OT: best legislative bill title EVER!

On Jan 31, 11:18 pm, "Zen Cueist" <[email protected]> wrote:
> The answer seems to be "62", in California.
>
> http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/31/news/companies/bc.energy.california.l...
>
> The "How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb Act" would ban
> incandescent lightbulbs by 2012 in favor of energy-saving compact
> fluorescent lightbulbs.

I changed a lot of my regular light switches, in high traffic areas,
to motion sensors. Now the light comes on when you enter a hallway,
and goes off when you're no longer there. I bet that saves a lot more
money than having a fluorescent bulb left on "because they don't use
much power anyways". In fact, the main floor bathroom has both. A
motion sensor and fluorescent bulb.
<rant>
The problem isn't the bulbs.. it's the slack-assed consumers who won't
turn the farking lights off.
But, as per usual, if people won't change, change the legislation.
What a bunch of ass-hats.

This whole energy conservation thing reminds of the idiot down the
street from me: he put in a glaring blue-white fluorescent bulb in his
porch light, but has his 3-ton Escalade SUV idle in the driveway for
1/2 hour because he's too lazy to scrape his windshield.... what's
missing is a Support Our Troops bumber-sticker.
</rant>

On Feb 1, 11:41 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >The problem isn't the bulbs.. it's the slack-assed consumers who won't
> >turn the farking lights off.
>
> Well, that's part of it, to be sure. But what about the (frequent) times when
> the lights are left on because people are *using* them? CF bulbs save a *lot*
> of energy.
>

<rant2>
First deduct the energy required to manufacture the bulb in the first
place. I have a feeling it takes more energy to build a CF (ceramics
and such) than a regular bulb.
That is probably an easy payback as CF's indeed use a lot less energy
once they are lit up and warmed up. Most of them have dismal output
when cold.
Next, work environments where continuous sources of light are used,
are mostly fluorescent already. I don't see a whole lot of regular
bulbs in offices, banks. stores.
I do see a lot of metal halides and sodium/mercury vapour lights. All
the traffic lights are LED around here now.
I have a hunch that incandescent bulbs are mostly used in temporary
situations. And who wants to cozy up with a nice book in the light of
a humming CF?

Let's legislate a ban on CRT's and enforce LCD laws..... and glass
drink containers. Tetrapaks are a lot more efficient.
Better yet.. outlaw electric sanders... we got arms.

Let's outlaw 300 pound slobs who order a 2-gallon bucket of buttered
popcorn, 2 family-size Mars Bars and a Diet Coke. General
transportation systems would see significant savings if porkers like
that weren't allowed to use busses, cars and planes.

None of these energy problems would be insurmountable if we all woke
up one morning and collectively decided to give a shit.

</rant2>

HID lights on cars should be mandatory...on MY cars. Other people
should not be allowed to use them. I love driving with them, but can't
stand looking into them...outlaw them all...except 6 for Rob.

On Feb 1, 5:46 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> [...]
>
> >I have a hunch that incandescent bulbs are mostly used in temporary
> >situations. And who wants to cozy up with a nice book in the light of
> >a humming CF?
>
> They make CFs that have pretty much the same apparent spectrum as a standard
> soft-white incandescent -- and they don't make any noise that I can detect.
> (And my hearing is just fine, thank you very much.)
>
>
>
> >None of these energy problems would be insurmountable if we all woke
> >up one morning and collectively decided to give a shit.
>
> Can't agree with you there -- too many people would disagree over what it
> means, collectively, to give a shit, and over what to do about it. From my
> perspective, for example, one of the principle means of implementing the idea
> that we should give a shit about energy production is to build as many nuclear
> reactors as we have land to put them on. Some people think otherwise.

Amen. Why we (as a nation) aren't pushing for nuclear energy is
disappointing to me.
JP

On Feb 1, 5:46 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:

> From my
> perspective, for example, one of the principle means of implementing the idea
> that we should give a shit about energy production is to build as many nuclear
> reactors as we have land to put them on. Some people think otherwise.
>
I think nuclear energy is safe and affordable...preferably when one
goes with the CANDU format. Even the Chernobyl type of reators are
reliable and safe. The accident there was a poorly thought-out test
procedure and not indicitive of the rest of their well-proven systems.
(Trying to catch station service off a spinning-down off-line
generator?)

It is a typical hook the tree-huggers hang their hats on. Coal is no
good either, you can't dam water, and if you put up windmills, you end
up knocking spotted owls out of the sky.

Everybody has a fricking agenda.

There is a fabulous paper called The Health Hazard Of Not Going
Nuclear by Petr Beckmann (sp?) It was part of my studies and was a
motivator for my oldest daughter who is an operator at Darlington
Nuclear ( 4 x 850 MW) to get into the field.
This station is a work of engineering art.
http://www.opg.com/power/nuclear/darlington/
So, yes, Mr. Miller, I agree with you.

PS. This will have to do till we get fusion ironed out.

On Feb 2, 12:29 am, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> I think nuclear energy is safe and affordable...preferably when one
> goes with the CANDU format. Even the Chernobyl type of reators are
> reliable and safe. The accident there was a poorly thought-out test
> procedure and not indicitive of the rest of their well-proven systems.
> (Trying to catch station service off a spinning-down off-line
> generator?)
>

However the Chernobyl approach to containment left a bit to be
desired,
as did their approach to dosimetry--the 'blood cell' dosimeter.

--

FF

On Feb 2, 2:13 pm, "Mark Jerde" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Man is the only animal on the planet that mucks up his own nest.
>
> Perhaps, but the fact my dog wants to eat what he threw up yesterday
> deserves a mention. ;-)
>

If at first you don't succeed, try, try, again.

--

FF

On Feb 2, 3:57 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <7EKwh.22$384.11@trnddc05>, "Mark Jerde" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> >> I remember my dad telling me that when he was a kid (late 1930s), any time he
> >> rode his bicycle around the neighborhood he'd wind up with soot all over his
> >> forehead from all the coal furnaces. The air is much cleaner now than it was
> >> then.
>
> >Pittsburg, or someplace like that in the rust belt?
>
> Northern Indiana.
>

>From the late 1940s through 1950s there were air pollution crises
"killer smogs" in the US and England that killed thousands outright.
causing tens of thousands of deaths.

Over the next couple of decades the mortality due to chronic exposure
came to be better understood and it came to be appreciated that
air that was clean enough that people didn't die overnight from
breathing it was still not clean enough.

--

FF

> Even the Chernobyl type of reators are reliable and safe.

!?? The people who lived and worked near Chernobyl might disagree.

On Feb 2, 7:52 pm, "MB" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Even the Chernobyl type of reators are reliable and safe.
>
> !?? The people who lived and worked near Chernobyl might disagree.

Your logic:

People who drive Mercedes, are driving an unsafe vehicle. Just ask
Dodi Fayed and Pricess Diana.

Robatoy wrote:
> On Jan 31, 11:18 pm, "Zen Cueist" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > The answer seems to be "62", in California.
> >
> > http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/31/news/companies/bc.energy.california.l...
> >
> > The "How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb Act" would ban
> > incandescent lightbulbs by 2012 in favor of energy-saving compact
> > fluorescent lightbulbs.
>
> I changed a lot of my regular light switches, in high traffic areas,
> to motion sensors. Now the light comes on when you enter a hallway,
> and goes off when you're no longer there. I bet that saves a lot more
> money than having a fluorescent bulb left on "because they don't use
> much power anyways".

You win. "Mythbusters" busted the "leave it on, save energy" myth not
long ago. IIRC, they found the extra energy burned at start-up of a CF
bulb was the equivalent of leaving it on an extra 2.7 seconds. So
unless you're coming back sooner than that, it makes sense to turn the
light off.

On Feb 3, 10:38 am, Robert Haar <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> But the rapid on/off cycles shorten the life of the CF bulbs. Check the
> details on how the expected life spans are determined. The energy and
> environmental costs of manufacture/disposal have to be factored into the
> total lifetime costs of the CF bulbs.

Further, houses with electric resistance heating realize no energy
savings
at all with respect to fluorescent vs incandescent bulbs during the
heating
season.

--

FF

On Feb 2, 8:23 pm, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 2, 7:52 pm, "MB" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Even theChernobyltype of reators are reliable and safe.
>
> > !?? The people who lived and worked nearChernobylmight disagree.
>
> Your logic:
>
> People who drive Mercedes, are driving an unsafe vehicle. Just ask
> Dodi Fayed and Pricess Diana.

That's an interesting way to look at it. I would take your logic one
step further and say that anything can be unsafe when the human
element is involved. BTW, I use to write software that was used to
drive operator training simulators for nuclear power plants, so I am
well aware of the extreme amounts of training that operators go
through.

> And the really odd thing about that notion is that, worldwide, _every_yea=
r_
> more people die in coal mining accidents than have _ever_ died from nucle=
ar
> reactor accidents.
>
> --
> Regards,
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Reminds me of one of my favorite bumper stickers - "More people have
died in Ted Kennedy's car than in all nuclear accidents to date"

> Lets face it.
>
> Man is the only animal on the planet that mucks up his own nest.
>
> Lew

I am recalling a graduate zoology class I took, Mammology. In the
class, there was a young woman in her mid twenties who was quite an
animal lover, moreso than I, although I must admit to liking the
buggers. She said something to the professor about how humans should
behave more like animals. When he asked in what way, she said that
humans are the only animals that hunt for pleasure, and don't
necessarily eat their prey, and said that animals are more "pure of
heart" and not intentionally cruel. He replied, "Not true - ever seen
a cat with a mouse?".

There is this idealization of animals that goes on. Having grown up
as something of an animal lover myself, I can understand it, at least
on the part of kids, and even young adults (who I still consider to be
kids). I still am an animal lover, but I realize that statements like
"Animals are pure of heart and loving, etc.", or "Man is the only
animal on the planet that mucks up his own nest" are just
idealizations for emotional reasons. Unfortunately, they cloud
reasoned debate. Anything done based upon emotions should first be
based upon logic, reason, true facts and real statistics.

Man is hardly the only animal to muck up his own nest. Certainly, we
have the capacity to make a bigger mess, but we really are also more
capable of cleaning our mess, and of altruism.

On Feb 5, 12:15 am, "celticsoc" <[email protected]> wrote:
-
>
> Reminds me of one of my favorite bumper stickers - "More people have
> died in Ted Kennedy's car than in all nuclear accidents to date"

Define nuclear accidents.

On Feb 5, 6:40 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >An extremely inaccurate bumper sticker.
>
> Depends on when it was produced. Unless you're aware of people dying in
> nuclear accidents prior to 1968.
>
>
>
> >"celticsoc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> >Reminds me of one of my favorite bumper stickers - "More people have
> >died in Ted Kennedy's car than in all nuclear accidents to date"
>



I am.

There were no fatalities attributed to acute radiation exposure from
civilian nuclear power plants prior to the Chernobyl disaster.

There were three fatalities at a DOD research reactor in Idaho Falls
during the 1960's. One probably died almost immediately from
trauma. One other probably died from the acute exposure, the
third is less certain. Thermal burns are hard to differentiate
from beta-burns, especially post-mortem.

Famously, two people working on the Manhattan project died
from acute radiation exposure from sub-critical nuclear accidents,
performing an experiment nick-named "tickling the dragon's tail".
Oppenheimer banned the procedure after the second fatality.

The Castle Bravo test, which 'accidentally' was more than twice
as powerful as expected killed a Japanese fisherman near
(but outside of) the exclusion zone.

Almost certainly there have been more fatal radiation exposure
accidents that can be accurately characterized as nuclear--just
not at civilian power reactors.

That number is no doubt tiny compared to non-radiation
fatalities in the nuclear industry or any other comparable
industry.

Those qualifiers 'civilian power plant' and 'from acute radiation
poisoning', are important. The risk of leukemia to nuclear plant
workers is less than for a number of other industries but
possibly slightly elevated above the norm.

--

FF

J. Clarke wrote:

> When it gets down to choosing between "don't want no atoms around
> here" and "don't want to freeze to death in the dark" then that will
> change. Or not depending on just how good a job of terrifying the
> body politic the antinuclear demagogues did.

Considering the 15+ year lead time to fire up a nuke, I'd guess that the
best bet would be to buy a few more blankets.

Interesting things happening in the environment these days.


--
Make yourself an honest man, and then you may be sure that there is one
rascal less in the world.
Thomas Carlyle (1795 - 1881)
http://nmwoodworks.com


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000709-2, 02/01/2007
Tested on: 2/1/2007 11:02:42 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

Doug Miller wrote:

> Yeah -- including environmentalists pushing nuclear fission reactors as an
> alternative to coal-fired power plants, because they don't contribute to
> "global warming."
>
> Finally *some*body's getting a bit of common sense....
>

It doesn't seem to be that simple. Apparently the particulates mixed in
with the green house gases have been reflecting about 1/5 of the
sunlight away from us ... and attenuating the effect of the gases by
about 50%. The Nova video title "Global Dimming" is something of an eye
opener.

Getting rid of the particulates without also getting rid of the
corresponding gases (as we currently do with smokestack scrubbers)
leaves us in even worse shape.

Bill

--
Make yourself an honest man, and then you may be sure that there is one
rascal less in the world.
Thomas Carlyle (1795 - 1881)
http://nmwoodworks.com


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000709-2, 02/01/2007
Tested on: 2/2/2007 2:55:16 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

J. Clarke wrote:
> On 2 Feb 2007 18:57:03 -0800, "[email protected]"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Robatoy wrote:
>>> On Jan 31, 11:18 pm, "Zen Cueist" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> The answer seems to be "62", in California.
>>>>
>>>> http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/31/news/companies/bc.energy.california.l...
>>>>
>>>> The "How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb Act" would ban
>>>> incandescent lightbulbs by 2012 in favor of energy-saving compact
>>>> fluorescent lightbulbs.
>>> I changed a lot of my regular light switches, in high traffic areas,
>>> to motion sensors. Now the light comes on when you enter a hallway,
>>> and goes off when you're no longer there. I bet that saves a lot more
>>> money than having a fluorescent bulb left on "because they don't use
>>> much power anyways".
>> You win. "Mythbusters" busted the "leave it on, save energy" myth not
>> long ago. IIRC, they found the extra energy burned at start-up of a CF
>> bulb was the equivalent of leaving it on an extra 2.7 seconds. So
>> unless you're coming back sooner than that, it makes sense to turn the
>> light off.
>
> If they did that they they didn't understand the "myth". It's not
> "leave it on, save energy", it's "leave it on, save the bulb". Every
> time you turn on a fluorescent light you shorten its life a bit. At
> one time the numbers worked out that the cost of the reduction in bulb
> life was about the same as the cost of the power to run it for a half
> an hour, so if it was going to be off for less than a half an hour it
> was cheaper to leave it on. Don't know how the numbers work out now.
>
>
> ---
> avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean.
> Virus Database (VPS): 000710-0, 02/03/2007
> Tested on: 2/4/2007 12:22:26 AM
> avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
> http://www.avast.com
>
>
>
Those numbers IIRC, work out very differently for fluorescent and
incandescent. I have a motion detector switch in the laundry room
because I found that we were almost always forgetting to turn it off
when we left the room and, being hidden away in the basement, the light
would still be burning two days later when we came downstairs to do more
laundry. When I replace the switch in the bathroom, the new one will be
a motion detector, too. I intend to add a vent fan and I don't want it
running for more than a few minutes after the room empties ... but I DO
want it running long enough to dry the room out.

I bought the 15 minute model for the basement. I think I'll probably do
the same in the bathroom.

Bill

--
Make yourself an honest man, and then you may be sure that there is one
rascal less in the world.
Thomas Carlyle (1795 - 1881)
http://nmwoodworks.com


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000710-0, 02/03/2007
Tested on: 2/4/2007 12:27:10 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

Robert Haar wrote:

> But the rapid on/off cycles shorten the life of the CF bulbs. Check the
> details on how the expected life spans are determined. The energy and
> environmental costs of manufacture/disposal have to be factored into the
> total lifetime costs of the CF bulbs.

How do you calculate the environmental costs?


--
Make yourself an honest man, and then you may be sure that there is one
rascal less in the world.
Thomas Carlyle (1795 - 1881)
http://nmwoodworks.com


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000710-0, 02/03/2007
Tested on: 2/4/2007 12:29:29 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

Morris Dovey wrote:

> I do find myself wondering how well the CF bulbs substitute for the
> incandescent bulbs in cook tops and freezers...
>
> --
> Morris Dovey
> DeSoto Solar
> DeSoto, Iowa USA
> http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto

The mental image I get is of the cartoon light bulb indicating the
arrival of an idea being replaced with a CF bulb ... and having to wait
a moment while it lights up. ;-)

--
Make yourself an honest man, and then you may be sure that there is one
rascal less in the world.
Thomas Carlyle (1795 - 1881)
http://nmwoodworks.com


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000710-0, 02/03/2007
Tested on: 2/4/2007 12:33:22 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

Mark & Juanita wrote:

> I think the degree to which they have researched this is indicated by the
> comment attributed to him or one of his staff the indicated, "incandescent
> technology has not changed in over 100 years."

Neither has breathing. It is possible that he and his staff actually
inhaled.

--
Make yourself an honest man, and then you may be sure that there is one
rascal less in the world.
Thomas Carlyle (1795 - 1881)
http://nmwoodworks.com


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000710-0, 02/03/2007
Tested on: 2/4/2007 12:34:43 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 10:40:05 -0600, "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Zen Cueist wrote:
>| The answer seems to be "62", in California.
>
>| The "How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb Act"
>| would ban incandescent lightbulbs by 2012 in favor of energy-saving
>| compact fluorescent lightbulbs.
>
>Too bad CNN wasn't able to post a link to the text of the proposed
>law - that would have been quite a bit more informative...
>
>Assemblyman Levine and his staff have surely researched the issue
>carefully, discussed the matter with constituants, and have reached
>consensus that CF bulbs will be acceptable substitutes for use in
... snip of some very good questions

I think the degree to which they have researched this is indicated by the
comment attributed to him or one of his staff the indicated, "incandescent
technology has not changed in over 100 years."



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

> Man is the only animal on the planet that mucks up his own nest.

Perhaps, but the fact my dog wants to eat what he threw up yesterday
deserves a mention. ;-)

-- Mark

On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 20:57:59 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:

>In article <7EKwh.22$384.11@trnddc05>, "Mark Jerde" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> I remember my dad telling me that when he was a kid (late 1930s), any time he
>>> rode his bicycle around the neighborhood he'd wind up with soot all over his
>>> forehead from all the coal furnaces. The air is much cleaner now than it was
>>> then.
>>
>>Pittsburg, or someplace like that in the rust belt?
>
>Northern Indiana.

Yes coming around the bend of Lake Michigan from Chitown, on a foggy
still summer evening, the smell that permeated everything.

Mark
http://home.mchsi.com/~xphome/

Robatoy wrote:

| PS. This will have to do till we get fusion ironed out.

Fusion has been working fine for me! <vbg>

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/collectors.html

Zen Cueist wrote:
| The answer seems to be "62", in California.

| The "How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb Act"
| would ban incandescent lightbulbs by 2012 in favor of energy-saving
| compact fluorescent lightbulbs.

Too bad CNN wasn't able to post a link to the text of the proposed
law - that would have been quite a bit more informative...

Assemblyman Levine and his staff have surely researched the issue
carefully, discussed the matter with constituants, and have reached
consensus that CF bulbs will be acceptable substitutes for use in
restaurants and clubs; film studios and theaters; aviation (imagine
LAX with CF beacon, approach and runway lights with CF landing lights
on all planes; and police helicopters with CF searchlights), highway
(including traffic control, signage, street lighting, and emergency
vehicles), rail, and ocean transportation; medical facilities and
devices;...

...and surely Lloyd and all the members of his intelligent and
well-informed staff are "leading by example" and have already replaced
all of the incandescent bulbs in their offices and residences
(including those in their kitchen appliances and personal vehicles)
with CF bulbs.

I do find myself wondering how well the CF bulbs substitute for the
incandescent bulbs in cook tops and freezers...

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto

Mark & Juanita wrote:
| On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 10:40:05 -0600, "Morris Dovey"
| <[email protected]> wrote:
|
|| Zen Cueist wrote:
||| The answer seems to be "62", in California.
||
||| The "How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb Act"
||| would ban incandescent lightbulbs by 2012 in favor of
||| energy-saving compact fluorescent lightbulbs.
||
|| Too bad CNN wasn't able to post a link to the text of the proposed
|| law - that would have been quite a bit more informative...
||
|| Assemblyman Levine and his staff have surely researched the issue
|| carefully, discussed the matter with constituants, and have reached
|| consensus that CF bulbs will be acceptable substitutes for use in
| ... snip of some very good questions
|
| I think the degree to which they have researched this is
| indicated by the comment attributed to him or one of his staff the
| indicated, "incandescent technology has not changed in over 100
| years."

Agreed - and I'd like to suggest to Californians that failure to
exercise due dilligence at this level of elected "public service"
should trigger an automatic recall ballot.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto

"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> I remember my dad telling me that when he was a kid (late 1930s), any time
> he
> rode his bicycle around the neighborhood he'd wind up with soot all over
> his
> forehead from all the coal furnaces. The air is much cleaner now than it
> was
> then.

Pittsburg, or someplace like that in the rust belt?

-- Mark

On 1 Feb 2007 15:33:26 -0800, "Jay Pique" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Feb 1, 5:46 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> >I have a hunch that incandescent bulbs are mostly used in temporary
>> >situations. And who wants to cozy up with a nice book in the light of
>> >a humming CF?
>>
>> They make CFs that have pretty much the same apparent spectrum as a standard
>> soft-white incandescent -- and they don't make any noise that I can detect.
>> (And my hearing is just fine, thank you very much.)

More or less the same color temperature, not necessarily the same
spectrum. And definitely not the same geometry.

>> >None of these energy problems would be insurmountable if we all woke
>> >up one morning and collectively decided to give a shit.
>>
>> Can't agree with you there -- too many people would disagree over what it
>> means, collectively, to give a shit, and over what to do about it. From my
>> perspective, for example, one of the principle means of implementing the idea
>> that we should give a shit about energy production is to build as many nuclear
>> reactors as we have land to put them on. Some people think otherwise.
>
>Amen. Why we (as a nation) aren't pushing for nuclear energy is
>disappointing to me.

We aren't because a few loons have convinced the body politic that
nuclear power is dangerous beyond comprehension and that there is no
way to make it safe.

When it gets down to choosing between "don't want no atoms around
here" and "don't want to freeze to death in the dark" then that will
change. Or not depending on just how good a job of terrifying the
body politic the antinuclear demagogues did.

In article <[email protected]>, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
>I have a hunch that incandescent bulbs are mostly used in temporary
>situations. And who wants to cozy up with a nice book in the light of
>a humming CF?

They make CFs that have pretty much the same apparent spectrum as a standard
soft-white incandescent -- and they don't make any noise that I can detect.
(And my hearing is just fine, thank you very much.)
>
>None of these energy problems would be insurmountable if we all woke
>up one morning and collectively decided to give a shit.

Can't agree with you there -- too many people would disagree over what it
means, collectively, to give a shit, and over what to do about it. From my
perspective, for example, one of the principle means of implementing the idea
that we should give a shit about energy production is to build as many nuclear
reactors as we have land to put them on. Some people think otherwise.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article <[email protected]>, "celticsoc" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> And the really odd thing about that notion is that, worldwide, _every_year_
>> more people die in coal mining accidents than have _ever_ died from nuclear
>> reactor accidents.
>>
>Reminds me of one of my favorite bumper stickers - "More people have
>died in Ted Kennedy's car than in all nuclear accidents to date"

Pre-Chernobyl, apparently, but that reminds me of one of *my* favorite bumper
stickers:

"Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my gun"



--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article <[email protected]>, "George" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Man is the only creature to foul his own nest? Cute, but ridiculous, of
>course. You have seen a bitch lick her pups or the pile of debris under a
>bluebird box, right?

Note "under" as opposed to "in". And it seems to me that a bitch licking her
pups is all about keeping things *clean*, not fouling the nest. Not sure what
your point was, but I think you'll have to keep looking if you want to find a
counterexample to the principle that only man fouls his own nest.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On 2/2/07 2:39 PM, "Tim Douglass" <[email protected]> wrote:


>
> Of more concern is that this is typical legislative effort to force a
> solution rather than try to achieve a result. While CF's have some
> advantages (although I find that I seldom get even twice the life of
> an incandescent from one, usually it is about even) it makes little
> sense to require a technology that could easily be supplanted by
> something like LED lighting - or something we don't even know about.
> The goal should be to reduce energy use, rather than sell a particular
> product.

Agreed - CF bulbs make good sense in many situations but not all. One factor
is how long the light is on in typical use. Fluorescents provide the most
benefit in uses where they remain on for longer periods, rather than a quick
on/off cycle.

>I suspect that if you follow the money you'll find that the
> ones proposing this legislation are getting more than a bit of jingle
> from then companies making the CF bulbs.

Maybe, but I think that this is also an example of the typical lawmakers
approach of "let's pass a law that makes us look like we are doing something
but offends no one." If the intent is to reduce energy use or to begin to
address global warming, then we should use market forces to change ingrained
habits gradually. Put a "carbon" tax on all fossil fuels that is enough to
raise the costs of coal/petroleum/gas -based energy use and many people will
start thinking about ways to conserve energy. This particular law is similar
to trying to address gasoline usage by raising fuel economy standards for
auto makers.

On 2/2/07 9:57 PM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> Robatoy wrote:
>>
>> I changed a lot of my regular light switches, in high traffic areas,
>> to motion sensors. Now the light comes on when you enter a hallway,
>> and goes off when you're no longer there. I bet that saves a lot more
>> money than having a fluorescent bulb left on "because they don't use
>> much power anyways".
>
> You win. "Mythbusters" busted the "leave it on, save energy" myth not
> long ago. IIRC, they found the extra energy burned at start-up of a CF
> bulb was the equivalent of leaving it on an extra 2.7 seconds. So
> unless you're coming back sooner than that, it makes sense to turn the
> light off.
>
But the rapid on/off cycles shorten the life of the CF bulbs. Check the
details on how the expected life spans are determined. The energy and
environmental costs of manufacture/disposal have to be factored into the
total lifetime costs of the CF bulbs.

On 2/4/07 3:34 PM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Further, houses with electric resistance heating realize no energy
> savings
> at all with respect to fluorescent vs incandescent bulbs during the
> heating
> season.
>

Good point, but I doubt that this would as much of an issue for California
as for more northern climes. I think we might have reached 10F here today.

On the other hand, your comment seems to be based on an assumption that all
the heat generated by incandescent lighting goes into heating occupied space
- not true for outside lights.

Morris Dovey wrote:

> I do find myself wondering how well the CF bulbs substitute for the
> incandescent bulbs in cook tops and freezers...


They won't.

Even at an average of 18 lumens per watt, incandescent lamp sources
still have a place in the overall quest for higher efficiency lighting,
and short term, quick response lighting is what incandescent is all about.

Lew

> Warning: Spelling errors in this message are the product
> of a poor school system. Pay teachures more than athletes.

LOL!

-- Mark

In article <[email protected]>, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:

>The problem isn't the bulbs.. it's the slack-assed consumers who won't
>turn the farking lights off.

Well, that's part of it, to be sure. But what about the (frequent) times when
the lights are left on because people are *using* them? CF bulbs save a *lot*
of energy.

I agree with your objections to unnecessary legislation, though. That's pretty
far over the top.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

An extremely inaccurate bumper sticker.

"celticsoc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Reminds me of one of my favorite bumper stickers - "More people have
died in Ted Kennedy's car than in all nuclear accidents to date"

In article <[email protected]>, "George" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:An%[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>, "George"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Man is the only creature to foul his own nest? Cute, but ridiculous, of
>>>course. You have seen a bitch lick her pups or the pile of debris under a
>>>bluebird box, right?
>>
>> Note "under" as opposed to "in". And it seems to me that a bitch licking her
>> pups is all about keeping things *clean*, not fouling the nest. Not sure what
>> your point was, but I think you'll have to keep looking if you want to find a
>> counterexample to the principle that only man fouls his own nest.
>
>Nope, only a matter of how it's cleaned up. Only a fool would think that
>tossing into someone else's world constitutes "cleanup."

Nobody ever said that it did. Did you have a point there somewhere?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>
>On Feb 5, 6:40 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, "CW"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >An extremely inaccurate bumper sticker.
>>
>> Depends on when it was produced. Unless you're aware of people dying in
>> nuclear accidents prior to 1968.
>>
>>
>>
>> >"celticsoc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>>
>> >Reminds me of one of my favorite bumper stickers - "More people have
>> >died in Ted Kennedy's car than in all nuclear accidents to date"
>>
>
>
>
>I am.
>
>There were no fatalities attributed to acute radiation exposure from
>civilian nuclear power plants prior to the Chernobyl disaster.
>
>There were three fatalities at a DOD research reactor in Idaho Falls
>during the 1960's. One probably died almost immediately from
>trauma. One other probably died from the acute exposure, the
>third is less certain. Thermal burns are hard to differentiate
>from beta-burns, especially post-mortem.
>
>Famously, two people working on the Manhattan project died
>from acute radiation exposure from sub-critical nuclear accidents,
>performing an experiment nick-named "tickling the dragon's tail".
>Oppenheimer banned the procedure after the second fatality.
>
>The Castle Bravo test, which 'accidentally' was more than twice
>as powerful as expected killed a Japanese fisherman near
>(but outside of) the exclusion zone.
>
>Almost certainly there have been more fatal radiation exposure
>accidents that can be accurately characterized as nuclear--just
>not at civilian power reactors.
>
>That number is no doubt tiny compared to non-radiation
>fatalities in the nuclear industry or any other comparable
>industry.
>
>Those qualifiers 'civilian power plant' and 'from acute radiation
>poisoning', are important. The risk of leukemia to nuclear plant
>workers is less than for a number of other industries but
>possibly slightly elevated above the norm.
>
Thanks, Fred -- good info.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

J. Clarke wrote:
> On 2 Feb 2007 18:57:03 -0800, "[email protected]"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Robatoy wrote:
>>
>>>On Jan 31, 11:18 pm, "Zen Cueist" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>The answer seems to be "62", in California.
>>>>
>>>>http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/31/news/companies/bc.energy.california.l...
>>>>
>>>>The "How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb Act" would ban
>>>>incandescent lightbulbs by 2012 in favor of energy-saving compact
>>>>fluorescent lightbulbs.
>>>
>>>I changed a lot of my regular light switches, in high traffic areas,
>>>to motion sensors. Now the light comes on when you enter a hallway,
>>>and goes off when you're no longer there. I bet that saves a lot more
>>>money than having a fluorescent bulb left on "because they don't use
>>>much power anyways".
>>
>>You win. "Mythbusters" busted the "leave it on, save energy" myth not
>>long ago. IIRC, they found the extra energy burned at start-up of a CF
>>bulb was the equivalent of leaving it on an extra 2.7 seconds. So
>>unless you're coming back sooner than that, it makes sense to turn the
>>light off.
>
>
> If they did that they they didn't understand the "myth". It's not
> "leave it on, save energy", it's "leave it on, save the bulb". Every
> time you turn on a fluorescent light you shorten its life a bit. At
> one time the numbers worked out that the cost of the reduction in bulb
> life was about the same as the cost of the power to run it for a half
> an hour, so if it was going to be off for less than a half an hour it
> was cheaper to leave it on. Don't know how the numbers work out now.

Thy Mythbusters actually evaluated, not whether it would save energy to
leave a light on, but whether it would save money to leave it on. They
took into consideration the life cycle of a light and its replacement
cost, as well as the energy savings. It wasn't the extra energy, but
the extra costs, of leaving the light on that they measured. The
break-even point for flourescent lights was 2.7 seconds. (For
incandescent lights, it was a small fraction of one second.)

One thing they didn't measure was the effect of temperature. I have an
unheated shop, so when I turn my (flourescent)lights on, they start out
at the ambient temperature, which this past January, has been around 20
degrees F. I suspect that shortens their life considerably. I would be
interested in finding out how much.

In article <[email protected]>, J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 1 Feb 2007 15:33:26 -0800, "Jay Pique" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Feb 1, 5:46 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> >I have a hunch that incandescent bulbs are mostly used in temporary
>>> >situations. And who wants to cozy up with a nice book in the light of
>>> >a humming CF?
>>>
>>> They make CFs that have pretty much the same apparent spectrum as a standard
>>> soft-white incandescent -- and they don't make any noise that I can detect.
>>> (And my hearing is just fine, thank you very much.)
>
>More or less the same color temperature, not necessarily the same
>spectrum. And definitely not the same geometry.

Which is why I said "apparent spectrum". :-) I figured it probably isn't the
same, but it sure *looks* the same.
>
>>> >None of these energy problems would be insurmountable if we all woke
>>> >up one morning and collectively decided to give a shit.
>>>
>>> Can't agree with you there -- too many people would disagree over what it
>>> means, collectively, to give a shit, and over what to do about it. From my
>>> perspective, for example, one of the principle means of implementing the idea
>>> that we should give a shit about energy production is to build as many nuclear
>>> reactors as we have land to put them on. Some people think otherwise.
>>
>>Amen. Why we (as a nation) aren't pushing for nuclear energy is
>>disappointing to me.
>
>We aren't because a few loons have convinced the body politic that
>nuclear power is dangerous beyond comprehension and that there is no
>way to make it safe.

And the really odd thing about that notion is that, worldwide, _every_year_
more people die in coal mining accidents than have _ever_ died from nuclear
reactor accidents.
>
>When it gets down to choosing between "don't want no atoms around
>here" and "don't want to freeze to death in the dark" then that will
>change. Or not depending on just how good a job of terrifying the
>body politic the antinuclear demagogues did.

I fear you're right. Unfortunately.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article <[email protected]>, "Zen Cueist" <[email protected]> wrote:
>The answer seems to be "62", in California.
>
>http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/31/news/companies/bc.energy.california.lightbulbs.
>reut/index.htm
>
>
>The "How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb Act" would ban
>incandescent lightbulbs by 2012 in favor of energy-saving compact
>fluorescent lightbulbs.
>
I predict a large black-market trade in bootleg lightbulbs.
>

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> In article <[email protected]>, J. Clarke
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Somebody needs to pass the "how many legislators does it take to grow
>>a brain act".
>
> There isn't much hope in getting that through the California
> legislature, I don't suppose. Remember that's the same group of
> geniuses that put a cap on retail electricity prices a few years
> ago... and then got all surprised and angry when utilities stopped
> producing when their costs of producing electricity exceeded the price
> at which they could legally sell it.

Well, agreed, but you have to take into account the Texans that were doing
the price manipulations, and screwing everyone.

>
> That's a pretty good argument for requiring that candidates should
> have to pass a test in basic macroeconomics before they're allowed to
> serve in the legislature. At any level.
>

And STRONGLY agreed! Although not all of the ignorance was in the
legislature here, by any means.

Patriarch,
Californian for at least 5 generations, on two family lines.


Some of us are stubborn.

In article <[email protected]>, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>An extremely inaccurate bumper sticker.

Depends on when it was produced. Unless you're aware of people dying in
nuclear accidents prior to 1968.
>
>"celticsoc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>Reminds me of one of my favorite bumper stickers - "More people have
>died in Ted Kennedy's car than in all nuclear accidents to date"
>
>

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:An%[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "George"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Man is the only creature to foul his own nest? Cute, but ridiculous, of
>>course. You have seen a bitch lick her pups or the pile of debris under a
>>bluebird box, right?
>
> Note "under" as opposed to "in". And it seems to me that a bitch licking
> her
> pups is all about keeping things *clean*, not fouling the nest. Not sure
> what
> your point was, but I think you'll have to keep looking if you want to
> find a
> counterexample to the principle that only man fouls his own nest.
>

Nope, only a matter of how it's cleaned up. Only a fool would think that
tossing into someone else's world constitutes "cleanup."

In article <[email protected]>, Bill in Detroit <[email protected]> wrote:
>J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> When it gets down to choosing between "don't want no atoms around
>> here" and "don't want to freeze to death in the dark" then that will
>> change. Or not depending on just how good a job of terrifying the
>> body politic the antinuclear demagogues did.
>
>Considering the 15+ year lead time to fire up a nuke, I'd guess that the
>best bet would be to buy a few more blankets.
>
>Interesting things happening in the environment these days.

Yeah -- including environmentalists pushing nuclear fission reactors as an
alternative to coal-fired power plants, because they don't contribute to
"global warming."

Finally *some*body's getting a bit of common sense....

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Let's outlaw 300 pound slobs who order a 2-gallon bucket of buttered
> popcorn, 2 family-size Mars Bars and a Diet Coke. General
> transportation systems would see significant savings if porkers like
> that weren't allowed to use busses, cars and planes.

Hey! We're doing our part by dying young and saving social security $. <g>

(I'm closer to 200 lbs than 300 now, btw.)

-- Mark

In article <7EKwh.22$384.11@trnddc05>, "Mark Jerde" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> I remember my dad telling me that when he was a kid (late 1930s), any time he
>> rode his bicycle around the neighborhood he'd wind up with soot all over his
>> forehead from all the coal furnaces. The air is much cleaner now than it was
>> then.
>
>Pittsburg, or someplace like that in the rust belt?

Northern Indiana.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Markem" <markem(sixoneeight)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>>>> I remember my dad telling me that when he was a kid (late 1930s), any
>>>> time he
>>>> rode his bicycle around the neighborhood he'd wind up with soot all
>>>> over his
>>>> forehead from all the coal furnaces. The air is much cleaner now than
>>>> it was
>>>> then.
>>>
>>>Pittsburg, or someplace like that in the rust belt?
>>
>>Northern Indiana.
>
> Yes coming around the bend of Lake Michigan from Chitown, on a foggy
> still summer evening, the smell that permeated everything.
>

Yep, remember riding the South Shore railroad into the industrial fog, then
wishing I had some soot in my nose to kill the smell of the Chicago river
when I disembarked. They moved that mess overseas, thank heaven. Now the
formerly exploited unskilled make big dollars selling powders in small
baggies where they used to make steel.

Man is the only creature to foul his own nest? Cute, but ridiculous, of
course. You have seen a bitch lick her pups or the pile of debris under a
bluebird box, right?

In article <[email protected]>, Prometheus <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 18:30:51 GMT, Lew Hodgett
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Lets face it.
>>
>>Man is the only animal on the planet that mucks up his own nest.
>
>Never raised a puppy, I take it? :)

Just add the qualifier "in adulthood" to the statement, and I think it remains
valid.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 12:37:02 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On 1 Feb 2007 15:33:26 -0800, "Jay Pique" <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Feb 1, 5:46 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> >I have a hunch that incandescent bulbs are mostly used in temporary
>>>> >situations. And who wants to cozy up with a nice book in the light of
>>>> >a humming CF?
>>>>
>>>> They make CFs that have pretty much the same apparent spectrum as a standard
>>>> soft-white incandescent -- and they don't make any noise that I can detect.
>>>> (And my hearing is just fine, thank you very much.)
>>
>>More or less the same color temperature, not necessarily the same
>>spectrum. And definitely not the same geometry.
>
>Which is why I said "apparent spectrum". :-) I figured it probably isn't the
>same, but it sure *looks* the same.
>>

I've been using CF bulbs in several places. I have not really been
overwhelmed with the output from these bulbs compared to incandescent. In
a couple of places, like the closet, the room is noticeably darker than
when using incandescents even when using the theoretically equivalent
luminescence bulbs. The lifetime of the CF's relative to cost is also
somewhat problematic; in my use of them for porch lights, I get about 1
year of life out of them. When one factors in the much higher cost of the
bulb compared to incandescents, even when having to replace the
incandescents about 3 times in that period, the cost of electricity saved
vs. the cost of the CF is not all that great.

It's also somewhat disengenous of the legislator and others to claim that
incandescent technology hasn't changed much in the past 150 years. The
fact is, that there has been considerable technology development in areas
of filament technology (higher luminescence for lower power through the
filament, etc.) as well as various coating technologies to provide improved
diffusion, efficiency, and quality of light. [No, I don't work for an
incandescent manufacturer, I was however, exposed to some of this in
various reading I have done for various purposes].

One of the concerns with this kind of legislation is the inadvertent side
effects it might have. This might preclude the advent of innovative
technologies because they have been prohibited by legislative fiat
depending on the definitions used to describe "incandescent light bulb".



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On 2 Feb 2007 18:57:03 -0800, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Robatoy wrote:
>> On Jan 31, 11:18 pm, "Zen Cueist" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > The answer seems to be "62", in California.
>> >
>> > http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/31/news/companies/bc.energy.california.l...
>> >
>> > The "How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb Act" would ban
>> > incandescent lightbulbs by 2012 in favor of energy-saving compact
>> > fluorescent lightbulbs.
>>
>> I changed a lot of my regular light switches, in high traffic areas,
>> to motion sensors. Now the light comes on when you enter a hallway,
>> and goes off when you're no longer there. I bet that saves a lot more
>> money than having a fluorescent bulb left on "because they don't use
>> much power anyways".
>
>You win. "Mythbusters" busted the "leave it on, save energy" myth not
>long ago. IIRC, they found the extra energy burned at start-up of a CF
>bulb was the equivalent of leaving it on an extra 2.7 seconds. So
>unless you're coming back sooner than that, it makes sense to turn the
>light off.

If they did that they they didn't understand the "myth". It's not
"leave it on, save energy", it's "leave it on, save the bulb". Every
time you turn on a fluorescent light you shorten its life a bit. At
one time the numbers worked out that the cost of the reduction in bulb
life was about the same as the cost of the power to run it for a half
an hour, so if it was going to be off for less than a half an hour it
was cheaper to leave it on. Don't know how the numbers work out now.

On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 14:24:28 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:

>That's a pretty good argument for requiring that candidates should have to
>pass a test in basic macroeconomics before they're allowed to serve in the
>legislature. At any level.

WHAT, and not be allowed to pander to the voting public.

;>

Markem
(sixoneeight) = 618

On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 21:18:38 -0700, "Zen Cueist" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>The answer seems to be "62", in California.
>
>http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/31/news/companies/bc.energy.california.lightbulbs.reut/index.htm
>
>
>The "How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb Act" would ban
>incandescent lightbulbs by 2012 in favor of energy-saving compact
>fluorescent lightbulbs.

Somebody needs to pass the "how many legislators does it take to grow
a brain act".

On 1 Feb 2007 21:29:25 -0800, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Feb 1, 5:46 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
>> From my
>> perspective, for example, one of the principle means of implementing the idea
>> that we should give a shit about energy production is to build as many nuclear
>> reactors as we have land to put them on. Some people think otherwise.
>>
>I think nuclear energy is safe and affordable...preferably when one
>goes with the CANDU format. Even the Chernobyl type of reators are
>reliable and safe. The accident there was a poorly thought-out test
>procedure and not indicitive of the rest of their well-proven systems.
>(Trying to catch station service off a spinning-down off-line
>generator?)
>
>It is a typical hook the tree-huggers hang their hats on. Coal is no
>good either, you can't dam water, and if you put up windmills, you end
>up knocking spotted owls out of the sky.
>


Wow, we agree on something.


>Everybody has a fricking agenda.
>

In the cases you cite above, I think it is all one agenda, the people in
question reject and despise *all* technology (unless they are using it of
course). The rest of us are supposed to be living in this idyllic
sustenance-level agrarian lifestyle while our betters are zipping around in
their Lear jets and limos in order to assure that we, the little people,
are living our lives according to their enviro-nazi driven plans.

>There is a fabulous paper called The Health Hazard Of Not Going
>Nuclear by Petr Beckmann (sp?)

I think you've got the spelling right, my textbook by him is at work. I
had Dr. Beckmann for my junior-level "Introduction to Probability Theory"
course when I was an undergrad at the University of Colorado. He was one
of the best professors I had during that time. One of his more memorable
lines was the statement that "once you have derived the formula once, you
have the moral right to just use the formula in the future without having
to re-derive it".


> It was part of my studies and was a
>motivator for my oldest daughter who is an operator at Darlington
>Nuclear ( 4 x 850 MW) to get into the field.
>This station is a work of engineering art.
>http://www.opg.com/power/nuclear/darlington/
>So, yes, Mr. Miller, I agree with you.
>
>PS. This will have to do till we get fusion ironed out.


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

"Robert Haar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:C1EBB7DE.235713%[email protected]...
> On 2/4/07 3:34 PM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Further, houses with electric resistance heating realize no energy
>> savings
>> at all with respect to fluorescent vs incandescent bulbs during the
>> heating
>> season.
>>
>
> Good point, but I doubt that this would as much of an issue for California
> as for more northern climes. I think we might have reached 10F here
> today.
>
> On the other hand, your comment seems to be based on an assumption that
> all
> the heat generated by incandescent lighting goes into heating occupied
> space
> - not true for outside lights.
>

Some unfortunates have an incandescent bulb under cover heating the pump in
the well house, and are _damn_ glad they don't have to do it with
flourescents. Like the cooler light for reading, given my advancing age and
declining acuity....

On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 11:39:17 -0800, Tim Douglass
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 21:18:38 -0700, "Zen Cueist" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>The answer seems to be "62", in California.
>>
>>http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/31/news/companies/bc.energy.california.lightbulbs.reut/index.htm
>>
>>
>>The "How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb Act" would ban
>>incandescent lightbulbs by 2012 in favor of energy-saving compact
>>fluorescent lightbulbs.
>
>
>Interesting thing in that article. They say that about a fifth of home
>electricity costs come from lighting. I did a bit of calculating and
>figured that if I burned every single light in my house 24/7 it would
>be just about a fifth of my total electricity usage. In reality I
>suspect it is more like about 8-10%. Of course we heat with
>electricity and have electric hot water heater and clothes dryer, plus
>our climate is a bit colder than most of CA. Still.....
>
>Of more concern is that this is typical legislative effort to force a
>solution rather than try to achieve a result. While CF's have some
>advantages (although I find that I seldom get even twice the life of
>an incandescent from one, usually it is about even) it makes little
>sense to require a technology that could easily be supplanted by
>something like LED lighting - or something we don't even know about.
>The goal should be to reduce energy use, rather than sell a particular
>product. I suspect that if you follow the money you'll find that the
>ones proposing this legislation are getting more than a bit of jingle
>from then companies making the CF bulbs.
>
>Oh yeah, CF bulbs suck if you have cold weather. They *never* come on
>below about 20 F. and are pretty dim below 60 for a while. They don't
>work well with motion sensors because they take too long to come on. I
>tend to mix the two types (always the optimist, I hope to gain some
>energy/cost savings even though I don't see any yet) so that I can get
>at least some light immediately when I flip the switch.

Then there's the little matter of dimmers. While CFs purpose-made to
be dimmable can be dimmed with dimmers made to work with fluorescent
lighting, they're not so happy with one that isn't made for that
purpose and for that matter they're not all that happy with some
dimmers that _are_ made for that purpose. And try to find a dimmable
CF globe or flame at Home Despot.

>Tim Douglass
>
>http://www.DouglassClan.com
>
>Warning: Spelling errors in this message are the product of a poor school system. Pay teachures more than athletes.

In article <[email protected]>, "MB" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Even the Chernobyl type of reators are reliable and safe.
>
>!?? The people who lived and worked near Chernobyl might disagree.
>
The reactor design wasn't the problem nearly so much as its operation.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 21:18:38 -0700, "Zen Cueist" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>The answer seems to be "62", in California.
>
>http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/31/news/companies/bc.energy.california.lightbulbs.reut/index.htm
>
>
>The "How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb Act" would ban
>incandescent lightbulbs by 2012 in favor of energy-saving compact
>fluorescent lightbulbs.


Interesting thing in that article. They say that about a fifth of home
electricity costs come from lighting. I did a bit of calculating and
figured that if I burned every single light in my house 24/7 it would
be just about a fifth of my total electricity usage. In reality I
suspect it is more like about 8-10%. Of course we heat with
electricity and have electric hot water heater and clothes dryer, plus
our climate is a bit colder than most of CA. Still.....

Of more concern is that this is typical legislative effort to force a
solution rather than try to achieve a result. While CF's have some
advantages (although I find that I seldom get even twice the life of
an incandescent from one, usually it is about even) it makes little
sense to require a technology that could easily be supplanted by
something like LED lighting - or something we don't even know about.
The goal should be to reduce energy use, rather than sell a particular
product. I suspect that if you follow the money you'll find that the
ones proposing this legislation are getting more than a bit of jingle
from then companies making the CF bulbs.

Oh yeah, CF bulbs suck if you have cold weather. They *never* come on
below about 20 F. and are pretty dim below 60 for a while. They don't
work well with motion sensors because they take too long to come on. I
tend to mix the two types (always the optimist, I hope to gain some
energy/cost savings even though I don't see any yet) so that I can get
at least some light immediately when I flip the switch.

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

Warning: Spelling errors in this message are the product of a poor school system. Pay teachures more than athletes.

On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 18:30:51 GMT, Lew Hodgett
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Lets face it.
>
>Man is the only animal on the planet that mucks up his own nest.

Never raised a puppy, I take it? :)

"Doug Miller" wrote:

> I remember my dad telling me that when he was a kid (late 1930s),
any time
> he
> rode his bicycle around the neighborhood he'd wind up with soot all
over
> his
> forehead from all the coal furnaces. The air is much cleaner now
than it
> was
> then.

Mark Jerde wrote:

> Pittsburg, or someplace like that in the rust belt?


Actually it is Pittsburgh, but NBD.

As far as dirty air is concerned, have been told the the air in Los
Angeles during the early 1900's was worse than it is today.

Not nearly as many people, but back then, open burning of refuse by
individuals was quite common along with heating and cooking stoves,
smudge pots, etc.

Lets face it.

Man is the only animal on the planet that mucks up his own nest.

Lew

"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "Zen Cueist"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>The answer seems to be "62", in California.
>>
>>http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/31/news/companies/bc.energy.california.lightbulbs.
>>reut/index.htm
>>
>>
>>The "How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb Act" would
>>ban
>>incandescent lightbulbs by 2012 in favor of energy-saving compact
>>fluorescent lightbulbs.
>>
> I predict a large black-market trade in bootleg lightbulbs.
>>
Imagine the horror, being a light bulb dealer. Is that better or worse than
a dope dealer? Will Kalifornia border agents stop cars at the border and
search for light bulbs? How much prison time will you face if caught with a
box of light bulbs?

In article <[email protected]>, J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:

>Somebody needs to pass the "how many legislators does it take to grow
>a brain act".

There isn't much hope in getting that through the California legislature, I
don't suppose. Remember that's the same group of geniuses that put a cap on
retail electricity prices a few years ago... and then got all surprised and
angry when utilities stopped producing when their costs of producing
electricity exceeded the price at which they could legally sell it.

That's a pretty good argument for requiring that candidates should have to
pass a test in basic macroeconomics before they're allowed to serve in the
legislature. At any level.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article <[email protected]>, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I think nuclear energy is safe and affordable...preferably when one
>goes with the CANDU format. Even the Chernobyl type of reators are
>reliable and safe. The accident there was a poorly thought-out test
>procedure and not indicitive of the rest of their well-proven systems.
>(Trying to catch station service off a spinning-down off-line
>generator?)
>
>It is a typical hook the tree-huggers hang their hats on. Coal is no
>good either, you can't dam water, and if you put up windmills, you end
>up knocking spotted owls out of the sky.
>
>Everybody has a fricking agenda.
>
>There is a fabulous paper called The Health Hazard Of Not Going
>Nuclear by Petr Beckmann (sp?)

I remember my dad telling me that when he was a kid (late 1930s), any time he
rode his bicycle around the neighborhood he'd wind up with soot all over his
forehead from all the coal furnaces. The air is much cleaner now than it was
then.

>It was part of my studies and was a
>motivator for my oldest daughter who is an operator at Darlington
>Nuclear ( 4 x 850 MW) to get into the field.
>This station is a work of engineering art.
>http://www.opg.com/power/nuclear/darlington/
>So, yes, Mr. Miller, I agree with you.

I'll have a look at that -- thanks.
>PS. This will have to do till we get fusion ironed out.
>

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.