Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 4
GoreBulbs(tm); ...congress' act
Topic Started: Dec 30 2007, 09:28 PM (1,138 Views)
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
QuirtEvans
Dec 31 2007, 07:21 AM
Moreover, given the EPA's recent rejection of California's efforts to establish tougher emissions standards, it's unclear that the Bush Administration EPA is actually in favor of cleaner air.

The only thing "clear" about that disgrace is that they don't give any sh!t at all.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Aqua Letifer
Dec 31 2007, 09:16 AM
JBryan
Dec 31 2007, 07:12 AM

What do you mean by ""working"" or can you elaborate beyond a snarky aside?

Well, snarky asides are my thing, d00d. However, I can elaborate.

The Clear Skies Act of 2003, which took some work to create I suppose, doesn't introduce stricter requirements on emissions. It actually weakens them. Specifically, it allows for more mercury emissions than would be present if the Clean Air Act were fully enforced.

Yes, but the link I posted was to a rule promulgated by the EPA in 2005 or did you even read it.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Of course, all this is really a diversion from the simple fact that an assumption that mercury emissions will remain constant offsetting the mercury released by CFLs is faulty.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
JBryan
Dec 31 2007, 07:30 AM

Yes, but the link I posted was to a rule promulgated by the EPA in 2005 or did you even read it.

Well, I've read it a couple times previous, so I'm familiar with the content. And I do not at all agree on their current approach to emissions reduction.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
JBryan
Dec 31 2007, 10:34 AM
Of course, all this is really a diversion from the simple fact that an assumption that mercury emissions will remain constant offsetting the mercury released by CFLs is faulty.

Let's see ...

Popular Mechanics' methodology ...

JB's criticism ...

Popular Mechanics' methodology ...

JB's criticism ...

Which one would you tend toward?
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
An even larger problem than the potential harm from the mercury is a government sticking its nose further and further into our lives.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Aqua Letifer
Dec 31 2007, 09:38 AM
JBryan
Dec 31 2007, 07:30 AM

Yes, but the link I posted was to a rule promulgated by the EPA in 2005 or did you even read it.

Well, I've read it a couple times previous, so I'm familiar with the content. And I do not at all agree on their current approach to emissions reduction.

WHAT ARE YOUR SPECIFIC CRITICISMS. Is it your contention that mercury emissions from coal-fired plants will not be reduced under this rule or at all in the future.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
QuirtEvans
Dec 31 2007, 09:43 AM
JBryan
Dec 31 2007, 10:34 AM
Of course, all this is really a diversion from the simple fact that an assumption that mercury emissions will remain constant offsetting the mercury released by CFLs is faulty.

Let's see ...

Popular Mechanics' methodology ...

JB's criticism ...

Popular Mechanics' methodology ...

JB's criticism ...

Which one would you tend toward?

So, your contention is that coal-fired power will remain at a constant percentage of the total and that future mercury emissions from these plants will remain constant as is the basis of Popular Mechanic's assumption of offsetting mercury from CFLs.

Sorry, I do not find your argument from authority compelling.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
No, you're a smart guy. But the guys at Popular Mechanics are pretty smart too, and there are a lot more of them than the one of you.

Since it's outside my area of expertise, unless I want to dig into the methodology they used myself, I have to choose who to trust. Besides, although you have expressed a question about their methodology, you haven't indicated that you've even read the Popular Mechanics article, let alone looked at their methodology to see if your concern was addressed.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
JBryan
Dec 31 2007, 07:48 AM

WHAT ARE YOUR SPECIFIC CRITICISMS. Is it your contention that mercury emissions from coal-fired plants will not be reduced under this rule or at all in the future.

Well for starters, I don't necessarily disagree with your problem with the current projections. New technologies are made every day for coal plants to reduce their mercury emissions, so I agree, that is important to consider.

But, you said that EPA is working right now to drastically reduce mercury emissions. Well, they are doing something, yes, but my specific criticism is this: I do not think a cap and trade program is the best way to deal with emissions from coal fired power plants.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Maybe I should start a separate thread with my original question. :hat:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Alternatively, you could read the first ten posts in the thread. The answer is in approximately the ninth one.

:P
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Ha thanks - I agree that they can do it but I definitely don't think they should. If they start lumping everything together in the name of energy conservation, they could/should theoretically start taxing people who use X-amount of electricity in their house. This is just too much of a big government intrusion than I prefer.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve Miller
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
RosemaryTwo
Dec 31 2007, 07:57 AM
I agree, Quirt, my complaint is about the quality of light.  My house feels orange under the flourescent lights, and it depresses me.  Seriously.

I am relying on American ingenuity to invent a flourescent bulb that emits quality light; looks attractive in exposed outlets, and can be dimmed.

I assume all of this can/will happen, but I am not happy about the current flourescent choices that I see for sale.

Try the new line of CF lamps at Home Depot. Brand name is N:vision. About $2 each in four packs. Get the ones marked "soft white" in the green package. I've changed over pretty much my entire house.

The color is a dead ringer for a regular soft white incandescent bulb and they come in a wide enough range of sizes that you should be able to fit just about any fixture.

No dimmable ones available yet and they still don't work with home automation systems but they do work with motion sensors.
Wag more
Bark less
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
The 89th Key
Dec 31 2007, 12:01 PM
This is just too much of a big government intrusion than I prefer.

For my view, this sense makes perhaps.

Grammar not being as important, since.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Steve Miller
Dec 31 2007, 12:08 PM
RosemaryTwo
Dec 31 2007, 07:57 AM
I agree, Quirt, my complaint is about the quality of light.  My house feels orange under the flourescent lights, and it depresses me.  Seriously.

I am relying on American ingenuity to invent a flourescent bulb that emits quality light; looks attractive in exposed outlets, and can be dimmed.

I assume all of this can/will happen, but I am not happy about the current flourescent choices that I see for sale.

Try the new line of CF lamps at Home Depot. Brand name is N:vision. About $2 each in four packs. Get the ones marked "soft white" in the green package. I've changed over pretty much my entire house.

The color is a dead ringer for a regular soft white incandescent bulb and they come in a wide enough range of sizes that you should be able to fit just about any fixture.

No dimmable ones available yet and they still don't work with home automation systems but they do work with motion sensors.

As always, Steve Miller is the man to ask.

Thanks Steve!
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
QuirtEvans
Dec 31 2007, 09:11 AM
The 89th Key
Dec 31 2007, 12:01 PM
This is just too much of a big government intrusion than I prefer.

For my view, this sense makes perhaps.

Grammar not being as important, since.

:lol:

The avatar of yours should be made this, Quirt.

Posted Image

And c'mon man, you're a lawyer. According to testimony, any legal document, judicial summons or other documentation of legal nature does not flow well, is not interesting and is not, in the opinion of relevant witnesses, easy to read by any means.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Whereas all lawyers do is stick 'whereas' at the beginning of everything they say.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Aqua Letifer
Dec 31 2007, 12:19 PM
QuirtEvans
Dec 31 2007, 09:11 AM
The 89th Key
Dec 31 2007, 12:01 PM
This is just too much of a big government intrusion than I prefer.

For my view, this sense makes perhaps.

Grammar not being as important, since.

:lol:

The avatar of yours should be made this, Quirt.

Posted Image

And c'mon man, you're a lawyer. According to testimony, any legal document, judicial summons or other documentation of legal nature does not flow well, is not interesting and is not, in the opinion of relevant witnesses, easy to read by any means.

You have a fair point. 89th's contortions of the English language do make for interesting reading and a fair amount of amusement.

Excuse me. Whereas, you have a fair point.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
I believe that the party of the first part and the party of the second part are going for a party at the party of the third part's, heretofore known as the party party party.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
QuirtEvans
Dec 31 2007, 07:23 AM
Here's what that story says about mercury:

Quote:
 
By the way, don't think that incandescent bulbs are mercury free. In the United States, the chances are at least 50 percent that their light is generated by a coal-powered plant featuring mercury as well as other types of pollution. Popular Mechanics recently crunched the numbers to find that even if the mercury in a CFL was directly released into the atmosphere, an incandescent would still contribute almost double that amount of mercury into the environment over its lifetime.

What a strange argument. That does not mean that the incandescent bulb is not mercury free, it means that coal generated electricity is not mercury free. Reaching like that weakens credibility.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
ivorythumper
Dec 31 2007, 12:47 PM
QuirtEvans
Dec 31 2007, 07:23 AM
Here's what that story says about mercury:

Quote:
 
By the way, don't think that incandescent bulbs are mercury free. In the United States, the chances are at least 50 percent that their light is generated by a coal-powered plant featuring mercury as well as other types of pollution. Popular Mechanics recently crunched the numbers to find that even if the mercury in a CFL was directly released into the atmosphere, an incandescent would still contribute almost double that amount of mercury into the environment over its lifetime.

What a strange argument. That does not mean the the incandescent bulb is not mercury free, it means that coal generated electricity is not mercury free. Reaching like that destroys credibility.

It's similar to an argument that has been used against electric cars - that the pollution is still high, but is concentrated in the area of the power station rather than locally to the vehicle itself, hence making people feel better about themselves than they deserve to.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
ivorythumper
Dec 31 2007, 12:47 PM
QuirtEvans
Dec 31 2007, 07:23 AM
Here's what that story says about mercury:

Quote:
 
By the way, don't think that incandescent bulbs are mercury free. In the United States, the chances are at least 50 percent that their light is generated by a coal-powered plant featuring mercury as well as other types of pollution. Popular Mechanics recently crunched the numbers to find that even if the mercury in a CFL was directly released into the atmosphere, an incandescent would still contribute almost double that amount of mercury into the environment over its lifetime.

What a strange argument. That does not mean the the incandescent bulb is not mercury free, it means that coal generated electricity is not mercury free. Reaching like that destroys credibility.

I'm sure you're capable of seeing cause and effect.

Over the course of a normal bulb's lifetime, it will use X' amount of electricity. The generation of X' amount of electricity will result in X mercury pollution.

Over the course of the same amount of time, a CFL will use Y' amount of electricity, resulting in Y mercury pollution.

In addition, over that time, a CFL has Z'% chance of failing, generating an expected amount of mercury pollution equal to Z.

Y plus Z is either greater than, less than or equal to X. You can adjust X, if need be, to take into account the expected value of the reduction in mercury pollution to be generated by power plants in the future (as long as you adjust Z accordingly as well). But there's nothing illogical about calculating both direct and indirect mercury pollution caused by each source of lighting.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
QuirtEvans
Dec 31 2007, 10:58 AM
ivorythumper
Dec 31 2007, 12:47 PM
QuirtEvans
Dec 31 2007, 07:23 AM
Here's what that story says about mercury:

Quote:
 
By the way, don't think that incandescent bulbs are mercury free. In the United States, the chances are at least 50 percent that their light is generated by a coal-powered plant featuring mercury as well as other types of pollution. Popular Mechanics recently crunched the numbers to find that even if the mercury in a CFL was directly released into the atmosphere, an incandescent would still contribute almost double that amount of mercury into the environment over its lifetime.

What a strange argument. That does not mean the the incandescent bulb is not mercury free, it means that coal generated electricity is not mercury free. Reaching like that destroys credibility.

I'm sure you're capable of seeing cause and effect.

Over the course of a normal bulb's lifetime, it will use X' amount of electricity. The generation of X' amount of electricity will result in X mercury pollution.

Over the course of the same amount of time, a CFL will use Y' amount of electricity, resulting in Y mercury pollution.

In addition, over that time, a CFL has Z'% chance of failing, generating an expected amount of mercury pollution equal to Z.

Y plus Z is either greater than, less than or equal to X. You can adjust X, if need be, to take into account the expected value of the reduction in mercury pollution to be generated by power plants in the future (as long as you adjust Z accordingly as well). But there's nothing illogical about calculating both direct and indirect mercury pollution caused by each source of lighting.

It is still a strange argument since if you run an incandescent off of hydroelectric power, then the bulb is mercury free.

So the bulb is mercury free. Full stop.

It is as strange an argument as saying if you ran a CFL off of a car generator than the CFL has a massive carbon footprint. No, it would not. The power source does, not the bulb.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
No, the bulb doesn't have a mercury footprint. But using it does. Are we supposed to consider the bulb separate and apart from its use?

If the only way to get the bulb is to drive 500 miles each way in order to pick it up (no delivery options), then of course it's relevant to consider the car emissions part of the carbon footprint of using the bulb.

Your position is as absurd as saying that grapes from Chile have no carbon footprint, ignoring the fact that you can't wiggle your nose and say "poof!" and have them appear in a bowl on your counter. The grapes are transported. Transportation requires energy. The use of energy to move grapes generates carbon dioxide. The Chilean grape itself may not have a carbon footprint, but you can't eat that grape without generating a fair amount of carbon dioxide. And eating the grape in the United States is the whole point, isn't it? You aren't considering the grape in situ in Chile, are you?

If using a thing (in this case, a lightbulb) requires the use of something else ... and, as far as I know, absent solar panels on the roof, no one has yet figured out a use for a lightbulb that doesn't require electricity ... then of course the pollution generated by the necessary "something else" is relevant to considering how much pollution use of the thing itself generates.

What do you think the whole point of "eating what's grown locally" is all about, anyway? It was a cover story in Newsweek earlier this year.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 4