar panel technology and energy-efficient technologies benefit those who live in the country far more then the city. Why be against things which add to self-sufficiency?

Cycloptichorn

I doubt the 1/10th figure. To be honest, I haven't studied this, but a simple search found this:

http://www.nbc5.com/money/15188564/detail.html

So if I have to replace my carpet or spend a ton of money to have somebody clean it if a bulb is broken there, how economical is that, cyclops? Remember the lead paint panic?

My whole point is light bulbs are not something that should be legislated, that often we end up with the law of unintended consequences kicking in. I have owned compact fluoresent bulbs, going back probably a dozen years at least, possibly before you ever bought any, and the fact is I only like that kind of light in some places. I have also read about the possibility that certain kinds of fluorescent light may not be as easy on the eyes, or as healthy, perhaps we need more research along these lines.

You don't have to replace your carpet or have anyone come in. There is not a dangerous level of mercury in a CFL. See my link on the last page.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

at least one canadian utility has switched over to "instant" metering .
so you can see the cost of the electricity being used IMMEDIATELY .
if you turm the air-conditioner or hotwater-heater on , you'll see the $ signs flashing right in front of you - the meters are usually installed in the kitchen where they can be seen easily rather than being hidden away .
i have read that the consumption - particularly during peak demand time - has dropped considerably .

the problem with current metering systems is that we often don't see the bill for another month or two .
about the same as if we could not tell how much gasoline our car is using - we'd keep filling up and get the bill two months later .

MONEY IS OFTEN A GOOD MOTIVATOR Shocked

hbg

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You don't have to replace your carpet or have anyone come in. There is not a dangerous level of mercury in a CFL. See my link on the last page.

Cycloptichorn

A matter of opinion, probably, cyclops. I am not all that worried about it, but if you want to be consistent with other scare scenarios typical of environmentalism, such as the radon scare and other similar things, I think you are being a little inconsistent.

I am all for saving energy, my main point is that these things should not be legislated. Once this starts, why not legislate other energy savings techniques. After all, people have preferences in the type of lighting, apart from efficiencies, which they have every right to have. It is supposed to be a free country. I can think of all kinds of wasteful stuff that could save tons of energy, that are not being currently considered.

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know