Saving energy is worthwhile, of course, but in some cases there is a
safety issue that is overlooked or disregarded. The nearly point
source of incandescent lighting produces sharper defined edges (to
better see cutting tools) and lacks the possible stroboscopic effect
of other illumination. Ask any journeyman tool and die maker or talk
to a professionally qualified industrial safety engineer for insight.
This why in my shop the tool illumination is well placed incandescents
as well as the small entry lights. General lighting with conventional
fluorescents works out OK.
I've had a garage door opener fail and the self diagnoses check that I went
through with Genie said that the circuit board failed. They would send me a
new board for $68.
We have a home warranty policy ($75 deductible) so I called in a claim and
they sent a company out and they declared the unit unfixable and replaced
it. The unit was an older Genie, and I had been using CFL bulbs.
He said absolutely do not use CFLs in the openers. Voltage spikes from the
bulbs can short out the circuit boards.
Is he right? I don't know. But I stopped using them in the openers.
No proof to back this up that I can find, but I'm just throwing it out
there. He does it for a living.
I have no idea whether spikes from CFLs would cause failure of the
garage-door-opener circuitry, but garage door lights usually are on for
such a short time that I cannot see CFLs being cost-effective -- same
with our bathroom lights.
On 12/17/11 06:10 pm, email@example.com wrote:
No doubt it depends on one's lighting needs, Our living-room, bedroom,
kitchen and family-room lights are on for long enough that we use CFLs
there. The dining-room lights are on a dimmer, and dimmable CFLs are
still expensive enough that we still use incandescents (reflector bulbs,
which are not affected by the ban).
Moreover, if I understand the situation correctly, incandescents will
still be available, but they will be halogen ones giving more light per
Watt than the old-fashioned ones -- but still less efficient than CFLs.
It's possible that many of these regulations would never have been
imposed if you didn't have members of Congress that have been bought by
some corporation or other organization.
BTW, we have a good collection of CFLs that were only a dollar or two
for a six-pack thanks to an instant rebate at Costco from the utility
company. I imagine that electricity is going to cost a lot more if they
have to build new power plants to meet the ever-increasing demand; using
CFLs will postpone or eliminate that need.
On 12/18/11 02:17 am, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
So why is the same utility also advertising subsidies for its customers
to replace their old refrigerators and air conditioners by
more-efficient new ones? According to your logic, they should want
people to keep using old, inefficient units that use more power.
They are making money now. If they have to add new power plants, they
will not be making money as it is expensive and nearly impossible to
get the permits. Mention the word "power plant" and entire towns are
up in arms to keep them out.
It is far better to keep existing facilities operating and sucking up
the existing revenue than to invest billions to increase capacity.
On 12/21/2011 11:54 AM, Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
The federal gov't (i.e. the taxpayers) subsidizes the construction and
ongoing costs of power plants. Building power plants, *especially*
nuclear plants, is a losing proposition without the gov't subsidies,
or without passing the full and complete costs onto consumers. It took
President Obama granting $8.3 billion in federal loan guarantees to
make the construction of two new nuclear reactors in Georgia possible.
The private sector won't even touch the insurance of nuclear plants -
it's up to the government to underwrite that, too.
Energy conservation reduces government expenditures. It also exerts a
downward pressure on price increases imposed by the utilities. A
recent study found that the five US states with the greatest renewable
energy (solar and wind) capacity had the lowest rate increases in the
country - even lower than the states that had the lowest adoption
rates of renewable energy.
So if you want to keep your energy bills _and_ your taxes down, it's
in your own best interest to be energy thrifty.
On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 22:33:40 -0500, " email@example.com"
While generally true, in the case of power plants, it is not always
so. Apply for a permit for a nuke plant and see how many years to
process is and how much it will cost. The payback is rather poor.
Meantime, if you run the present equipment at 85% or so, you can still
make piles of money and fuel the family yacht.
Nuclear vs fossil really has almost no bearing on the difficulty in
permitting/licensing any more.
Our local generation co-op has been trying for 10 years now to build a
new coal-fired station and has had one obstacle after another placed in
way. Even though initial plans included a demonstration "green"
algae-based biomass project and the plant contains the highest level
(even exceeding latest EPA emission standards) there's simply no
satisfying the naysayers...their objective isn't clean progress; it's to
stifle any development at all.
So increasing capacity makes sense but is forestalling what inevitable???
I'm not getting what you're driving at, here.
We (our generation co-op) would certainly not be trying to build new
baseload capacity if it weren't for the fact we are at the point of
having to purchase outside higher-priced power to meet current demand.
As noted, w/ the decrease in wellhead natural gas available for
irrigation that was the previous best option for those who had it,
demand for replacement power is going up to pick up those loads.
Wind just doesn't cut it for baseload; the demand is highest at the
times we have the least wind and while it is one of the prime areas in
the country overall for wind and there is expanding installation, it
operates at only 40% installed capacity on annual average basis and as
low as 20% of capacity in mid-summer.
So, locally we need additional generation capacity to retain a stable
and economical supply; the planned expansion also will provide E CO
co-ops as well w/ that side benefit locally.
But, of course, the anti's are ag'in it; almost all of whom are not on
the rural distribution and a great number of whom aren't even KS or CO
residents but outsiders just looking for places to stick their noses into.
You're talking about your co-op, I'm talking about the entire US grid.
Sure, some places may not have enough, others have more capacity. Take
the Detroit area where people are moving out and plants have shut
Even in your situation, the co-op may be able to buy power cheaper
than the cost of adding generating capacity. I'm sure someone has run
the numbers, but I wonder if they can know what the cost of all the
legalities will be by the time ground is broken.
I'm using the situation here as a microcosm of the US--you're trying to
do the same on the other side in one particularly depressed area.
Overall, US generation excess generation capacity is near dangerous lows
for system reliability and will be getting lower as EPA requirements
force a sizable chunk of old generation offline permanently in the near
future. There is virtually no new baseload generation capacity to
replace that extant anywhere in the US.
This is a _generation_ co-op of which I speak; it is generation for a
large number of area transmission/distribution/retail co-ops so it isn't
just one very small area but a sizable fraction of the state of KS and
into neighboring states where we're closer to sizable service areas than
are the population centers and existing generation facilities of the
Certainly if there were reliable excess capacity at less than our
generation costs we'd be looking at it; we have long term supply
contracts w/ various other generation entities but again they're max'ed
out in what they are willing to commit to supplying. Like anything
else, when demand is up, spot prices are high which is not a good way to
Capital costs are part of the mix; the naysayers are simply driving up
costs for all by their tactics w/o really accomplishing anything useful
In our area, the issue is building new high voltage transmission lines to
bring power in from areas with a general surplus. One local newstation did
an animation of how the two big lines in question have been forced to change
their route to accommodate the NIMBY crowd. It looked like an electric
spark jumped a huge gap, dancing all over the map.
People familar with the Capital Beltway (I-495) might have noticed that in
most areas it runs without an major curves or zigzags - until you get to the
section that passes through one of the richest counties in the nation. In
the section going through Montogmery County, MD the Beltway zigs and zags
with some badly banked and seriously sharp curves because of the intense and
high-powered opposition to the right of way by some of the country's
wealthiest residents. The ultimate irony is that because cars pass so
slowly through those areas due to the frequent accidents and such, the
pollution levels are the highesttthere than at any other point on the
Beltway. There IS at least *some* justice in the world after all.
It's other way 'round, here, for the most part. All sorts of
opportunities for expansion of wind power generation to satisfy the
greenies except--there isn't enough excess transmission line capacity
extant to get it from here to where there's sufficient demand during the
time there's wind available to replace other baseload generation.
There's one line underway, but it also had more hurdles than needed and
several others of larger capacities are stalled for siting...
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.