| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
|
|
|
|
 |
Craig
Site Admin
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4250
  
votes: 34
|
|
|
|
|
cosmostein
Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 3207
votes: 13
Location: Toronto, Ontario
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:26 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Mac wrote: | | Pissedoff wrote: | I suppose this is why Harper and the cons are banning the incandescent light bulb so all the landfills and water table get poisoned with these mercury filled toxic CFLs
Canada to ban incandescent light bulbs by 2012
http://www.reuters.com/article.....3520070425 |
I'm not a fan of banning things. All it does is create black market opportunities.
With any amount of luck, LED lights will be affordable by that time. They're more efficient, longer-lasting and can be closer to natural light than CFLs.
-Mac |
The Incandescent Ban that was passed in certain US states before it was even a thought in Canada caused an explosion of R&D among the big four legit LED manufacturers.
The "latest and greatest" that I have on my desk right now gives me three times the lumen output at about half the power consumption as the cutting edge unit from earlier this year, with a MTBF of >100,000 hours.
The LED technology is easily there to do your home, but it will cost more.
As the price drops I suspect we will see CFL as a stop gap technology. |
|
|
|
|
Craig
Site Admin
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4250
votes: 34
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 2:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cosmostein wrote: | The LED technology is easily there to do your home, but it will cost more.
As the price drops I suspect we will see CFL as a stop gap technology. |
I have found that the LED packages overstate the light values. They say they are 25 watt equivalent. They are more like 15 watt equivalent in terms of light output.
But the technology will continue to improve... |
|
|
|
|
Craig
Site Admin
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4250
votes: 34
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 2:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The part of the equation that a lot of "let the market do its thing" people don't realize is that the cost of electricity is HEAVILY subsidized. Just look at the debt that Ontario Hydro has taken on. If the market was really working and prices of electricity represented the TRUE cost to produce it you can bet that incandescent lights would be long gone now thanks to the free market. |
|
|
|
|
Mac
Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5485
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 2:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Craig wrote: | | The part of the equation that a lot of "let the market do its thing" people don't realize is that the cost of electricity is HEAVILY subsidized. Just look at the debt that Ontario Hydro has taken on. If the market was really working and prices of electricity represented the TRUE cost to produce it you can bet that incandescent lights would be long gone now thanks to the free market. |
Good points.
Mind you, subsidized in this context means paid for by tax payers. It might be cash neutral if the subsidies were dumped but people would have the choice whether to leave the lights on or shut them off. Talk about a magnificent way to cut taxes AND energy consumption!!
-Mac |
|
|
|
|
Alan A.
Joined: 31 Jul 2009
Posts: 175
votes: 2
Location: Western Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| If only I could talk. Damn, if only I could talk. I know personally a few earth climate scientists xxxx has worked with, who are probably getting a bit nervous as we speak. But don't pay attention; I'm just some anonymous forum clown without any credibility, am I. |
|
|
|
|
cosmostein
Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 3207
votes: 13
Location: Toronto, Ontario
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Craig wrote: | | cosmostein wrote: | The LED technology is easily there to do your home, but it will cost more.
As the price drops I suspect we will see CFL as a stop gap technology. |
I have found that the LED packages overstate the light values. They say they are 25 watt equivalent. They are more like 15 watt equivalent in terms of light output.
But the technology will continue to improve... |
The problem with residential stuff is that during its production process the only factor that seems to matter is price point.
If you have a look at stuff that many of the new railcars and Locomotives are using internally and externally its stunning.
Right now the cheapest LED's are the bullet style units which about three cents each whereas the really good product which is brighter and runs at a very low rate of power consumption are about 1.50 - 3.50 an LED depending on type and color temp, then you need to deal with resisters Vs. proper LED drivers which really effect output as well.
Right now if you wanted to do it with new style LED's in your home you would be looking at about 120 bucks per pot light drop in, and that should last you 200,000 hours (with a 20% degradation from hour 1 Vs. hour 200,000)
With 3W of power being used rather then 75W, with a 10-20% increase in light output (depending on color temp)
Its pricey, but its getting close. |
|
|
|
|
Mac
Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5485
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 4:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alan A. wrote: | | If only I could talk. Damn, if only I could talk. I know personally a few earth climate scientists xxxx has worked with, who are probably getting a bit nervous as we speak. But don't pay attention; I'm just some anonymous forum clown without any credibility, am I. |
Very curious, indeed....
-Mac |
|
|
|
|
Craig
Site Admin
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4250
votes: 34
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 4:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alan A. wrote: | | If only I could talk. Damn, if only I could talk. I know personally a few earth climate scientists xxxx has worked with, who are probably getting a bit nervous as we speak. But don't pay attention; I'm just some anonymous forum clown without any credibility, am I. |
I used to work at the University of Waterloo's Earth Observations Laboratory...
http://watleo.uwaterloo.ca/index_intro_e.cfm
And most of the work done by scientists there was global warming related. I wonder what they think of this. |
|
|
|
|
Alan A.
Joined: 31 Jul 2009
Posts: 175
votes: 2
Location: Western Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 11:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Craig wrote: | I used to work at the University of Waterloo's Earth Observations Laboratory...
http://watleo.uwaterloo.ca/index_intro_e.cfm
And most of the work done by scientists there was global warming related. I wonder what they think of this. |
Ditto. Different place, late 1980s, while it was all brewing up, unknown by the public.
If we wanted grants for our research, we had to jump in that trendy bandwagon --it was called 'global change' back then. The budgets allocated for other research topics were very meager. And the global change gang ($$) was led by a closed circle of friends working all together, peer-reviewing their friends' work. And I've seen what they can do with the data. Most researchers want the results to match their hypothesis, otherwise they feel diminished as they were wrong from day one; it's human. The 'global change' bandwagon was cozy and safe ($$) if you stayed in. When I understood that, I quit. I can't say more, just that I've been raging inside ever since. |
|
|
|
|
Mac
Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5485
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 11:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Alan A. wrote: | | When I understood that, I quit. I can't say more, just that I've been raging inside ever since. |
According to the script, that means you must be in the pocket of Big Oil, right? 
-Mac |
|
|
|
|
eveable
Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 205
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 10:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| After sending emails to the Prim Minister and Jim Prentice to miss Copenhagen on go on their own dime, I see Steven is now going again. Just because Obama changed his mind? |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 5:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If Canada had a legitimate small-c fiscal conservative government they would stand up fervently and passionately as opponents of any kind of cap-and-trade system. Rather, the cap-and-trade system that left-plunging Harper and his left-wing environmental minister Prentice keep referring to is a stealth strategy for an enormous disingenuous, long-term tax increase on all Canadian households. Cap & Trade would evolve around an economic Ponzi scheme that includes an enormous new source of tax revenue to the Canadian government to allow it to continue to expand into the private sector, demolishing thousands of high paying manufacturing jobs, the emergence of global governance, create a temple of dome which would lock in devastating disasters for our children's generation, and a devastating transfer of wealth from wealth producers to wealth wasters.
This tax increase and wealth transferring vehicle would immediately increase the costs of goods and services such as gasoline, electricity and a wide range of industrial products. The increase in the price of Canadian goods would make them less competitive. Canadian firms would suffer in export markets and domestically in competition with goods imported from countries that do not impose such a high implicit tax on CO2 emissions. There would no doubt be pressure to impose tariffs on imports from other countries that have lower carbon costs. Countervailing tariffs base on carbon content would hurt Canadian consumers, destroy thousands of jobs, and threaten our global trading system.
Any candid, forthright genuine small-c fiscal conservative would verify that the “Cap & Tax” tax system is nothing less that the extreme left’s new, socialistic approach to redistribute wealth from wealth producers to others. An ingenuous small-c fiscal conservative, contrasting our CINO PM, would divulge that the “Cap & Tax” system is just another version of Trudeau’s National Energy Program which also was created to transfer wealth from the west.
If Canada had a authentic, candid fiscal, social and judicial small-c conservative as PM, he would informed us that the climate has not changed in the last eleven years, and therefore, he would not annihilate the Canadian economy just to please the left-wing extremists who insist on transferring wealth. |
|
|
|
|
eveable
Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 205
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 10:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nice post machiavelli. It is a pity we do not have a small c conservative party. That is who I thought I had been voting for but I was wrong. Time for Reform 2 or the LIbertarians.i |
|
|
|
|
|
