They ain't dead yet!

Page 2 of 3  


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.
Joe
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/17/11 04:49 pm, Joe J wrote:

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.
Perce
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 17:10:14 -0500, "Percival P. Cassidy"

Same with living room lights, bed room,... But the government knows what's good for us better than we do.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/17/11 06:10 pm, snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz 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.
Perce
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 20:03:20 -0500, "Percival P. Cassidy"

Nope. Tried them. They took longer to come up to brightness than the things were typically on.

I have some halogens. They're good for some applications but the light is quite harsh and they tend to throw shadows, more than a standard incandescent.

No, just too many do-gooders with too much time on their hands. No need for a conspiracy theory when good old incompetence explains it all.

Nonsense. More generation also means more revenue. The existing plants didn't magically appear. No one is losing money delivering energy.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/18/11 02:17 am, snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz 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.
Perce
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/21/2011 10:54 AM, Percival P. Cassidy wrote:

because the local corp commission is making them? also this slows down the rise of generating capacity they need to build.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 10:58:58 -0700, chaniarts

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
building new power plants cost big bucks. its in everyones best interest to conserve power......
because ultimately the consumer must pay for all the added costs
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Stupid, more electricity = more income. The problem, as always, is government.

Yes, and have a better life.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 22:33:40 -0500, " snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/22/2011 10:57 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote: ...

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Increasing generation capacity.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/23/2011 5:33 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

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.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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 down.
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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/23/2011 10:14 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

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 surrounding states.
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 operate.
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 overall.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<stuff snipped>

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.
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/24/2011 11:29 PM, Robert Green wrote: ...

...
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...
--
Add pictures here
<% 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.