Constitutionality of light bulb ban questioned - Environmental Protection Agency must be called for a broken bulb

Page 9 of 10  
dpb wrote:

The oxygen sensor in the fuel injection loop is probably seeing to much oxygen and is compensating by richening the fuel air mixture.
I have gas receipts going back at least two years to present so the numbers are real. The drop in economy happened when the new fuel was introduced. I have an OBD II reader plugged into the vehicle at all times, no error codes. The air cleaner is new, the vehicle well maintained. There could be other issues like water in the fuel supply from the dealer tanks.
--
Joe Leikhim K4SAT
"The RFI-EMI-GUY"©
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
writes: | | | > | > Here in Arizona's mild winters even regular fluorescents tubes flicker | > in my garage. | > | > ...Jim Thompson | | | They're probably those crappy 34W energy saver tubes with magnetic | ballasts that usually don't drive them harder than about 25W. Those were | a hack from the 70s energy crisis and hardly work in a drafty room | indoors.
I thought the 34W F40T12 energy miser tubes became common as a result of the 1992 EPACT that also brought us the horrible 60W F96T12 tubes. This was the law that was popularly described as banning (yes, I know, there's that word again) cool white tubes.
I remember having a lot of trouble with short lives on the "compatible" 34W F40 tubes until I replaced the ballasts with dual-rated 40W/34W ones. The 60W F96T12 tubes were just so dreary that I went for the much more expensive improved color rendering 75W products that were exempt from the requirements. These provided *almost* as much light as the original 75W F96T12/CW tubes, so slightly less efficiency at a much higher price.
In the past few years I've noticed that the commodity F40 and F96 tubes at the home centers are once again 40W and 75W respectively, so I assume they all now qualify for the good color rendering (or other) exemption from the requirements. (Or are they lying about the wattage?)
                Dan Lanciani                 ddl@danlan.*com
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Trichromatic phosphor blends are much more common these days and a lot cheaper than they used to be, so you can easily get 40W high CRI lamps.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
writes: | | | > In the past few years I've noticed that the commodity F40 and F96 tubes | > at the home centers are once again 40W and 75W respectively, so I assume | > they all now qualify for the good color rendering (or other) exemption | > from the requirements. (Or are they lying about the wattage?) | > | >                 Dan Lanciani | >                 ddl@danlan.*com | | | Trichromatic phosphor blends are much more common these days and a lot | cheaper than they used to be, so you can easily get 40W high CRI lamps.
And 75W F96 tubes, though they cost a little more than the dirt cheap CW versions did. I guess this is great if you like a high color rendering index, but I'm still not clear on how it ultimately helped with energy conservation or efficiency. Now if they had gone on to produce 34W F40 and 60W F96 tubes that put out as much light as the older 40W and 75W versions I could see the justification for the higer costs, ballast replacements, and such in the meantime. But as it is, aren't we pretty much back where we started (from an energy usage point of view)?
                Dan Lanciani                 ddl@danlan.*com
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 22 Jun 2008 17:16:51 GMT, ddl@danlan.*com (Dan Lanciani) wrote:

Hi Dan,
Twenty or thirty years ago, a conventional two-tube F96T12 fixture would draw about 180-watts. Today, with 60-watt lamps and energy saving magnetic ballasts, that number falls closer to 135 or 140-watts, so there's been at least some improvement.
In terms of operating efficacy, a 75-watt Sylvania F96T12/D41/ECO (4,100K/70 CRI) is rated at 6,420 initial lumens and powered by a standard magnetic-core ballast (0.88 BF), we obtain about 63 lumens from each watt. A 60-watt Sylvania F96T12/D41/SS/ECO (4,100K/70 CRI) at 5,600 initial lumens and driven by a newer energy saving magnetic ballast would bump that up to perhaps 71 or 72 lumens per watt.
Things do improve considerably once you move to T8. A 59-watt Sylvania F096/841/XP/ECO (4,100K/85 CRI) has a nominal rating of 6,100 lumens and a two tube fixture with a 0.88 BF electronic ballast draws approximately 110-watts -- that puts us in the range of 97 or 98 lumens per watt.
In addition to better colour rendering and higher system efficacy, there's also a 50 per cent improvement in lamp life (18,000 hrs. versus 12,000 at 3 hrs per start), plus no flicker or ballast noise; lumen maintenance is also notably better at 93 to 95 per cent versus 80 to 85 per cent. As an added bonus, T8s typically offer better cold weather performance (e.g., Sylvania's F96T8 lamps have a 0F starting temperature when used with Quictronic ballasts).
Cheers, Paul
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@ns.sympatico.ca (Paul M. Eldridge) writes: | On 22 Jun 2008 17:16:51 GMT, ddl@danlan.*com (Dan Lanciani) wrote: |
Sweet) writes: | >| | >| | >| > In the past few years I've noticed that the commodity F40 and F96 tubes | >| > at the home centers are once again 40W and 75W respectively, so I assume | >| > they all now qualify for the good color rendering (or other) exemption | >| > from the requirements. (Or are they lying about the wattage?) | >| > | >| >                 Dan Lanciani | >| >                 ddl@danlan.*com | >| | >| | >| Trichromatic phosphor blends are much more common these days and a lot | >| cheaper than they used to be, so you can easily get 40W high CRI lamps. | > | >And 75W F96 tubes, though they cost a little more than the dirt cheap CW | >versions did. I guess this is great if you like a high color rendering | >index, but I'm still not clear on how it ultimately helped with energy | >conservation or efficiency. Now if they had gone on to produce 34W F40 | >and 60W F96 tubes that put out as much light as the older 40W and 75W | >versions I could see the justification for the higer costs, ballast | >replacements, and such in the meantime. But as it is, aren't we pretty | >much back where we started (from an energy usage point of view)? | > | >                Dan Lanciani | >                ddl@danlan.*com | | | Hi Dan, | | Twenty or thirty years ago, a conventional two-tube F96T12 fixture | would draw about 180-watts. Today, with 60-watt lamps and energy | saving magnetic ballasts, that number falls closer to 135 or | 140-watts, so there's been at least some improvement.
I get kind of confused when several variables change at once. :( Assume that I use the same ballasts I was using 20-30 years ago and also assume that I don't like the lower illumination from the 60W tubes so I use the current more expensive 75W tubes. (Both assumptions happen to reflect reality. :) How does my energy usage today compare to my usage when I could get the cheap 75W cool white tubes?
| In terms of operating efficacy, a 75-watt Sylvania F96T12/D41/ECO | (4,100K/70 CRI) is rated at 6,420 initial lumens and powered by a | standard magnetic-core ballast (0.88 BF), we obtain about 63 lumens | from each watt. A 60-watt Sylvania F96T12/D41/SS/ECO (4,100K/70 CRI) | at 5,600 initial lumens and driven by a newer energy saving magnetic | ballast would bump that up to perhaps 71 or 72 lumens per watt.
Can I get energy saving magnetic ballasts to drive 75W tubes at higher efficiency or do they depend on using the 60W tubes?
                Dan Lanciani                 ddl@danlan.*com
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 24 Jun 2008 03:16:08 GMT, ddl@danlan.*com (Dan Lanciani) wrote:

Hi Dan,
If your 75-watt replacement tubes are driven by the fixture's original ballast, wattage remains the same -- again, about 180-watts in total.

You can; as is true of your current ballast, energy saving magnetic ballasts are compatible with both 60 and 75-watt lamps. However, if you plan to replace the ballast, you might as well switch to an electronic version and pop in a couple T8 tubes; the benefits are:
* 40% energy savings (110-watts versus 180-watts) * 50% longer lamp life (18,000 hours versus 12,000 hours) * cooler operation (potentially helpful in warmer climates) * silent operation (no annoying ballast hum) * no flicker (important if you work with some types of machinery) * typically better colour rendering (improved light quality) * better lumen maintenance (more light over the life of the tube) * typically better cold weather performance (starting down to 0F) * better long-term availability of replacement lamps (???)
A 75-watt F96T12 + standard magnetic ballast is the technical equivalent of a 1978 Ford Granada. It may have been considered a good performer in its day (** snicker **), but thirty years later we've thankfully moved the goal posts a little further.
Cheers, Paul
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@ns.sympatico.ca (Paul M. Eldridge) writes: | On 24 Jun 2008 03:16:08 GMT, ddl@danlan.*com (Dan Lanciani) wrote: |
snipped-for-privacy@ns.sympatico.ca (Paul M. Eldridge) writes: | >| On 22 Jun 2008 17:16:51 GMT, ddl@danlan.*com (Dan Lanciani) wrote: | >| | >| Hi Dan, | >| | >| Twenty or thirty years ago, a conventional two-tube F96T12 fixture | >| would draw about 180-watts. Today, with 60-watt lamps and energy | >| saving magnetic ballasts, that number falls closer to 135 or | >| 140-watts, so there's been at least some improvement. | > | >I get kind of confused when several variables change at once. :( | >Assume that I use the same ballasts I was using 20-30 years ago | >and also assume that I don't like the lower illumination from the | >60W tubes so I use the current more expensive 75W tubes. (Both | >assumptions happen to reflect reality. :) How does my energy usage | >today compare to my usage when I could get the cheap 75W cool white | >tubes? | | | Hi Dan, | | If your 75-watt replacement tubes are driven by the fixture's original | ballast, wattage remains the same -- again, about 180-watts in total. | | | >| In terms of operating efficacy, a 75-watt Sylvania F96T12/D41/ECO | >| (4,100K/70 CRI) is rated at 6,420 initial lumens and powered by a | >| standard magnetic-core ballast (0.88 BF), we obtain about 63 lumens | >| from each watt. A 60-watt Sylvania F96T12/D41/SS/ECO (4,100K/70 CRI) | >| at 5,600 initial lumens and driven by a newer energy saving magnetic | >| ballast would bump that up to perhaps 71 or 72 lumens per watt. | > | >Can I get energy saving magnetic ballasts to drive 75W tubes at higher | >efficiency or do they depend on using the 60W tubes? | | | You can; as is true of your current ballast, energy saving magnetic | ballasts are compatible with both 60 and 75-watt lamps.
Can you recommend a specific part? Mine are actually single tube fixtures so this would be for one F96T12 tube. I'm assuming that energy saving magnetic ballasts save energy by putting out less heat rather than, say, by not driving the tube as hard. Is there any downside at all to using them?
| However, if | you plan to replace the ballast, you might as well switch to an | electronic version and pop in a couple T8 tubes;
I tried electronic ballasts at one point but they generated too much RFI (interfering with, IIRC, low-band VHF television and AM radio) and they also caused problems for my X10 (power line control) devices. Based on more recent experience with neighbors' CFLs and even the "electronic transformer" on a reading lamp I'm a little skeptical about the value of the FCC label. :( Can I do anything useful with T8 tubes and magnetic ballasts?
                Dan Lanciani                 ddl@danlan.*com
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 25 Jun 2008 03:08:28 GMT, ddl@danlan.*com (Dan Lanciani) wrote:

Hi Dan,
There's really no downside as such, but not a whole lot of up either given that with the exception of the limited watts saved all the other limitations previously noted still apply. I'm afraid I can't recommend a specific part because I use electronic ballasts exclusively, but hopefully others in this group can offer their recommendations.

I haven't personally encountered any of the issues you mention and my firm installed several hundred of these ballasts at a major defence contractor, including their test labs where they use highly sensitive bench equipment (FWIW, we use only Osram Sylvania's Quictronic ballasts). I might suggest trying one out to see how it works, and if you're not completely satisfied exchange it for an ES magnetic; alternatively, give Sylvania a call at 1-800-LIGHTBULB and relay your concerns to them directly prior to making your purchase. Good luck!
Cheers, Paul
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Many of the ones exempt on basis of better color rendering do so with compromise in light output, *unless*: The CRI (color rendering index) is in the low-mid 80's! CRI around/above 90 "pretty much requires" significant to severe compromise in light output. Furthermore, if CRI is in the low-mid 80's the color distortions are often mostly *favorable* (main exception of reds being distorted slightly to orangish). Otherwise, color distortions are mostly to darker/duller for reds and greens, especially reds. The color distortions are less when CRI is around 90 or in the low 90's, but still usually largely in unfavorable directions.
As for F40 with uncompromised light output and color distortions mainly *not* dulling/darkening - Philips "Ultralume". I think that Sylvania's "Interior Design"/"Designer" is fairly similar. Watch for color temperature rating - these come in more than one, especially Philips "Ultralume"!
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
metspitzer wrote:

When we developed a product that didn't sell as expected (more properly, as desired) the first stop was our Congressional delegation. It's difficult to convince consumers to buy a product they don't need. It's easier, with the help of a large PAC, to put a ring in the nose of legislators and in some cases compel the consumer to buy the product.
CFLs in some portions of the country have become a joke. Look at the cost of heating oil for next year and the cost of electrical energy. It's more economical to heat with electricity. Turn on all the incandescent lights and save money.
Boden
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

First point is that incandescent bulbs are not efficient, therefore they have not been used efficiently for more than 100 years. They HAVE been used effectively, but not efficiently. That's the point of CFLs, they provide more light using less power -- which is the very definition of efficiency.
As for CFLs being made in China, so what? New sources of American Energy are nukes (blocked by environmentalists) wind energy (blocked by environmentalists) solar energy (blocked by environmentalists) and coal-based energy (blocked by environmentalists).
America needs 30 new power plants to up the capacity and replace aging plants. Europe has been using nuke energy for a long time, and they have no problems with it. But enviromentalists in this country object to it. America has a few windmill farms, but environmentalists object to them because birds fly into the vanes, and the NIMBYs object to the view. Solar energy is being tried in a few places, but the environmentalists object to the space they demand and the resulting encroachment on habitat. And, we have lots of coal fired power plants, but environmentalists object to the coal mines and the soot that is produced.
The American Southwest looks like it will be building new homes within the next decade that are Zero Net users of electricity. These homes will be built with solar collectors on the roof that will be able to generate upwards of 10kW, and this will be more than the home needs for most of the year. Each home will actually generate power that goes to the grid and the home will get credit on the electricity bill. The credit will then be drawn against on days when the air conditioner is used, resulting in an overall zero pull from the grid for most homeowners. I'm sure the environmentalists will figure out a complaint to lodge ...
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| As for CFLs being made in China, so what? New sources of American Energy are | nukes (blocked by environmentalists) wind energy (blocked by | environmentalists) solar energy (blocked by environmentalists) and | coal-based energy (blocked by environmentalists).
Yes, there are environmentalists blocking nuclear power plants. I happen to be one of the environmentalists that is NOT blocking them. Instead, what I am "blocking" is stupidity by corporate executives and managers. Nuclear power _can_ be safe. But in the hands of corporations that will cut costs by reducing safety, then nuclear power _can_ be very unsafe. Letting the government run them would be no better and probably worse. What we need is a set of strong regulations and regular inspections with public reports.
| America needs 30 new power plants to up the capacity and replace aging | plants. Europe has been using nuke energy for a long time, and they have no | problems with it. But enviromentalists in this country object to it. America | has a few windmill farms, but environmentalists object to them because birds | fly into the vanes, and the NIMBYs object to the view. Solar energy is being | tried in a few places, but the environmentalists object to the space they | demand and the resulting encroachment on habitat. And, we have lots of coal | fired power plants, but environmentalists object to the coal mines and the | soot that is produced.
Europe also runs things differently. They have stronger regulations and actually do inspections by people that have a genuine concern for safety.
We'll never eliminate all environmentalist objections. Europe hasn't, either. But we can find people who do have genuine environmental concerns and do also recognize the need for more power. We need these kinds of people to oversee the whole thing. These people will be neither left-wing nor right-wing on the political spectrum.
| The American Southwest looks like it will be building new homes within the | next decade that are Zero Net users of electricity. These homes will be | built with solar collectors on the roof that will be able to generate | upwards of 10kW, and this will be more than the home needs for most of the | year. Each home will actually generate power that goes to the grid and the | home will get credit on the electricity bill. The credit will then be drawn | against on days when the air conditioner is used, resulting in an overall | zero pull from the grid for most homeowners. I'm sure the environmentalists | will figure out a complaint to lodge ...
There certainly will be environmentalists that will come up with something.
By having some "sensible environmentalists" who don't do such silliness, things like this, and building nuclear plants, and solar farms, and wind farms and such, can all be accomplished. Part of the problem, though, is that the way the environment is dealt with by so many corporations (basically shunning all environmentalists as a whole) ends up putting all environmentalists on the same side together. Instead, what we need, is a certainly level of cooperation to meet in the middle. Then the environmentalists that remain to object (who probably object to everything) will be fewer in number.
As an environmentalists myself, I do object more to extending the drilling for oil. I'm in favor of building nuclear power plants (under certain conditions, such as stronger regulations and regular inspections, including by academic people, with public reports ... and they must also be built reasonably close to the areas of power demand, with consideration for risks like earthquakes, so the ones powering California might have to be built in Utah with some big DC feeders). I'm in favor of building solar farms (provided they are not built in such a way as to shadow natural needs for light ... desert spaces should be OK). I'm in favor of building wind farms.
My objection for oil and gas extraction in general (so my goal is to see less of it used, not more) is to avoid releasing more carbon that has been naturally sequestered. Also, known oil reserves won't last for too many more decades or centuries (pinning down the exact figure is hard, but it's definitely not going to last a thousand years at the rate we are growing in our use).
To the extent we can make the effort to reduce the need for oil/gas, then whatever else we do (drilling more reserves or not), it is that much less we end up depending on politically unstable or even criminal governments who are the current suppliers.
--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote:

Wind farms and solar farms won't work and can't be made to work (except for limited applications). The amount of sunlight falling on the earth is about 700w/m^2. At the equator. At noon. With no clouds. Assuming 50% efficiency for solar conversion panels, and adjusting for latitude, weather, and nightfall, it would take a solar collector farm the size of the Los Angeles basin (~1200 sq miles) to supply power for California (peak 50gw). Not counting the cost to erect such a monster, consider the cost to maintain it. Plus, all of Los Angeles would be in the dark. Which, when one thinks on it, might not be such a bad idea...

What difference does it make if we release more carbon? At the current level of 0.003% of the atmosphere, a doubling would be virtually undetecable - except for plants who would say "Yum!"

It's like the Chicago cops and the gangsters: The cops need the gangster's payoffs and the gangsters need the cops to not make too many problems. We're at the mercy of the oil tyrants, but they need our money. It's a balance of terror.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
in part:

Make that .038% by volume, .0575% by weight.

Current level of CO2 accounts for anywhere from 9 to 26% of current "greenhouse effect" (warming of the planet from a level that would exist if not for any greenhouse gases at all including water vapor).
How well have plants fared now that atmospheric CO2 content is about 36% above pre-industrial-revolution levels? It appears to me that the limiting factors are water, daylight and favorable temperatures more than CO2 content in the atmosphere.
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Don Klipstein wrote:

Ah, right. Thanks for the correction.

36% above pre-industrial-revolution levels mean that the former levels constituted about 0.029% of the atmosphere. So, during the time that CO2 levels increased beyond a level detectable to an agrarian society, we've gone to the moon, eradicated many diseases, trebled our life expectancy, and invented pop-top beer containers.
In my view, the progress was worth it. Others may differ.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| Don Klipstein wrote:
|> wrote in part: |> |>> What difference does it make if we release more carbon? At the |>> current level of 0.003% of the atmosphere, |> |> Make that .038% by volume, .0575% by weight. | | | Ah, right. Thanks for the correction. | |> |>> a doubling would be virtually undetecable - |>> except for plants who would say "Yum!" |> |> Current level of CO2 accounts for anywhere from 9 to 26% of |> current "greenhouse effect" (warming of the planet from a level that |> would exist if not for any greenhouse gases at all including water |> vapor). | | |> |> How well have plants fared now that atmospheric CO2 content is about |> 36% above pre-industrial-revolution levels? It appears to me that the |> limiting factors are water, daylight and favorable temperatures more |> than CO2 content in the atmosphere. | | 36% above pre-industrial-revolution levels mean that the former levels | constituted about 0.029% of the atmosphere. So, during the time that CO2 | levels increased beyond a level detectable to an agrarian society, we've | gone to the moon, eradicated many diseases, trebled our life expectancy, and | invented pop-top beer containers.
Life expectancy has actually turned the corner and is going back down.
--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Germany said it will met its goal of 30% solar by maybe 2030, it can be done.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In article <98eb2dcf-7250-4f9f-a08c-
says...

It's easy to say that the next generation will meet their obligations. The Congress has been doing just that with Social Security for two generations already.
-- Keith
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote:
|> wrote: |> |> |> |> |> There certainly will be environmentalists that will come up with |> something. | |> As an environmentalists myself, I do object more to extending the |> drilling for oil. I'm in favor of building nuclear power plants |> (under certain conditions, such as stronger regulations and regular |> inspections, including by academic people, with public reports ... |> and they must also be built reasonably close to the areas of power |> demand, with consideration for risks like earthquakes, so the ones |> powering California might have to be built in Utah with some big DC |> feeders). I'm in favor of building solar farms (provided they are |> not built in such a way as to shadow natural needs for light ... |> desert spaces should be OK). I'm in favor of building wind farms. | | Wind farms and solar farms won't work and can't be made to work (except for | limited applications). The amount of sunlight falling on the earth is about | 700w/m^2. At the equator. At noon. With no clouds. Assuming 50% efficiency | for solar conversion panels, and adjusting for latitude, weather, and | nightfall, it would take a solar collector farm the size of the Los Angeles | basin (~1200 sq miles) to supply power for California (peak 50gw). Not | counting the cost to erect such a monster, consider the cost to maintain it. | Plus, all of Los Angeles would be in the dark. Which, when one thinks on it, | might not be such a bad idea...
I'm not expecting these energy sources to be the complete supply (at least not for a few decades). But I do believe we need to build them, anyway, to help supplement the carbon-extraction process we depend on now.
|> My objection for oil and gas extraction in general (so my goal is to |> see less of it used, not more) is to avoid releasing more carbon that |> has been naturally sequestered. Also, known oil reserves won't last |> for too many more decades or centuries (pinning down the exact figure |> is hard, but it's definitely not going to last a thousand years at |> the rate we are growing in our use). | | What difference does it make if we release more carbon? At the current level | of 0.003% of the atmosphere, a doubling would be virtually undetecable - | except for plants who would say "Yum!"
You really think that?
|> To the extent we can make the effort to reduce the need for oil/gas, |> then whatever else we do (drilling more reserves or not), it is that |> much less we end up depending on politically unstable or even |> criminal governments who |> are the current suppliers. |> | | It's like the Chicago cops and the gangsters: The cops need the gangster's | payoffs and the gangsters need the cops to not make too many problems. We're | at the mercy of the oil tyrants, but they need our money. It's a balance of | terror.
Huh?
We don't want to depend on others for our oil. We do depend on them now and it's a component of why we are at the mercy of their pricing. THEIR greatest fear is that WE don't want their oil anymore.
--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.