# 100 watt bulbs banned



## Metal Butcher (Feb 2, 2011)

Australians are in the dark and Americans will be next. Stock up now if your planing on continuing to use 100 watt bulbs in your machine lamps.

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=45156

Are they out of their minds, or what! th_bs

-MB


----------



## kd7fhg (Feb 2, 2011)

It has already started in California and next year they are going to ban T12 florescent bulbs, you will have to convert over to the T8s,which requires a different ballast.

Rex


----------



## Brian Rupnow (Feb 2, 2011)

Yeah Rick---I hate these damn screw in flourescent bulbs worse than snakes!!! For the last 60 years I am accustomed to turning on a light switch and being bathed in brilliant light. Now I get that sickly feeble glow from these energy efficient bulbs. They do "pick up" after they've been on for a while but I don't like them!!!


----------



## Metal Butcher (Feb 2, 2011)

Yes, their terrible bulbs to deal with, and I hate them too....with a passion!

If Congress wants to save energy, I suggest they set an example and ride around Washington on bicycles! 

I know, I know. Calm down. Rof}

-MB


----------



## mu38&Bg# (Feb 2, 2011)

My CFL's are great for light output. I don't even buy the good ones? I have a 100W equivalent day light bulb on my lathe. Though the cheap ones from Menards only last .001-1 year out of their 7 year warranty.


----------



## bentprop (Feb 2, 2011)

It's the same hysteria that brought about the call to ban "those dirty,fuel guzzling cars".What these morons don't want to be made public,is that cars like the Prius will present a huge hazard to the environment at the end of it's useful life.What to do with all those batteries?
In any case,it takes approx.18 times as much energy to produce a new car as that car uses in it's entire life.Therefore,it stands to reason that it's far more energy conscious to keep driving your old jalopy,as long as it's properly maintained.
The CFL bulbs cost about $8nz,against the 49c of the incandescent.I'd like to see the CFL bulb after 16 years!The ones we have in one light fitting are now some 5 years old,and have become much worse in the time taken to come up to their full light state.They also have gone quite black close to the fitting.
Once again,politicians are climbing on a soapbox nobody wants to hear from!


----------



## wareagle (Feb 2, 2011)

Personally, I wished the LED technology would catch up and become competitively priced and a viable option I'm not sure how the manufacturing process LEDs compares to CFLs, but it sure as heck couldn't be any worse! Lots of stuff crammed into a CFL.

Which begs the question; which type of light requires the most energy usage per unit to manufacture from raw material to final product? My guess is the CFL would take the most, followed by LED with the good old fashioned incandescent coming in third.

I just wished our beloved leaders would put their energy (no pun) into something worthwhile rather than screw with our choice of light bulbs.


----------



## jpeter (Feb 2, 2011)

I'm using a 100 watt equavilent cfl for a worklight on the mill. I love it. I'd never go back to incandecent. It cool. I keep it close to my work and don't have to worry about getting burned. The light makes it easy to see my work. Never-the-less I'm not to hot to have the government tell me what to use for light. I do though wear my seat belt and wear my motorcycle helmet too.


----------



## Foozer (Feb 2, 2011)

so if I repackage a 100w bulb as a replacement for a 200w bulb and claim the 50% reduction in energy usage do I get the Gold Star energy rating?

Robert


----------



## GailInNM (Feb 3, 2011)

The CFLs have worked out very well for me, but the early ones I got had lots of problems. Some brands still have problems.

Turn on time, as described by Brian, has gotten much better on most brands. Two brands that I am familiar with that turn on just the same as an incandescent are nuVision and Ecosmart. Both are distributed by Home Depot.

Two things that I like are the availability of different color temperatures and the ability to pack a lot of light into a compact space. Due to vision problems I have almost no sensitivity to red light. By picking a CFL with a color temperature of 3500 deg K or greater, often listed as brilliant white, it makes it easier for me to see details. In my kitchen had about reached the energy density of the 4 bays with two 30 watt florescent bulbs in each. Now I have eight CFLs in each bay (total of 32 CFLs) and can adjust the amount of light in each area by changing the wattage in the fixtures. It's nice to see what I am cooking.

On the milling machine I have two task lights. Above 60 watt incandescent bulbs things just got too hot. The vibration of machining also made the life time of such bulbs short. I tried harsh duty bulbs and while they lasted twice as long they cost four times as much. Switched to 23 watt CFLs several years ago and have more light and have not had a failure yet. Don't burn my forehead when I get too close either. 

On task lights on down side is that not all will accept the larger base of the CFL. Of course there is no hope for coolant proof halogen lights. On one that used a GU10 base halogen bulb I tried one of the GU10 based CFL. It was worthless. I now have a GU10 based LED bulb in it. It works quite well. It is on the band saw and a large lamp can not be positioned to light the blade so a small light fixture is necessary. All told I have 5 CFLs in task lights in the shop. 

I have been disappointed trying to use LED based light sources. Started with Sylvania bulbs and lamps. They worked very well - for about 10 hours. Then the light output started to fall off and were unusable after about 50 hours of operation. Bought a few led strip lights for area lighting on the band saw table. It's next to the lathe and I use the table to hold drawings while working on the lathe. The first few I put on had 4 banks of 4 leds in each. Bulbs started failing after about 2 weeks of operation. Replaced them with similar lights from a different manufacture. Same problem. I have now replaced them with some more strip lights that have 8 larger LEDs. They are no-name surplus ones and they are still going strong after a year. The best I have found is the GU10 based 120 volt 3 watt from LED Wholesalers. They have three 1 watt LEDs in them. That is what has been on the band saw for over a year for blade illumination. I just bought two more of them. They are not cheap, but work well. Trouble is that it is hard to find compact fixtures to use them in so I bought some sockets to make my own. It's nice to be able to make what you need. 

I dislike on size fits all type regulations. There are many applications where incandescent will be difficult to replace. I hope that the powers that be have thought about most of them, however I suspect that any exemption will involve pricing them out any normal usage. Things like outdoor lights in colder climates and oven and refrigerator lights. And lets not forget the thousands of Easy Bake ovens that are still in operation.

Gail in NM


----------



## tel (Feb 3, 2011)

Incandescents have been off the shelves here since last July, thanks to Kevin (save the planet) Rudd and his misinformed cronies.


----------



## John Rudd (Feb 3, 2011)

tel  said:
			
		

> Incandescents have been off the shelves here since last July, thanks to Kevin (save the planet) Rudd and his misinformed cronies.



No relation you will appreciate... 

The government in the UK are no different..in fact one major energy company was sending out low wattage cfls fro free to discourage the use of the incandescent lamp in the home..


----------



## Maryak (Feb 3, 2011)

Yes the new light fluros are much more efficient than an incandescent bulb. However from what I have read we have swapped one devil for another with the safe disposal of the new style being the culprit as I read they contain Mercury.

Take your pick - more carbon from more heat or more Mercury to find a home for.







Whilst on the subject, in Oz we are waxing on about clean coal, i.e. scrubbing the CO2 from the flue gas and burying it. We hear such a lot about the problems of nuclear power generation and the half life of the resulting Plutonium. As far as I am aware the half life of CO2 is forever and if your near it should it escape, you are the same amount of dead as you would be should the Plutonium escape.

IMHO global warming is true, it's the reason(s) for it that are unclear and no-body has explained it to my satisfaction so far, along with peak oil and all the other buzz words of the day, which all end up with their hand in my pocket and another bureaucracy to administer them.






Best Regards
Bob


----------



## rleete (Feb 3, 2011)

Maryak  said:
			
		

> As far as I am aware the half life of CO2 is forever and if your near it should it escape, you are the same amount of dead as you would be should the Plutonium escape.



Huh? Better not open a beer, then. It could kill you! CO (monoxide) is the dangerous one from a respiration standpoint. CO2 is only dangerous from a glbal warming standpoint (if you believe the hype).


----------



## Foozer (Feb 3, 2011)

So China now is in the citizen car boom, pumping out more CO2 which (as Al Gore says) increases global warming causing the ban of the good ol 100watt incandescent bulb in favour of the CF which just happens to be made in China who then becomes the major buyer of GE's banned here incandescent.

Life was so much better living under the rock

Robert


----------



## itowbig (Feb 3, 2011)

i got my stash of 100 watters and nobody is taking them from me I GOT A GUN come and try taking my bulbs.
hahahahahahahahahahaahhahaha im loaded big bore hahahahahahahahhaahahahaha


----------



## Ken I (Feb 3, 2011)

By all means believe what you want and use whatever lighbulbs suit your purpose but the political correctness that holds that lighbulbs are going to "save the planet" is idiotic.

The eruption of the Eyjafjajokull volcano in Iceland obliterated all the "Greenhouse Gas" savings we have made since 1980 in just 4 days - man is simply puny compared to Mother Nature. So if you traded in you SUV on a Prius - its all been in vain.

www.globalwarminghoax.com

A US Senate (Dept. of the Environment) blog on GW fallacies.

http://www.friendsofscience.org 

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

http://www.climatechangefacts.info/

www.nipccreport.org

Explore a skeptical viewpoint.

Regards,
       Ken


----------



## Noitoen (Feb 3, 2011)

I've traded my Corola for a Prius and only reduced my overall driving expenses by as much as 50% both service and running costs.


----------



## picclock (Feb 3, 2011)

FWIW when the UK government started this nonsense I looked around for alternatives which were dimmable and didn't need the prolonged warm up, and actually had a life of full brightness, unlike the fluorescents which dim as they age.

I ended up with 60W GU9 halogen bulbs. Bell do adapters which allow them to be used in all the fittings, and also supply screw on covers to make them look like candle bulbs, decorator bulbs etc. They seem to work out well because now I only need to 'stock' 1 type of bulb (although I carry the 40 and 25W varieties). 

You can see the different types here

http://www.spares2you.co.uk/Light_Bulbs/Bell_Halogen_G9/

I have no connection with this outfit apart from being a satisfied customer.

Just for reference, the 'free' bulbs that come with them don't last long at all. I bought mine in 10's or 12's from Amazon at around 50p .They comfortably exceed the compact fluorescent life with a much higher colour temperature. 

Hope this helps

picclock


----------



## Deanofid (Feb 3, 2011)

Noitoen  said:
			
		

> I've traded my Corola for a Prius and only reduced my overall driving expenses by as much as 50% both service and running costs.



Your overall driving expenses are going to go up about 500% first time you have to replace the batteries. 
The Prius is likely the least Earth friendly automobile ever made. A $4000 battery, and what happens to it when it dies?


----------



## shred (Feb 3, 2011)

I have CFLs in a lot of places, and they're mostly good, but find a few downsides-- they go bad a lot faster than claimed, if you get the cold color temperature ones, they make everything look cadaverous, and you don't want to be cleaning up a broken one. Thus I still put up with other bulbs (halogen, incandescent) on the mill and lathe lights where high-speed loose workpieces might impact. I actually like the long-warmup for things like bathroom lights-- you don't dazzle yourself going in there at night, but it can be annoying other places.


----------



## itowbig (Feb 3, 2011)

what ever happened to that gasless engine that never needed charging or gas or anything . a magnetic type engine or something like that. i have to look some more to find it.


----------



## stevehuckss396 (Feb 3, 2011)

Deanofid  said:
			
		

> Your overall driving expenses are going to go up about 500% first time you have to replace the batteries.
> The Prius is likely the least Earth friendly automobile ever made. A $4000 battery, and what happens to it when it dies?




GM replaces them free for 10 years on the Volt


----------



## Ned Ludd (Feb 4, 2011)

Hi Guys,
Re. Global Warning, Funny how no one seems to remember that the world has been warming up since the last Ice Age!

I do have a problem with Gas-guzzlers, not because of CO2 but because oil is a limited resource and it WILL run out fairly soon. Oil is too useful to just burn. I expect someone will say that Petrol is a waste product of the Oil industry but they don't mind selling for massive profits.

I am reminded of a witticism about a French revolutionary, who when seeing a crowd of people running said, "I must find out where they are going, so I can lead them"
Does that sound like a bandwagon jumping politician you know?
Ned
PS I _thought_ I posted this yesterday but .....


----------



## Ken I (Feb 4, 2011)

What everyone seems to forget is that the Antropogenic Warming Hypothesis (AGW) - is just that - a hypothesis.

And the evidence underpinning it gets weaker by the day.

Ah well....

"Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes accepted as the truth !"

Joseph Goebbels - Minister of Enlightenment - Nazi party.


----------



## RollaJohn (Feb 6, 2011)

I know I'm a little late to this party but I ran across this thread on HSM concerning some experimenting with LEDs. Evan seems to be getting some impressive results. Check out the thread Here.

There looks to be a basis for hope that viable LED lighting is not far off.


----------



## Maryak (Feb 12, 2011)

rleete  said:
			
		

> Huh? Better not open a beer, then. It could kill you! CO (monoxide) is the dangerous one from a respiration standpoint. CO2 is only dangerous from a glbal warming standpoint (if you believe the hype).



CO2 is used in fire extinguishers and it puts out the fire by preventing oxygen from reaching the flame as well as cooling. Without oxygen it's difficult to breath. In the amounts we are talking the CO2 would cover a fairly large area in which there would be no oxygen.

We had a CO2 drench system fitted in our diesel generator compartments. If it went off when you were there, had you just breathed in you would just make it out. Had you just breathed out..........................


----------



## js2112au (Feb 12, 2011)

I use CFL pretty much throughout the whole house. My workbenches are lit by three 18W CFL floods and a 24W CFL in a swing arm lamp. Tons of light!!

I didn't do it for the environment, I did it because the electricity companies keep jacking the prices up every 6 months or so!


----------



## Noitoen (Feb 12, 2011)

Deanofid  said:
			
		

> Your overall driving expenses are going to go up about 500% first time you have to replace the batteries.
> The Prius is likely the least Earth friendly automobile ever made. A $4000 battery, and what happens to it when it dies?



The battery is 100% recyclable and with 8 years guarantee there is little to worry.

http://www.zercustoms.com/news/Toyota-Prius-Taxi-Cracks-550,000-km.html


----------



## Ken I (Feb 13, 2011)

Noitoen - drive your Prius flat out and I'll chase you with my "gas guzzling" BMW M3 - guess what - I'll use less fuel.

(As demonstrated on BBC's Top Gear.)

It's not so much the car but how you drive it.

Regards,
      Ken


----------



## AlanHaisley (Feb 13, 2011)

rleete  said:
			
		

> Huh? Better not open a beer, then. It could kill you! CO (monoxide) is the dangerous one from a respiration standpoint. CO2 is only dangerous from a glbal warming standpoint (if you believe the hype).



Sorry, rleete, but CO2 will kill. It's a matter of concentrations of course. It takes a lower concentration of CO to do you in, since that gas interferes with the hemoglobin oxygen transfer cycle. On the other hand, if the CO2 concentration is higher the O2 concentration is lower. At some level, there just isn't enough O2.

Mines are ventilated not so much to get the methane out but to get the CO2 out. 

Alan


----------



## AlanHaisley (Feb 13, 2011)

Ken I  said:
			
		

> The eruption of the Eyjafjajokull volcano in Iceland obliterated all the "Greenhouse Gas" savings we have made since 1980 in just 4 days - man is simply puny compared to Mother Nature. So if you traded in you SUV on a Prius - its all been in vain.



Ken, 

I have offhandedly remarked to friends and family that this winter we have all been suffering through in Europe, North America, and other places is a result of that volcano blowing it's top last year. Their eyes get big and they take on a pensive look.

Alan


----------



## Ken I (Feb 13, 2011)

CO2 in our atmosphere is 390ppm - you breathe out at ±40000ppm.

It becomes toxic at 12000ppm - early symptoms - irritability an headaches.

Some examples of "Air Rage" being blamed on elevated CO2 on airplanes - since they banned smoking they reduced the air ciculation to save on pressure bleed from the turbines.

USA has statutory limits for this for prisons but not for passenger aircraft - go figure.

Closed environment plant nurseries often artificillly raise CO2 to 1000ppm to OPTIMISE plant growth - most paleobotanists agree that most of Earth's plant life evolved in 1200ppm CO2 environment.

CO2 is plant food and part of the life cycle - without it we will all die - no ifs - no buts - we will all die.
We are proagandising a generation who believe we would all be better off if we could remove CO2 from the atmosphere - just ask your kids.

The increaced levels of CO2 have improved crop yields and staved off the "world is going to starve" scenarios of the seventies.

CO2 poses no threat to human kind - I used to be a believer - then I did my own research the whole anthropogenic warming debacle is the most wanton piece of scientific hysteria in history.

Don't take my word for it (or anybody else's for that matter) read up on both sides of the divide and make up your own mind - rather than letting someone like the GOREacle do it for you.

Regards,
      Ken


----------



## Foozer (Feb 13, 2011)

Ken I  said:
			
		

> CO2 is plant food and part of the life cycle -
> Regards,
> Ken



Makes us the waste disposal units for the plants to survive. They give off O2 as a waste product for us to convert to CO2 which they need. Now I can tell the bride I am good for something

Robert


----------



## DaveH (Feb 20, 2011)

So are we all finished on the CFL's.

There is a human side to these that I would like to tell.

The Lamp manufacturing company I worked for in the UK made 60 million incandescent lamps a year. Yes we sold every single one.
10 million CFL's will replace the 60 million inc. lamps. Pretty obvious if there was 6 factories only one is needed now.
The factory I worked at employed 2000 people now closed.
Some people had to pay with their job to fund the price of progress.

Dave


----------



## Tin Falcon (Mar 4, 2011)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZalyKzXnlo&feature=player_embedded]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZalyKzXnlo&feature=player_embedded[/ame]
Tin


----------



## Maryak (Mar 4, 2011)

YEssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss


----------



## Foozer (Mar 4, 2011)

To power that 100 watt bulb, need global warming (sunshine) to make the sucker work.

Robert


----------



## Cedge (Mar 4, 2011)

I live in conservative South Carolina where things are not always politically correct. A local state senator has introduced a bill to circumvent the federal ban on incandescent light bulbs. SC will be able to make them for in state sale, avoiding the interstate commerce rulings that allowed the national ban to happen. In short, we will still have them available and can purchase them from local manufacturers who will be protected by the new law. Since all branches of the state government are currently in conservative majority hands, the bill probably has a good chance of passing into law.

I'm not quite sure how it will work, but the bill is apparently being written to allow for out of state shipment, as long as the sale is conducted within the state. We could possibly become the last domestic incandescent light bulb source in the US.

Steve


----------



## doubletop (Mar 5, 2011)

I can't help thinking we've seen this sort of thing before and everybody gets on the bandwagon, through no fault of their own, and they get sucked into the debate. Only this week at our ME society monthly meeting a technical presentation on lumieres ended up on a debate on global warming and the relative merits of CFL's pros and cons. Only a handful of the guys use this forum so I doubt it this thread that influenced the way the meeting went. 

Other examples? 

I spent 20+ years of my life contributing to the western worlds defence against the possibility of the Russian hordes overrunning us. Remember "duck and cover". In the end, when the wall came down and most of them turned out to be ordinary people, like us, who just wanted a quiet life.

Then we had that Y2K nonsense where countless millions were spent to avoid IT Armageddon. In NZ the mobile phone network failed briefly, but only because everybody decided to ring their mates around the world to wish them "Happy New Year Millennium" (we were the first to make it into 2000).

Then we had Bush and his cronies and that "Weapons of mass destruction" nonsense. They managed to whip us all into a frenzy and cause a war and in the end just because the Iraqi's had pissed off his dad. 

The "Global war on terror" is yet another example, that's becoming the problem now and not the solution.

So I just see this global warming politically correct BS and just a platform or maybe smokescreen to give the politicians something to rally around and, maybe, distract us while they get on with some other hidden agenda.

Naive? Yes probably. Have I replaced all my incandescent bulbs with CFL's? Yes, have I started to replace Halogens with LED's? Yes, Have I just had double glazing installed throughout the house Yes, Have I availed myself of the Governments insulation grant? Yes. Do I floor the accelerator pulling away from the lights? Yes (hey we've got a 100km/h (60mph) speed limit so 0-60 is the only fun you can have).  ;D

I suppose another analogy would be the tale of the Emperors Clothes. It just needs the little boy in the crowd to point out the Emperor has no clothes on and we can get over it.

Pete


----------



## Ken I (Mar 5, 2011)

I used to believe that Global Warming was a real threat - then I read Michael Chrichton's "State of Fear" - which prompted me to do my own research - I have subsequently spent 100's of hours reading both pro and con publications and have come to the conclusion that the whole fiasco is the most wanton scientific hysteria in history.

Here are some salient point to consider :-


1)  According to the US Department of Energy, Water vapour accounts for 95% of the IR (Infra-Red) absorption "greenhouse effect" of which only 0.001% can be ascribed to the activities of man. (Is anyone seriously suggesting we control water emissions ?)
2) The spectra absorbed by CO2 are fully saturated (this means that all the available energy is already absorbed) - doubling the CO2 level will hardly make any difference. 
3) CO2 absorption spectra are only about 8% of the total IR energy spectrum and less than 3% of total solar insolation of which less than 1% is available to CO2 because of redundant overlap with the absorption properties of water vapour. 
4) That historically CO2 increases after temperatures increase - it is a result not a cause - this is clear in the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change - under the auspices of the UN) report which disingenuously presents the data in reverse order so that it appears to be causal. 
5) Studies written by numerous Emeritus Professors have stated that Planet Earth naturally puts out 196 BILLION tons of CO2 p.a.- human beings are responsible for approx 8 Billion tons.
6) That solar output variations more closely correlate to global and polar air temperature variations than does CO2. 
7) CO2 correlates very precicely to sea temperature - CO2 is a result of warming oceans - it is not the cause.
8) The Oceans contain over fifty times (50 x) the CO2 in the atmosphere - the only thing keeping it there is temperature - if the seas warm they liberate vast amounts of CO2
9) The Oceans absorb 95% of the solar radiation that reaches it - Ocean warming is almost entirely a function of solar output.
10) The effects of global warming have been observed by NASA on Mars, Jupiter and elsewhere in our solar system - the only logical cause can be solar output.
11) Sea levels are not rising significantly when measured by the sidereal (astronomical time) rotation of the Earth.
12) Of the two approaches "Theoretical Modeling" and "Observational Science" only the theoretical modeling supports the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. A model unsupported by observation should be discarded.
13) The "Smoking Gun" of the global warming hypothesis is a predicted hot spot in the upper troposphere - has not been found despite intense and ongoing searching.
14) The AGW models also predict Stratospheric cooling - that hasn't been found either.
15) The AGW models require a process known as "radiative forcing" which in turn requires a reduction in outgoing radiation as the Earth's temperature increaces - this is contrary to the laws of physics & thermodynamics and the ERBS (Energy Radiation Budget Experiment) satellite sent up to look for it did not find it.
It did find that normal physics prevail and the radiation increaces with temperature. So the convoluted logic of "radiative forcing" is proven false.
16) That temperatures have fluctuated higher and faster in the past (twice within the last 2000 years alone) than current observed changes.
17) There is no evidence in the historical records to support the assumptions that the current climate is "normal" or that the rates of change are "abnormal".
18) CO2 is a "greenhouse gas" in that it absorbs infra-red. There is however no proof - NONE WHATSOEVER - that this is causing the current warming. This is merely an unproven assertion of the AGW hypothesis.
19) The "Greenhouse Effect" as applied to greenhouses relies on the prevention of convection rather than the "trapping" of Infra Red (IR ) radiation. This IR trapping model is false and originated in some 19th century hypotheses which were debunked over 100 years ago.
The "Greenhouse" is not a good analogue for the way our atmosphere behaves.
20) CO2 has throughout paleological history been higher than present (it has only been this low for the last 650 000 years and briefly again during the Carboniferous period).
21) CO2 is the building block of all life on earth. Photosynthesis stops at 100ppm the current 380ppm could be considered dangerously low for life that evolved in 1000-1200ppm environments.
22) The "Overwhelming Evidence" of warming is based on terrestrial weather stations which have been corrupted by the Urban Heat island Effect (UHI) and distinctly skewed towards the "hot" side by an unintentional bias introduced by station elimination, calibration and relocation.
The trerrestrial data does not correspond to the satellite data which shows only a slight warming trend + 0.1°C by 2000 which has since been lost to a recent cooling trend.
23) CO2 from burning fossil fuels is only 4% of the total CO2 liberated to atmosphere - even the 5% propounded by alarmists is insufficient for us to conclude that we can "Control" climate through the reduction of this one tiny variable. (even if CO2 is responsible for the warming - which it isn't.) 
24) From the above - If CO2 is only 5% of the emmissions and can absorb only 3% of solar insolation - then even ignoring the fact that this 3% insolation is already 99.999% absorbed and two thirds of it are taken up by water vapour- these two combine to suggest that mans emmissions count for a maximum variable of only 0.15% (at best - in total - more realistically 0.0000005% allowing for current IR saturation and spectral overlap).
To suggest that we can use this insignificant amount to "control" the climate simply beggars belief.
25) CO2 is not increacing in the atmosphere pro-rata to our emmissions. In fact some 80% of our emmissions "disappear". Something is acting as a sink - evidence suggests that nature responds to more CO2 by using more CO2.
26) The AGW hypothesis is circular reasoning. The hypothesis predicts that the warming is caused by mans emmissions and then cite the warming as "proof". You cannot use the premise of a hypothesis to prove the hypothesis.
By such logic any hypothesis is true.
27) The IPCC's models ignore variation in solar output (insolation), water vapour & cloud cover by treating them as constants which they are not. Statistically this means they have no influence on the model outcome and could effectively be ommitted. Thus the IPCC's models ignore 99.9% of the things that actually drive the climate.
28) Constructing a mathematical climate change model which only has man's inputs as variables will unsurprisingly find that man is the prime mover of climate change. Indeed no other outcome is possible.
29) No credible evidence has yet been found that increaced CO2 is harmful to life - quite the opposite. Alarmist fears of CO2 ocean acidification and the like are simply bad science.
30) There is no "concensus" amongst scientists - this is propaganda intended to stifle debate. Thousands of respected scientists do not agree with AGW.
31) Currently temperatures have been falling (since 1998) whatever evidence there was of warming has been more or less been reversed by what appears to be natural cyclicality in the system. The upslope in temperatures between 1970 - 2000 can be seen as part of the "big picture" but in selectively looking only at this period one can easilly be alarmed.

As I said in a previous post - don't believe me - do your own reasearch - but please check both sides.

Pro-AGW papers and articles are extremely convincing - but if you look up the rebuttal position you will (I belive) find the AGW position is either grossly overexaggerated or completely false.

Ken


----------



## Noitoen (Mar 5, 2011)

All these discussions pull some people in one direction and others in another. I drive a Prius not because of the global warming but because, it didn't cost more than any other car of the same size, luxury, equipment but, because it saves more fuel than others of the same class and since fuel isn't free, the more I save, the better. In the case of my earlier car, the savings are 40 to 50% and being the gasoline at 1,54 Euro per litre, that means a lot to me.
The same with light bulbs, appliances, tv's, mobile chargers the lot. If you add all this bits of energy wastage (by keeping them plugged and ready to work) and multiply by a year or 10 years, it adds a lot to your savings and since money isn't cheap these days, it pays to be a little careful.

Nowadays saving the environment, mainly saves you money, at least that's how I see it.


----------



## Maryak (Mar 5, 2011)

Noitoen  said:
			
		

> Nowadays saving the environment, mainly saves you money, at least that's how I see it.



Yes it does. I have solar power and solar hot water systems and my hip pocket is of far greater value to me than some, as I see it, alarmist and yet to be proven theory or my philanthropy to my fellow man.

However IMHO there are a whole lot of people making huge money doing little more than participating in what may well be the biggest confidence trick in history.

Best Regards
Bob


----------



## Ken I (Mar 5, 2011)

Just in case anyone gets the wrong idea about me - I am pro-environment and I do use CFL bulbs in appropriate locations.

Man has a lot to answer for and we all need to play our part.

However...

I am dead set against public policy and taxation based on superstition.

We are facing many problems, CO2 is not one of them ! I fear we have pounced on this as a panacea for all our environmental problems - its not - it is simply serving as a palliative distraction from much more pressing issues.

Ken


----------



## Foozer (Mar 5, 2011)

We are guilty of a crime yet to be determined, we have mounted a defense with global warming as the base. Hmm

Kafka The Trial "Someone must have been telling lies about Joseph K" Silly creatures we be, but what fun would it be should we actually know what we were doing.

Robert


----------



## doubletop (Mar 5, 2011)

Maryak  said:
			
		

> ......... IMHO there are a whole lot of people making huge money doing little more than participating in what may well be the biggest confidence trick in history.



The Y2K thing again but this time there isn't an event that defines the end. They can keep this going for as long as they want.

Pete


----------



## shred (Mar 5, 2011)

Ah, but you have to remember the Rules For Predicting The Apocalypse-- You must predict it more than 5 years out, but less than ten.

Less than five and they call you on it when it doesn't happen. More than ten and nobody cares. 

I'm quite certain the climate is changing; after all, I find ancient shark teeth in the creek bed behind my house. I look in there after every rain and have yet to see a shark. Not too surprising since we're 100 miles inland. Did humans cause that? No. Are humans causing the climate to change now? Maybe. Can we tell for sure? No. And, why do we think the climate we have now the perfectest bestest one ever that must be preserved at all costs? 

I've got CFLs wherever they make sense. The slow-start is kinda nice when entering the bathroom at night.


----------



## Cedge (Mar 5, 2011)

Before you get too giddy about using CFL's, you might want to check the clean up procedures for when you break one. It just might make you rethink their true value. Mercury contamination in the nursery, kitchen or family areas is not something I'm all that pleased to contemplate.

Steve


----------



## KC6UVM (Mar 6, 2011)

Good evening or morning depending on were you all are,

In my house, CFLs emit RF radiation that interfer with the HF bands and the radios I use to transmit on the Amatuer radio bands. And the CFLs are a HAZMAT issue when they burn out, they have to be recycled properly. Just can't throw them away in the trash. Lord help you if you should break one.  

While I haven't used a 100 watt bulb in a long time, but I do keep a stock of 60 watt bulbs. 

George


----------



## shred (Mar 6, 2011)

Cedge  said:
			
		

> Before you get too giddy about using CFL's, you might want to check the clean up procedures for when you break one. It just might make you rethink their true value. Mercury contamination in the nursery, kitchen or family areas is not something I'm all that pleased to contemplate.
> 
> Steve


Yeah, same as those 6' fluorescent tubes in the shop... I put cover tubes on those just in case some bit of metal goes flying. Bare CFL bulbs are a bad idea, especially in places where they're likely to get bonked by something (closets, garages, etc)


----------



## Tin Falcon (Mar 6, 2011)

I use a fair number of CFLs I like the kind with the plastic dome from the safety standpoint but you do not see many of those in stores. I do not mind using them but choices are nice and do not feel it should be shoved on us by the government. If the government was to encourage something it should be wind ,water and solar power. as well as conservation . but lets not create energy police.
Tin


----------



## Foozer (Mar 6, 2011)

Tin Falcon  said:
			
		

> If the government was to encourage something it should be wind ,water and solar power. as well as conservation . but lets not create energy police.
> Tin



Now your talking, I like solar but the way the system is I buy from the grid at 9 per kwh and any sell back is at 5per kwh retail wholesale. Not much incentive to bust open my wallet for panels other than curiosity.

Robert


----------



## Bernd (Mar 6, 2011)

> If the government was to encourage something it should be wind ,water and solar power. as well as conservation . but lets not create energy police.



A month or so back there was no wind in England, their wind mills stopped turning. No electricity. I guess a large population was quite cold. Any Britt care to confirm this? 

Water works but then you have envirowinies that will try to block a dam because of some rare fish.

Solar really works great up here in the North East with our cloudy weather. I'm sure N.J. has the same deal. Plus check out what it takes to make solar cell. And of course it'll be made in China, don't want to pollute the land here right?

I say develop the natural gas, oil, coal and nuclear power that we have. I'm sure we can make it cleaner and safer. Unfortunately all our educated students go back to their countries because of a 6 year visa they have to comply with. Taking their knowledge with them and appling it in their country to sell back to us.

Bernd


----------



## Tin Falcon (Mar 6, 2011)

You would not think of NJ as prime areas for solar development other than demand. But there is a solar farm being built on one of the roads I travel to work. a 100 acre site 20 MW and apparently another 500- 600 acres slated for solar. Another place used to be farm that is a waste disposal company that appears to have a wind survey tower in place. there are a few land based windmills here and talk of a large off shore project going from somewhere of the coast of NC up to off the coast of North Jersey. They say the way the wind tracks it will even out the output. If it is calm on the north end the southern end will produce and visa versa. . Natural gas is being developed some in the Marcela shale deposit in eastern PA but there are issues with that as well like ground water polluted with radioactive material. 
Tin


----------



## Foozer (Mar 6, 2011)

Solar is I suppose best left to those with deep pockets (access to public funds) The inverter I bought, Outback FX 2524 runs around $1900us. So at full bore output with 8 hours sun most can get is 20kw day. Thats not gonna happen in real life. At the buy back rate here around 5 cents per kwh a whole buck a day for the good year of 30 days sunshine somewhere round 60 years to cover the outlay for a device with a 20 year life span at best. Not even including the cost of 10,000 watts of solar panels required to feed the beast to capacity. Dont even want to start on the jaw drop when buying large guage wire  and the thousand other issues when doing a grid interconnect. Good thing I'm a fruitcake

Shoulda bought a mill

Robert


----------



## Ken I (Mar 6, 2011)

Wind and Solar ???

Only if the government subsidises (heavilly) with your tax dollars.

Wind and solar sound environmentally correct but are ecologically invasive requiring 5000 times the area of a coal fired station - which you still have to have in case there is no wind or sun - AND - you have to keep it ticking over on hot standby.

Plus the 200mph blade tip velocities make excellent bird choppers.

Holland has found that when the wind component is more that 3% of the national grid the CO2 savings are in fact negative.

Imagine if the govenment legislated that you HAD to buy and drive an electric/hydrogen powered car - but you also had to buy a gas powered car - AND - you had to leave that idling in case the others aren't available ???

That's about the logic of current energy policy - all of which is based on the superstition that CO2 causes global warming.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/subsidizing_co2.pdf 

To illustrate how costly solar power is :- Under Ontario's "Renewable Energy" campaign the feed-in tariff for surplus production of solar power is 71.3c/kWh - for a commodity that retails at 12.0c/kWh - The figure needs to be that high to attract investment in solar power - long term this is economic suicide. 

http://www.financialpost.com/Power+failure/3641528/story.html

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/when-it-comes-to-power-in-ontario-were-in-the-dark/article1750752/

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100068571/huhne-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-camerons-lousy-coalition/

Its a joke - and I'm not laughing.

Sorry to be a wet blanket - but read both sides of the arguments.

Ken


----------



## Foozer (Mar 6, 2011)

Ken I  said:
			
		

> Wind and Solar ???
> 
> 
> Plus the 200mph blade tip velocities make excellent bird choppers.



Have one of those little AIR403 windmill, other than the dont want to think about bird strikes, when the blades furl in high wind it sounds like a huey coming in, rattles the windows. And its just a little pup



> Imagine if the govenment legislated that you HAD to buy and drive an electric/hydrogen powered car - but you also had to buy a gas powered car - AND - you had to leave that idling in case the others aren't available ???



SHH the feds may just tack that on the health care bill



> Its a joke - and I'm not laughing.



Just cause we can do a thing doesnt mean we must, but we do anyway, gotta love it

The most productive use for me is when the power goes out, at least the battery bank is charged up, but then to use it requires a separate inverter, so a smaller 1000 watter is hooked up to keep at least the Boob Toob, coffee pot, and a couple lights going.

Robert


----------



## Maryak (Mar 6, 2011)

1.5kW Grid connected solar system

Real Cost including installation - $8000.00

Cost with Government incentive - $3000.00

Solar Generation			
Start		15-Feb-11	
Date		7-Mar-11	
Pvmeter total		166.0	kWh
PVHr total		    241.0	hr
kW/Daylight hour		0.689	kW
Emeter total		52.3	kWh
Daily Generation		8.30	kWh
Daily Use		    5.69	kWh @ $0.2426/kWh
Daily Sale		    2.62	kWh @ $0.5000/kWh
Daily Saving		$2.69	
Weekly Saving		$18.81	
Quarterly Saving		$241.80	
Annual Saving		$980.64

These are my results to date	at current prices. Prices are forecast to rise by a further 12% from June 30th.

I am still just on the right side (for southern hemisphere) of the equinox so I estimate my winter generation will go down to 6kWh/day. Giving me an annual average around 7.5kWh/day which equates to some $850/year at current prices or a 62% reduction in my electricity costs at current prices.

Even if I had paid full tote odds for my system the pay back period is under 6 years with the average annual increase of 11% over the last 5 years. As it is my pay back to profit is 18 months.

My motivation was purely the personal savings and insulation, (insolation :, from future price rises.

Best Regards
Bob


----------



## Foozer (Mar 6, 2011)

Maryak  said:
			
		

> 1.5kW Grid connected solar system
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thats incentive! your sell is twice the buy price, not here. The sell is less than the buy so the only good side is that whatever is produced is used by the house so I don't have to buy it. Now that I moved its all now sitting in the garage waiting for me to hook it back up. 

Guess the US still needs to walk the talk. Hope thats not 0.2426 coin in US terms. Id be back in the cave with burning animal fat at those rates.

Robert


----------



## Maryak (Mar 6, 2011)

Foozer  said:
			
		

> Guess the US still needs to walk the talk. Hope thats not 0.2426 coin in US terms. Id be back in the cave with burning animal fat at those rates.
> 
> Robert



No that's Oz so in US it's $0.245/kWh

Best Regards
Bob


----------



## tel (Mar 6, 2011)

Trouble is Foozer, that that buy price is an artificial one, subsidised by what is laughingly called the Government - in other words all the taxpayers are throwing in to pay it AND it is also contributing to the never ending round of price hikes. The other thing, of course, is that the buy price can be changed, or withdrawn, at the will of these clowns.

No offense Bob - but *I'm* paying for your saving - I'll be round to see you!


----------



## Maryak (Mar 6, 2011)

Non taken tel  :-*

The buy subsidy is a state government thing and varies from state to state so when did Bathurst district move to South Oz 

Best Regards
Bob

Edit - After paying a tax rate of 49c in the dollar for more than half my working life.................anything I can claw back goes some way to redeeming my share of the welfare pot.


----------



## tel (Mar 7, 2011)

> The buy subsidy is a state government thing and varies from state to state so when did Bathurst district move to South Oz Wink



 ;D Well it's certainly not in NSW, according to the NSW (*N*ewcastle, *S*ydney & *W*ollongong) Govt!


----------



## Ken I (Mar 7, 2011)

Maryak  said:
			
		

> After paying a tax rate of 49c in the dollar for more than half my working life.................anything I can claw back goes some way to redeeming my share of the welfare pot.



Can't fault that logic.

The Y2k debacle has been mentioned a few times in this thread.
The clamour from my customers for "certification" grew along with the hysteria and despite my best assurances they simply asked for more and more.

Eventually I offered to charge them a truckload of money to come and do an audit and provide "certification". I pitched the price so high - I figured they would forget it - but no - most of my customers went for it and I made an obscene amount of money for very little work. What's more this made them very satisfied customers.

I'm not proud of that - I would rather not have done this - I went out of my way to try not to - but would they listen - no!

I see much of the same hype, hysteria and profit taking in the current GW debacle.

Ken


----------



## Foozer (Jun 7, 2011)

kd7fhg  said:
			
		

> It has already started in California and next year they are going to ban T12 florescent bulbs, you will have to convert over to the T8s,which requires a different ballast.
> 
> Rex



Being bored with all this Great Northwest lack of sunshine (its RAINING AGAIN) decided to change a fixture over to the T8 bulbs and ballast.

As the original tombstones were in good shape I didn't change them. Appears to be some verbiage banted around about the sockets, ah, I just checked that each wire went straight to a socket pin and wired per the diagram on the ballast. Used the 5000 series bulbs.

Brighter, pop right on, and no hum. Now to start on the remaining 7 still to do. If I get real bored perhaps a hookup to measure what the actual wattage differential is may occur.

Robert


----------



## Cedge (Jul 15, 2011)

Here is the prescribed procedure for dealing with cleaning up after you break one of these modern marvels..... Thanks but no thanks

How should I clean up a broken fluorescent bulb?

Because CFLs contain a small amount of mercury, EPA recommends the following clean-up and disposal guidelines:
1. Before Clean-up: Air Out the Room
 Have people and pets leave the room, and dont let anyone walk through the breakage area on their way out.
 Open a window and leave the room for 15 minutes or more.
 Shut off the central forced-air heating/air conditioning system, if you have one.

2. Clean-Up Steps for Hard Surfaces
 Carefully scoop up glass fragments and powder using stiff paper or cardboard and place them in a glass jar with metal lid (such as a canning jar) or in a sealed plastic bag.
 Use sticky tape, such as duct tape, to pick up any remaining small glass pieces and powder.
 Wipe the area clean with damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes. Place towels in the glass jar or plastic bag.
 Do not use a vacuum or broom to clean up the broken bulb on hard surfaces.

3. Clean-up Steps for Carpeting or Rug:
 Carefully pick up glass fragments and place them in a glass jar with metal lid (such as a canning jar) or in a sealed plastic bag.
 Use sticky tape, such as duct tape, to pick up any remaining small glass fragments and powder.
 If vacuuming is needed after all visible materials are removed, vacuum the area where the bulb was broken.
 Remove the vacuum bag (or empty and wipe the canister), and put the bag or vacuum debris in a sealed plastic bag.

4. Clean-up Steps for Clothing, Bedding, etc.:
 If clothing or bedding materials come in direct contact with broken glass or mercury containing powder from inside the bulb that may stick to the fabric, the clothing or bedding should be thrown away. Do not wash such clothing or bedding because mercury fragments in the clothing may contaminate the machine and/or pollute sewage.
 You can, however, wash clothing or other materials that have been exposed to the mercury vapor from a broken CFL, such as the clothing you are wearing when you cleaned up the broken CFL, as long as that clothing has not come into direct contact with the materials from the broken bulb.
 If shoes come into direct contact with broken glass or mercury-containing powder from the bulb, wipe them off with damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes. Place the
towels or wipes in a glass jar or plastic bag for disposal.

5. Disposal of Clean-up Materials
 Immediately place all clean-up materials outdoors in a trash container or protected area for the next normal trash pickup.
 Wash your hands after disposing of the jars or plastic bags containing clean-up materials.
 Check with your local or state government about disposal requirements in your specific area. Some states do not allow such trash disposal. Instead, they require that broken
and unbroken mercury-containing bulbs be taken to a local recycling center.

6. Future Cleaning of Carpeting or Rug: Air Out the Room During and After Vacuuming
 The next several times you vacuum, shut off the central forced-air heating/air conditioning system and open a window before vacuuming.
 Keep the central heating/air conditioning system shut off and the window open for at least 15 minutes after vacuuming is completed.

For more information about compact fluorescent bulbs, visit http://www.energystar.gov/cfls

For more information about compact fluorescent bulbs and mercury, visit http://www.energystar.gov/mercury

EPA is continually reviewing its clean-up and disposal recommendations for CFLs to ensure that the Agency presents the most up-to-date information for consumers and businesses.


----------



## Ken I (Jul 16, 2011)

5mg of Mercury is not a huge hazzard and it will "boil off" over several hours - this however does represent the worst risk - breathing in Mercury vapour.

Vacuum cleaning is not recomended because it will more likely than not simply vapourise and exhaust the Mercury back into the room thus raising the airborn levels in the short term.

However if you have a vacuum cleaner with an exhaust pipe - lead the exhaust out through the nearest window and gas your neighbour.

After clean up, leave it running for an hour or so with the suction nozzle over the spill whilst exhausting to outdoors.

You could also place a fan in the window and force a draught through the room to the outside for several hours.

Ken


----------



## mike os (Jul 16, 2011)

hang on a sec though... not so long ago as far as the environmental idiot brigade were concerned mercury was then very spawn of satan and its very existance should be banned, let alone its use even when nothing else would do...... now it is green to take it home....who do I not believe a single thing the hypoctites sprout?

could it be the same reason I dont listen to other religious fanatics?

AGW the newest religion....... and the most incorrect.

on the subject of PV.... if i was to borrow the £££ to do an install and get the standard payback then I would not earn enough to pay the interest on the loan.... without the government grant & "guarenteed payback"...


----------



## Ken I (Jul 16, 2011)

Mike - to quote Michael Crichton "global warming is a faith without proof - it is undoubtedly a relegion"

It has no proof based on sound laws of physics.

For Crighton's entire Mitchelin lecture at Caltech in 2003

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/09/aliens-cause-global-warming-a-caltech-lecture-by-michael-crichton/

or 
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html


Humerously titled "Aliens Cause Global Warming"


----------



## sunworksco (Jul 16, 2011)

If it saves us from building one more God Da :redface2:ed nuclear power plant, the better!
Don't believe me? Ask the Japanese and Germans!
Giovanni


----------



## Ken I (Jul 16, 2011)

Save energy by all means - the Germans and the Japanese will fail if they try to abandon nuclear.

Nuclear is the safest form of power generation - even allowing for projected deaths and reduced lifespans from Chernobyl and Fukashima.

Or do we conveniently ignore the 175 000 Chinese killed in a single Hydro dam failure.

Chernobyl killed 50, 90 more died from 9000 treated for thyroid cancer, a further 150000 persons were exposed - even a 10% reduction in lifespan / mortality doesn't bring us up close to the next safest - hydro.

We need to be careful not paranoid.

We need more CO2 not less - current CO2 is paleologically speaking very low and aproaching trouble - photosyntyhesis is compromised below 200ppm and stops at 100ppm - the current 390ppm is well lower than historic values (without catastrophic heating effects). Much of Earth's plant life evolved at 1000-1200ppm and is struggling in our CO2 poor atmosphere.

California's orange grove prodution has increaced by 30% since 1930 due (according to some experts) to the increace from 340 to 390ppm.

Yet a large number of people are proposing we roll back industrial society and spend trillions of dollars of our taxation to remove a trace gas from the atmosphere that is absolutely essential to life.

We apear to have lost our (scientific) minds !

Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, one by one. 
Charles Mackay "_The Extraordinary Delusions and the Madness of Crowds_"

A group of eco-psychologists held a conference at the University of West England in Bristol in August 2009 and proclaimed that "climate change denialism" is a new mental disorder.

Apparently I'm nuts.

If I've gone mad - at least I'm in good company - Regards,
                                                  Ken


----------



## RonGinger (Jul 16, 2011)

> We need more CO2 not less - current CO2 is paleologically speaking very low and aproaching trouble - photosyntyhesis is compromised below 200ppm and stops at 100ppm - the current 390ppm is well lower than historic values (without catastrophic heating effects). Much of Earth's plant life evolved at 1000-1200ppm and is struggling in our CO2 poor atmosphere.



Sorry, but this is simply not true.

Try this quote from Wikipedia:



> The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth's atmosphere is approximately 391 ppm (parts per million) by volume as of 2011[1] and rose by 2.0 ppm/yr during 20002009. 40 years earlier, the rise was only 0.9 ppm/yr, showing not only increasing, but also a rapid acceleration of concentrations.[1][2] Carbon dioxide is essential to photosynthesis in plants and other photoautotrophs, and is also a prominent greenhouse gas. Despite its relatively small overall concentration in the atmosphere, CO2 is an important component of Earth's atmosphere because it absorbs and emits infrared radiation at wavelengths of 4.26 µm (asymmetric stretching vibrational mode) and 14.99 µm (bending vibrational mode), thereby playing a role in the greenhouse effect.[3] The present level is higher than at any time during the last 800 thousand years,[4] and likely higher than in the past 20 million years.[5]



To read the full page, and all the footnotes and references see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere

There are now few scientists that deny global warming, other than those on the payrolls of companies with vested interest in not changing.


----------



## sunworksco (Jul 17, 2011)

Evidently the Japanese and American engineers did not consult mother nature! LOL!
Giovanni


----------



## sunworksco (Jul 17, 2011)

It's called climate change and it is very eratic and a ture scientific fact.
Giovanni


----------



## Maryak (Jul 17, 2011)

Gentlemen,

Some of us support the proposition that global warming is as a result of burning fossil fuels which release unwanted amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Whilst the majority of scientific opinion currently supports this, there are some eminent scientists and some of us who do not accept this proposition.

So called facts can be quoted from many sources and to use such in isolation on either side of the debate is IMHO less than helpful, (it is a very complex and divisive set of propositions).

So far these differences have been aired in a civilised manner.

I realise this is the break room but if we cannot keep this discussion civilised then there will be no alternative but to close the thread.

Thank you for your understanding.

Best Regards
Bob


----------



## Noitoen (Jul 17, 2011)

Didn't want to bore with many links but there is "madness" everywhere. 

http://chasblogspot.blogspot.com/2007/10/muslim-children-eat-fluorescent-bulbs.html


----------



## Ken I (Jul 17, 2011)

Giovanni, climate change is erratic and poorly understood.

I am not a climate change "denier" - it is changing alright - my position is that man has little or nothing to do with it via his CO2 emmissions.

Deforrestation and a host of other evils wrough by man - no argument.

The CO2 hypothesis is simply terrible scientific hysteria.

My advice to anyone is research the subject from both sides, if you read only pro AGW articles, you will be convinced (as I was) that it was true.

A large number of eminent scientists have flipped positions after actually examining the position and the most recent data - as opposed to simply accepting the "peer reviewed" "concensus".

Many scientific organisations are advising their members not to get involved in public debates (they lose every time) and not to engage with skeptics as they seem to become contaminated.

Take the case of Dr. Judith Curry - once the "high priestess of global warming" has become a "climate heretic" and the "wicked witch of climate change" - Google those monikers and you'll see what I mean.

Wikipedia as a source of GW info has been demonstrated to be biased and there have been extensive "editorial wars" on the issue.

There are extensive pro and con arguments that go on forever - I make no claim to being right - I merely suggest you keep an open mind on the issue and consider both sides.

Regards,
      Ken


----------



## mike os (Jul 17, 2011)

wikipedia is, unfortunately about as accurate as .... a very inaccurate thing that sometimes gets it almost right. ;D  usefull but don't take it as gospel

that 2ppm since 200-2009 unfortunately has not resulted in any measurable temp increases.... and if even conforming to the most basic scientific principals would say it is theoretically responsible for.... but as ever theory is mistaken/misused and abused for fact. 

as to CO2 historic levels.... have a look for research done on (IIRC Icelandic, or greenland) ice cores about 6-8 years ago IIRC ( I really cant be bothered looking)... levels and dates....a single piece of peer reviewed research that should cause anyone who can think and read to question the current hysteria. Well except for teh temperatures of north america where NOAA has recently recorded inner city temperatures of several hundred deg C 

also have a look out for a couple of Canadian statisticians & mathematicians that clearly show how Mann manipulated data to produce ipcc1989 "hockey stick" by leaving out recent historic data... again I could give references but if you are interested enough it's easy to find.

In the works of Professor Emeritus P Stott... "Climate change is a tautology"


----------



## Tin Falcon (Jul 17, 2011)

IMHO conservation is part of any long term energy plan as well as developing new sources. but I do not think any one wants to be forced to abandon old technology and what one is used to . I have quite a few CF bulbs in my house and still use a few incandescent. I will probably buy some leds when the price is right. 
As far as global warming my yard is dry and the weeds are droopy. 



> There are extensive pro and con arguments that go on forever - I make no claim to being right - I merely suggest you keep an open mind on the issue and consider both sides.


This is probably the key to discussing any issue. 
Every Issue is like a coin two sides to the story and around the edge is a fine line . The truth. 

Thanks to all for keeping this conversation friendly and addressing one another respectfully. 
Tin


----------



## Ken I (Jul 17, 2011)

Ronginger, Truth is somehow subjective.

Climate alarmists are fond of stating "CO2 is higher now than in recorded history" this statement is true.

It is also true that it hasn't been this high for 600-800 000 years.

But for most of paleological history it has been much higher - 10 times higher - not just a percentage and the world didn't melt.

800 000 years ? a tick of the clock.

Wikipedia has been subject to the revisionist Mr William Connolly - a Wiki moderator who simply deleted all contrary entries who has stooped so low as to paint skeptics in an unfavourable light by removing credible qualifications and positions from their CV's.
He was eventually removed from anything to do with gobal warming after a number of damning newspaper articles.
That said the revisionism continues and skeptical points are deleted almost as soon as they are posted.

There is something very wrong with the way this debate is being conducted.

Most websites and blogs are either pro or con and the response to contrary positions is bombast and flaming - very little science or objectivity.

Like Tin I commend the members of HMEM for their civil responses.

Ken


----------



## Mosey (Jul 17, 2011)

Tin Falcon  said:
			
		

> IMHO conservation is part of any long term energy plan as well as developing new sources. but I do not think any one wants to be forced to abandon old technology and what one is used to . I have quite a few CF bulbs in my house and still use a few incandescent. I will probably buy some leds when the price is right.
> As far as global warming my yard is dry and the weeds are droopy.
> This is probably the key to discussing any issue.
> Every Issue is like a coin two sides to the story and around the edge is a fine line . The truth.
> ...



Hi, Tin Falcon, from Western NJ.
I recently purchased a little clip-on machine light with 21 tiny LED's for my mill. It uses 3 watts total, and gives the same light as the former 50 watt halogen, and NO heat. And I don't scorch my forehead when I get too close. It cost $17.00 at Staples. I want more of them.
Of course I have a house full of the others.


----------



## mike os (Jul 17, 2011)

energy conservation needs no other argument than we have finite resources & need to make the best possible use of them we can. This does not lead to an either/or situation, it leads to what is the most efficient _system_ we can devise, that system looking at total cost of ownership, from inception to fully recycled/decomissioned, efficiency and cost effectiveness.

the problem being that those most likely to make noise are either misinformed, ignorant or on their own little power trip and likely to follow a political rather than scientific/engineering agenda. Until that changes all we will see is more waste, less efficiency, more media hype and less real world results


----------



## Rayanth (Jul 17, 2011)

we can't ban incandescents entirely! the jewelry industry would be in an uproar! Or at least, I would.

Incandescents often cast gems in a different light... some gems are a little deeper in color under incandescent, rather than natural light. In fact there is a range of 'color change' sapphires that are a nice deep blue in natural sunlight, but turn purple under incandescent...

If we get rid of incandescent lights entirely, color change sapphires won't change color! Don't you see what this means? They're trying to ban purple sapphires!

This is an outrage, I say! *knuppel2*

- Ryan, speaking on behalf of color-change sapphires everywhere. 

(And doing a TON of research on making an engagement ring from scratch using lost wax casting.)


----------



## Cedge (Jul 17, 2011)

Just read about the "next generation" energy saving lighting for consumers. LED lighting is apparently the goal but at a suggested retail price of $45.00- $49.00 each. Unfortunately, the LED lights are directional and cast very little ambient light. I just ran a fast calculation on outfitting my home..... came to about $3000.00. 

The US House of Representatives just voted on killing the ban and obtained a majority of the votes cast, however the bill did not pass due to procedural rules in place during that day's session. Should be up for a re-vote under simple majority rules soon. The Senate might be a harder sell and getting it signed by the current resident of the White House is unlikely. I'd suspect we'll see it attached to a spending bill as a rider if it's going to get done.

Steve


----------



## JorgensenSteam (Jul 17, 2011)

Incandescent light bulbs have been obsolete since the day they were first built.
They are nothing more than a heater that happens to emit a tiny amount of light while wasting a ton of energy.

The compact fluorescent bulbs have come a long way in color, performance and price, and are very hard to beat right now.

I know this has become like a Hatfield and McCoy issue, but just to show you how people are, I took a compact fluorescent to my "never fluorescent in MY house!" brother-in-law's house and secretly screwed it in his lamp in the den. He can into the den, and I turned on the lamp and asked him "what type light bulbs do you use in your house?". He started into his usual "no &#38;#*$&%)# compact fluorescent bulbs in my house" rant, and I asked him "well what type bulb is in that lamp. He looked closely and said "incandescent, can't you tell?", and I said "fluorescent, can't you?".

The bottom line is he could not tell the compact from the incandescent either in starting the bulb or from the color or light output, but the bulb was not only more than saving its own cost in energy savings, it was also saving his struggling air conditioning system, since all that heat did not have to be removed from the house.

The incandescent vs compat fluorescent arguement is a moot point since everything is converting to LED, and most light bulbs will be LED in the near future, like it or not.

When I was a kid, we use to break open thermometers and play with the globs of mercury all day long. We also played with Dad's roll of asbestos paper.
The hysteria surrounding fluorescent bulb disposal is just that, hysteria.
Your car spews out a whole lot more toxic stuff every day right into the face of the guy behind you.

Until energy becomes free, we need to think about conserving it. There is only a finite amount of it, and we can't fight the entire world forever to get it.

I fall in the middle of the polictial spectrum, and don't believe in the far left or far right garbage that gets spewed out constantly, but anyone that is against energy conservation is in some sort of denial about the reality of our current situation on this planet. Its not about the government telling us what we can and cannot use in our lamp, it is about us having enough common sense to do the right thing and save a bit of energy for the next generation. Think about your kids and grandkids for a second and don't be so selfish.

Just my two cents worth, not that this has anything to do with machining.
Just get tired of the misguided hype.


----------



## bearcar1 (Jul 17, 2011)

I'm not really interested in all of the hubub and to-do over fluorescent vs. incandescent lighting but I have found the former to be superior in longevity in the coach lamps I have installed on the garage face. I found that the subtle vibration of the garage door going up and down would soon render a normal incandescent bulb useless and switched to the more robust "rough usage" bulbs that seemed to have a different filament configuration to them. They did last a bit longer but not by any appreciable length of time. Finally, just as a lark, I installed two of the fluorescent bulbs into the fixtures and marked the date of replacement on the screw-in base as I always do when changing bulbs. The light output is a bit less but not extremely so and they are a bit slow in coming up to brightness in the colder winter months but to date they have outlasted the other bulbs by well over four months. The same goes for our porch light that is on the same electric eye as the coach lamps. So, all I can say is that in those environment, I shall never again put a regular household bulb into service, they just are not up to the physical task in regards to service life.

BC1
Jim


----------



## Ken I (Jul 17, 2011)

After all that I've posted, all of my "illumination" lighting is CFL or flourescent with only the "mood" lighting incandescent - even some of those are LED.

So I'm not anti CFL's or energy saving but I am anti being told what to do.

Like Bearcar I also write the date on the base of bulbs when placed into service.

The results are all over the place - my oldest bulb was until recently an incandecent 60W but currently a CFL reigns as champ.

Having said that, very few CFL's meet the touted 2000 Hrs service life - but the incandecents are probably worse.

Ken


----------



## sunworksco (Jul 17, 2011)

The polar ice core studies have proven, without a doubt, that the higher CO2 levels are recent and man-made.
Regards,
Giovanni

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080911150048.htm


----------



## Ken I (Jul 18, 2011)

Giovanni, No argument man is definately pushing up the CO2 - but does it make a difference when the IR spectrum supposed to drive warming is already 99.999% absorbed and two of its three spectral absorbtion zones overlap with the collossally more significant water vapour.

Where does the extra heat come from ? - it has not been found by thousands of radiosondes probing for the upper Troposphere "hot spot" or the concomitant predicted Stratospheric cooling.
The ERBE satellite also cannot find the energy imballance in the Earth's radiation budget nor have the ARGO sea bouys found evidence of the "missing heat" claimed by the IPCC's Kevin Trenberth.

The ice core data also clearly shows that historically warming preceeds CO2 by 800 years.

The correllation between CO2 and temperature causes CO2 -outgassing from the oceans which contain 50 x atmospheric CO2 - according to Henry's law the warmer a liquid the less gas it can hold - so there is a known causal mechanism.

There is no known mechanism that allows effect to time travel backwards.

So using the the regression derived relationship between CO2 and temperature (as the modelers do) means they believe that if you add CO2 to the atmosphere today - you will make it hotter yesterday.

Sorry I'm just not buying that. So I am also not buying any projections made with such models.

I'm not making this up - check it out.

Even the IPCC admits that CO2 cannot be responsible without some additional forcing factors - which as far as I can tell have been "fudge factored" into the models to make them work.

And to quote the IPCC's Kevin Trenberth (a staunch AGW believer) 

_There is no estimate, even probabilistically, as to the likelihood of any emissions scenario and no best guess.
"None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate."
"In particular, the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models."
"Moreover, the starting climate state in several of the models may depart significantly from the real climate owing to model errors."_

All the alarmism comes from modeling - and to be sure there can be no data for the year 2100 only model data - but the models do not correspond to the observed climate state

Regards,
      Ken


----------



## Tin Falcon (Jul 18, 2011)

100 watt "light" bulbs are great for powering wax warmers for crafts.Also used to power easy bake ovens IIRC . Do they still make those??
My college chem professor refereed to incandescent as heat bulbs inefficient in light production in deed. 
The original concept for the incandescent light with platinum filament is over two hundred years old .time to improve on this concept I think I know subtle changes over the years. 
Tin


----------



## dgjessing (Jul 18, 2011)

Tin Falcon  said:
			
		

> ... easy bake ovens ...



That's what I use to heat my side bender (for making ukuleles...):


----------



## Dan Rowe (Jul 18, 2011)

Tin Falcon  said:
			
		

> Also used to power easy bake ovens IIRC . Do they still make those??



Tin, I saw a piece about then on the news a bit back and they are still in production only they have switched to another heat source.

Dan


----------



## mike os (Jul 18, 2011)

Dan Rowe  said:
			
		

> Tin, I saw a piece about then on the news a bit back and they are still in production only they have switched to another heat source.
> 
> Dan



2x 60w bulbs? ;D


----------



## Foozer (Jul 18, 2011)

As with any change, look to the text 

PG 88(6) STANDARDS FOR GENERAL SERVICE LAMPS.
(A) RULEMAKING BEFORE JANUARY 1, 2014.

(II)(ii) SCOPE.The rulemaking shall not be limited
to incandescent lamp technologies

Robert


----------



## Blue_Rock (Jul 30, 2011)

Certainly an interesting thread here 

Regarding mercury, thanks for the info about dealing with the mercury hazard should a flourescent break.

Last week, I was flicking through a consumer magazine that compared different brands of CFLs. It examined the claimed life span of CFLs and also the time it took for the tested CFLs to reach claimed light output. Not surprisingly, cheaper brands generally had shorter lives and took longer to reach full output. So all CFLs are not created equally.

A scholarly study that I happened across had this to say on the mercury levels associated with CFLs Vs incandescents.

"The research shows that the efficiency benefits compensate for the added complexity in manufacturing,
that while rapid on-off cycling of the lamp does reduce the environmental (and payback) benefits of
CFLs they remain a net win, and that the mercury emitted over a CFLs lifeby power plants to
power the CFL and by leakage on disposalis still less than the mercury that can be attributed to
powering the incandescent." Source: RMI: _Life Cycle of CFL and Incandescent_

I've seen the results of the above study replicated elsewhere.


----------

