Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps

That's pretty funny.

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom
Loading thread data ...

I'm pretty sure it's based on the CFLs being disposed of improperly, with the mercury that would be released being less than the amount released by a coal fired plant for the 75% of electricity the CFL saves vs. incandescent. I saw some comparison with actual numbers somewhere, but I don't know where.

Reply to
Pete C.

That's 5.7 years at 24/7, but aren't light bulb lifetimes rated assuming something like 4 or 6 hours a day or something like that, which would indeed by around 20 years.

Reply to
Tim Smith

That points out one of the major issues with our broken legal system - the fact that the eco-loons making the false claims and filing the frivolous lawsuits are never held liable for the harm they cause. If they were held liable for their proven false claims their plague would soon end and the true sane environmentalists would regain some credibility.

Reply to
Pete C.

Interesting. Most of the stuff I saw was silent specifically but usually detailed that they should not be tossed in the garbage, should be sent somewhere or taken to a hazmat disposal site and all sorts of stuff that very few people are likely to do in real life (g). I was wondering if concentrating the mercury at landfills was different than the spreading out of the mercury over large areas through smoke dispersal.

Reply to
Kurt Ullman

In case you didn't notice, the corporate loons are never held accountable for damage THEY do based on falsehoods about all the good and minimal harm their pet projects will do. Just look at how many SuperFund sites there are. Some of the companies manage to just walk away. Others go bankrupt (even as the people in charge start another company to repeat the cycle).

Reply to
CJT

There are very few significant hydro locations undeveloped in the US. OK, I know of CAS now that you remind me -- it's small potatoes kind of solution.

Wind is a "fill-in" but I don't see it ever being practical as a large-scale replacement as it is simply too costly to build the required alternate source since it isn't reliable (enough).

The fundamental answer to electrical generation is nuclear.

--

Reply to
dpb

"Pete C." wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@snet.net:

That would be great,EXCEPT that battery storage is not good enough to be really practical yet. Although I've read Toshiba has come out with a new Li-ion battery that recharges to 90% in 10 minutes. That could make a difference.

Also,hydrogen storage for autos is in even worse shape. So far,nothing beats gasoline/diesel for autos,and that's where our vulnerability is,WRT the Middle East;petroleum.

using nuclear power for our electric generation is a no-brainer.

Reply to
Jim Yanik

"Pete C." wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@snet.net:

Why bother with biomass when nuclear power works so well?

All this adds unneeded complexity to our power generation,while nuclear power simplifies it greatly. Use modern,modular reactors,not the old cusotm-built light-water reactors.

Reply to
Jim Yanik

snipped-for-privacy@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@manx.misty.com:

Not all of it.

No,but the spent fuel rods still contain usable amounts of PU.

Reply to
Jim Yanik

No. In fact, we should use up THEIR oil first.

Reply to
Jim Redelfs

Only by you, my color-obsessed "friend".

The "kind of people" referred to in a racial-neutral manner are those that talk aloud to themselves, have body odor that is offensive from many feet away, and are generally unpleasant to be around. This fact is NOT racially biased in any manner.

Public transportation is loved most by those that don't use it but are determined to foist it on the rest of the gentry because they think it is a Good Idea.

Reply to
Jim Redelfs

I doubt it. Such an advertising campaign would help only those entities promoting the campaign.

...and they would (and do) continue to drive their personal vehicles.

"They" have been beating the "dead horse" of expanded public transportation forever and it hasn't been effective for decades.

We are a society of PRIVATE transportation. For good or ill, it's a fact that is unlikely to be substantially overcome, regardless of legislation or fuel prices - or advertising campaigns.

Reply to
Jim Redelfs

So what?

What business is it of YOURS what someone else drives or WHERE they drive?

If you want to drive a >35mpg econobox, go for it. I graduated from a

1,000cc, 3-cylinder Geo Metro to a 2500HD Silverado pickup with 8.1L (496cid) gas-guzzling V8. I'm paying DEARLY for my choice. But it was MY choice.

If you truly advocate having to apply to the Ministry of Transportation prior to purchasing your next motor vehicle, you can just forget it, comrade. Not while I have a vote in any case.

Reply to
Jim Redelfs

No dilusions here. They wanted the SUV they bought. What more reason do they need?

Reply to
Jim Redelfs

Why throw good money after bad?

We built it - and they didn't come.

With the exception of the high-density rust belt areas, mass transportation has been a losing proposition since the mid-to-late '60s.

That, of course, didn't stop those in control of taxation from furthering their agenda of the Good Idea - and they're still at it (Ex: Your words.)

I agree with that but it's a sure bet that the suits in D.C. will NEVER (ever) relinquish that control. Sorry.

Reply to
Jim Redelfs

Perhaps dearly, but not nearly enough. You're not paying the true cost, partly due to market distortions caused by government intervention and partly due to "tragedy of the commons" effects.

Reply to
CJT

And they should charge us much more for that privilege than they do currently.

Reply to
CJT

Given that, I guess we'll just have to live, warm and illuminated, in a more dangerous world since we'll not be giving-up nuclear power plants.

As TMI (a few cubic yards of irradiated steam do NOT a disaster make) and Chernobyl fade from memory, we will build more nukes.

I disagree.

Most benefits do NOT come with such dire consequences.

However, it is indeed refreshing, and surprising, that you declare nuclear electric power a "benefit". It is, in many ways.

Reply to
Jim Redelfs

Perhaps not, but it DOES solve the problem of the rogue state. Just ask Libya.

Reply to
Jim Redelfs

HomeOwnersHub website 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.