Re: Anyone moved to LED Lighting?

["Josepi" <JRM@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Now tell us how reducing the load doesn't reduce energy usage and doesn't
reduce pollution of any type, nuclear, coal, petroleum, hydro-electric or
other. TOU load is not the only factor here.

Your smokestack scrubber argument doesn't wash. OPG in Ontario has been
using scrubbers for decades and they are all about to be removed. I suspect
the scubbers are not that effective and too expensive to implement.

LED lamps are too expensive and too dim-witted, yet. Expensive equate to too
much production polution outweighing any lifetime benefits. The cost of our
health insurance on increase spectacle coverage and accidents from people
falling down stairwells will outweigh any savings alone...LOL

Let's face it: the general populace doesn't care about the "greenwashing"
part of the formula, only their pocketbooks and the capitolistist economic
system in place that hasn't made it feasible, yet.

Many other good points, noted.



"Robert Green" <robert_green1963@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:hhhndi$s53$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
5) Does this alleged tradeoff work when you substitute LEDs for tungsten
bulbs?

Yes.  LEDs provide the same alleged reduction in emissions, and they do it
WITHOUT adding mercury to hundreds of thousands of homes in billions of
light bulbs.  If anyone really cares about the environment, they won't
poison it further by using mercury-laced CFL bulbs instead of LEDs.

6) Are CFL bulb makers serious about recycling used bulbs?

Hell no.  We have deposit laws for mostly inert glass soda bottles but NOT
environmentally hazardous CFL bulbs.  Studies estimate that perhaps as few
as 10% of all CFL bulbs get recycled.

7) Do people get suckered by quick fixes and miracle cures?

Absolutely.  Take a look at the dietary supplement industry.  Study after
study shows that supplements can actually be quite harmful but folks buy and
ingest them by the billion-dollar load.  As for quick cures, Congress bought
into the TARP, didn't it?  Adding mercury to reduce mercury doesn't pass the
common sense "sniff" test.  And it shouldn't, it's a devil's bargain, one of
many we're foisting on the next generation.

8) What happens when power plant smokestacks all get proper scrubbing
equipment?

The alleged tradeoff falls flat on its face, leaving us with a gigantic
mercury-laced CFL distribution network and nothing to counterbalance it.

The problem with CFLs is that the deeper one delves into this diabolical
bargain, the worse things look.  The savings are weak to begin with, and
they're offset by the potential damage mercury poisoning can do.  Sadly,
we've shown time and time again that short term gains are considered way
ahead of any long term costs.  Look at Congress if you doubt that assertion.
(-:

The right way to control emissions is by controlling the emitters.
Pollutants need to be trapped at the smokestack that creates them, not on
the shelves of Wal-Mart through a complex, poorly understood "tradeoff."
Like a skilled magician, Big Power has managed to use misdirection to great
advantage.  Instead of clamoring for them to reduce the poison in their
emissions, we've bought into a complex scheme to reduce pollutants by adding
them to commonplace consumables.

<political agenda snipped>
--
Bobby G.