Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps

[Jim Redelfs]

Really? That would probably disourage even MORE rogue states.

We start bombing in five minutes.

[Jim Redelfs]

Don't complicate the issue with FACTS, Pete. Sheesh!

[Jim Redelfs]

Please issue a "spew warning" before posting such humor.

If not the most ignorant statement I've read in a *LONG* time, it is certainly among the funniest.

It is. You said so yourself.

I cheerfully forfeit that right - right now.

However, I RETAIN the right to be extremely annoyed when myopic pacifists whine and cry when we forcibly SILENCE their sword rattling.

[Jim Redelfs]

2-3 years? Heck, that would be barely enough time to litigate the environmentalists into submission.

Try 10-15 years. Sad.

[Don Klipstein]

I was talking about if all of the mercury in the CFLs got into the environment, as if the worn-out CFLs are all ground up and incinerated in bonfires.

If any are disposed of through lamp recycling outfits, then reduction of mercury pollution would be even greater.

- Don Klipstein ( [e-mail])

[Don Klipstein]

Those that can afford gas guzzlers are bidding up gas prices to levels that others have trouble affording. I also find it unconscionable people to consume more of a non-renewable resource than necessary just because they can afford to do so.

- Don Klipstein ( [e-mail])

[Jim Redelfs]

The Prius looks like no other car.

You are right: Buyers gravitate to it because it LOOKS like a hybrid.

There are many, MANY folks that have such gall. More than a few have participated in this topic. The frightening aspect of this is that many with the gall to foist their view of The Common Good on the rest of us are those in a position to do so.

[Don Klipstein]

A pox on both their houses, and two wrongs do not make a right! Find a way to punish those who damage our economy by knowingly making false statements as to the environment no matter what side they are on or think they may be helping!

- Don Klipstein ( [e-mail])

[Don Klipstein]

Although I see some compact fluorescents with limited warranties for a specific number of years of service life in home use, the life expectancy figures that engineers deal with and determine are usually operating hours.

There are now LED fixtures on the market, with the "bulbs" not replaceable. Somehow, I think of light fixtures as architecture items and most would not want to replace them every 20 years.

I can see it now: White LEDs at 50,000 hours (or less if they are operated aggressively to use fewer LEDs which are expensive, or if heatsinking is skimped on) normally don't die, but at that point have faded to 70% of their initial light output. They will usually still glow at 100,000 hours, though probably at about half their initial brightness. I suspect most will keep on ticking at 200,000 hours. So those with LED light fixtures will put off replacement of fading ones until they have light distribution pattern change by LEDs going completely dead, or until they fade to the point of being no more efficient than incandescent lamps. (By then, there should be plenty of economical and super good LED light fixtures, good and economical screw-in LED bulbs, whatever.)

However, I see some of the current and near-future LED fixtures being the "new mercury vapor lamp", with reference to ones of "Big 3" brands made in Europe and North America. As long as they were started infrequently (at most once a day), they were very slow to die, and some lived 100,000 hours. I have heard laments from some seeing these and complaining that the companies that made them regret their long life. However, these did fade from arc tube inner surface darkening, and kept on ticking while producing a small fraction of their original light output. If they were usable at 1/4 or 1/5 of initial light output, then much lower wattage lamps should have been used with replacement after 24,000 or whatever hours!

- Don Klipstein ( [e-mail])

[Don Klipstein]

I do remember from back in the late 1970's and around 1980 that the anti-nukers complained even-more against breeder reactors on basis that those made plutonium useful for making bombs and non-breeder ones did not.

Are non-breeders safe in this respect or is another old lie by 1970's anti-nukers being exposed now?

- Don Klipstein ( [e-mail])

[Don Klipstein]

What others drive does affect demand/supply ratios of petroleum and USA's refinery capacity. Others have ability to affect how much per gallon I have to pay at the pump when I have to use a personal vehicle other than a bicycle.

Sadly, those who can afford to do this are free to bid up the price that others have to pay, and some who can afford to consume non-renewable resources at a faster rate than necessary do so.

- Don Klipstein ( [e-mail])

[Don Klipstein]

The voters are able to fire and replace them on such basis should they care enough to do so!

- Don Klipstein ( [e-mail])

[Don Klipstein]

As slow as litigation goes when parties are motivated to keep up the fight, I would at least double that 2-3 years. I also see new litigation battles being sprung up by the luddites as things move along.

At least those who do construction are better at pushing to stay on a schedule and getting actual work done than litigating luddites, so I think

15 years still sounds realistic.

- Don Klipstein ( [e-mail])

[Kurt Ullman]

Actually I was looking precisely that. Although I think it can be done in any urban area. I don't think it is likely anytime soon to replicate the interurbans of old connecting (say Indy to Ft. Wayne, etc) I think coherent transportation SYSTEMS (systems part being the key so you don't just dump a bunch of people downtown to let them fend for themselves) would be useful in most urban/suburban areas rust belt or not.

Yep. Heck we can't even wean them of earmarks which, by definition, are projects that weren't fundable using the usual criteria. But I can dream can't I?

[Kurt Ullman]

Note the magically licensed part. (g)

[Kurt Ullman]

Interesting. Would you have a cite or two, I haven't seen anything like that and would like to read them. Thanks.

[JoeSpareBedroom]

That latest intelligence stinker about Iran seems to have stopped him from waving his dick around for the moment. Now, if only we could silence people like HeyBub. There's a large contingent like him, who, given a choice between going to a strip club and seeing a mushroom cloud over Tehran, would choose the bomb. It's one thing to know that war is sometimes unavoidable. It's another thing to fantasize about it in the shower.

[JoeSpareBedroom]

Perhaps it just takes longer to refine enough plutonium from the fuel used in certain types of reactors. Go do some research.

might be a good starting point.

You may have noticed that whenever our government yells about rogue states trying to build a bomb, the focus is on centrifuges and refining the fuel, and never on the mechanics of assembling the bomb, which isn't so difficult.

[JoeSpareBedroom]

People who know what they're talking about would disagree with your view on this issue. If I knew you were going to happen along, I would've jotted down the names of experts who were interviewed just after the latest intelligence stinker about Iran's nuclear capabilities. They all said that refining the fuel was a bitch, but bomb design was the easiest part.

Remember, too, that A.Q. Khan got nothing more than a slap on the hand. Do you really think the technology is such a well guarded secret?

You never saw me say anything indicating that I'm a pacifist. If you disagree, please prove me wrong.

[JoeSpareBedroom]

Oh, it's definitely a benefit. My concerns about it stem from seeing so much homeland security cash spent for fire trucks and not enough for things like chemical plant security. If I recall, that industry purchased the right to take care of security without government intervention. I'm not encouraged by that, and I wonder about nuclear plant security as well.