Re: Anyone moved to LED Lighting?

[The Daring Dufas <the-daring-dufas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Robert Green wrote:
> "Don Klipstein" <don@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>
>>>  The true cost/benefits of CFLs over tungsten bulbs are incredibly
>>> complex and that allows either side of the argument to spout nearly any
>>> numbers they feel like.  All they need do is adjust the underlying
>>> parameters or ignore facts like the future cost of removing mercury from
> the
>>> environment the same way we're now removing asbestos.
>>   Compared to incandescent, on average use of CFLs actually reduces
>> mercury pollution, because burning coal releases so much mercury into the
>> environment.
>
> Ouch!  Don't tell me after all the intelligent posts you've made, that you
> actually buy into that "new math" version of reality?   Don, you're breaking
> my heart!
>
>
> shows that less than half of the US's energy comes from coal.  So the
> tradeoff only works for half of the US's power plants.  For the other half,
> it represents a new vector for mercury poisoning that didn't exist before
> the CFL revolution.
>
> 2) Why don't we install scrubbers on the few hundred power plants that are
> the major emitters of mercury instead of relying on Rube Goldberg tradeoffs
> like distributing mercury in billions of light bulbs?
>
> Because Big Power doesn't want to dig into corporate profits to clean up
> their power plants when they can convince people that these tradeoffs are
> workable.  The smartest guys in the room also told us that credit default
> swaps would reduce trading risks.  I guess we know how that worked out.
>
> 3) Does this tradeoff take into account that light bulbs are mostly used at
> night, when the generator turbines are running anyway, and would be
> generating X amount of "baseload" power anyway?
>

>
> These plants are on line 24x7 generating power whether anyone uses it or
> not.  I've not seen one CFL "savings equation" take the baseload function
> into account.  Why?  Because it would quite obviously show that much of the
> alleged emission reductions claimed are in people's heads, not at the smoke
> stacks.
>
> 4) Does it take into account the addition of mercury to environments where
> most of the energy developed is from hydro or nuclear power?
>
> No.  CFL bulbs are poised to bring significant mercury pollution issues to
> areas where there isn't any mercury pollution from nearby coal plants
> because there AREN'T any nearby coal plants.
>
> 5) Does this alleged tradeoff work when you substitute LEDs for tungsten
> bulbs?
>

> 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 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.
>

> --
> Bobby G.
>
>

I would like to see the owners of power companies appear in a big news
conference and announce to the country "We have seen the light!" pun
intended, "We are going to shut down all of those nasty, polluting, CO2
emitting coal fired power plants in six months. This should give people
and industry who receive electricity from coal, time enough to obtain
power from other sources. The Democrats and your President are right,
coal is a terrible thing to use as fuel and we were greedy. No more, we
are shutting down those horrible coal burning power plants to protect
all the cute little furry animals, butterflies, flowers and trees for
the children. Stopping Global Warming, er, Climate Change and protecting
The Environment is the most important thing in the whole world and we
must act immediately. We apologise to any industry, hospital, school or
other organization including all the individual citizens who may be
inconvenienced by the lack of electricity but we all must sacrifice for
the greater good. We promise that your government and leaders will not
go without electrical power so they may (cough) continue to serve you.
God bless America and its people!"

TDD