Re: Digital Tools Help Users Save Energy, Study Finds

["John J. Bengii" <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I have to agree with all that 100%, mostly. Well put.

OTOH: Cadillac just announced some new model with 500hp and a 6.2l (?)
engine. When will we ever start taxing the shit out of these sinners?
(Hummer come to mind? Rated the worst vehicle by everybody , including
the military)


"Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:TPidnSXlLa05xhbanZ2dnUVZ_rGhnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxx
> "John J. Bengii" <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:-pWdncaLBIHvKRfanZ2dnUVZ_s6mnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> So creating more mercury contamination justifies a poor source of
>> energy?
>>
>> Me thinks we need to improve at both ends. Your mercury saving
>> logic
>> is very short termed thinking. I agree that CFL lamps may be a good
>> thing in the short run but not the best in the long. The creation
>> of
>> electrical energy in an irresponsible (for the era) way, cannot and
>> should not justify a product that can harm our environment.
>
> It's typical of carbon offset thinking.  Some people honestly
> believe that
> if they plant a few trees, it's just fine to spew pollution high in
> the
> atmosphere via jet exhaust.  It presumes processes and links that
> may not be
> real.  A recent article in the NYT pointed out that no one is
> certain if
> planting 100 trees really offsets the damage of jet aircraft flying
> arctic
> circle routes and dumping ice-darkening exhaust on the arctic ice.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/09/business/09offsets.html
>
> "Carbon offsets are essentially promises to use money in a way that
> will
> reduce carbon emissions. Panelists at the F.T.C.s session on
> Tuesday raised
> a number of questions about certifications behind the claims,
> wondering if
> the offset companies might be double-counting carbon reductions that
> would
> have happened even without their efforts.
>
> There is even disagreement over how much carbon dioxide can be
> neutralized
> by tree-planting, which is the type of offset that is easiest to
> grasp."
>
> It's appeasement and rationalization.  Worse, still, the carbon
> offset
> market is already rife with fraud and people trying to game the
> system.  The
> problem needs control right at the source - at the tailpipe and the
> smokestack.   There was already a scandal in the EU about companies
> claiming
> credits they didn't earn or deserve.
>
> People claim that the amount of mercury that's prevented from
> reaching the
> air by using CFLs is much greater than what will end up trickling
> into our
> aquifers from end users failing to recycle them.  Unfortunately, of
> the few
> precise figures I've seen bandied about, it's an assumption based on
> the
> future behavior of a population of people who already are not
> well-known for
> their ability to recycle religiously.  Sadly, we do have some pretty
> good
> figures about how good we are at recycling certain goods:
>
> "In 2005 less than 6% of the plastic from America's municipal waste
> stream
> was recovered."
>
> source: http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9249262
>
> One of the reasons that these threads quickly degrade is that people
> shoot
> from the hip, create whatever numbers they feel support their claims
> and
> denigrate anyone who disagrees with their assumptions with insults
> about
> their IQ, condescending explanations and very few verifiable facts.
> My New
> Year's resolution is to simple not engage in conversation with
> anyone who
> makes the discussion personal and not factual.
>
> I've heard the oft-repeated claim that CFL bulbs produce negative
> net
> mercury pollution.  That assertion is usually accompanied by the
> statistically verifiable fairy-tale that most dead CFL bulbs will go
> to
> landfills where they will magically not leak their contents into the
> groundwater.
>
> There are two very big problems with those claims.
>
> As I pointed out elsewhere, the peak load problem is almost always a
> daytime
> problem and a summer problem.  That tends to imply that indoor
> lights won't
> be used to the extent they might in the darker, winter months.  That
> means
> the "offset" is not nearly as much as claimed. Much more
> importantly, if
> only 6% of the CFL bulbs end up being recycled (I'm using the number
> for
> plastics from the Economist) then the claims of the negative mercury
> offset
> simply evaporate.
>
> All the above means that the numbers are quite a bit "softer" than
> some
> people cite (when they bother to cite any numbers or sources at
> all).  The
> problem has to be tackled right at the source, not by an indirect
> scheme.
> It's nice to hope that we can reduce peak loads with bulbs that are
> hopefully going to be recycled so religiously that none of their
> mercury
> will end up in our trout.  But the numbers we have from years of
> studying
> recycling tells us that won't be what happens.  The bulbs will be
> burned,
> dumped in lakes, on railroad tracks, etc.
>
> Yes, CFL bulbs do save money, and I use them, but I don't want the
> slight
> reduction in peak loads that they offer to obscure or delay the need
> to
> scrub all power plants at the stack.  And I certainly don't want
> anyone
> telling me I HAVE to use CFL's in places where they just don't work
> well.
> I doubt if the law will stick.
>
> --
> Bobby G.
>
>
>
>