Constitutionality of light bulb ban questioned - Environmental Protection Agency must be called for a broken bulb

Wind farms and solar farms won't work and can't be made to work (except for limited applications). The amount of sunlight falling on the earth is about

700w/m^2. At the equator. At noon. With no clouds. Assuming 50% efficiency for solar conversion panels, and adjusting for latitude, weather, and nightfall, it would take a solar collector farm the size of the Los Angeles basin (~1200 sq miles) to supply power for California (peak 50gw). Not counting the cost to erect such a monster, consider the cost to maintain it. Plus, all of Los Angeles would be in the dark. Which, when one thinks on it, might not be such a bad idea...

What difference does it make if we release more carbon? At the current level of 0.003% of the atmosphere, a doubling would be virtually undetecable - except for plants who would say "Yum!"

It's like the Chicago cops and the gangsters: The cops need the gangster's payoffs and the gangsters need the cops to not make too many problems. We're at the mercy of the oil tyrants, but they need our money. It's a balance of terror.

In article , HeyBub wrote in part:

Make that .038% by volume, .0575% by weight.

Current level of CO2 accounts for anywhere from 9 to 26% of current "greenhouse effect" (warming of the planet from a level that would exist if not for any greenhouse gases at all including water vapor).

How well have plants fared now that atmospheric CO2 content is about 36% above pre-industrial-revolution levels? It appears to me that the limiting factors are water, daylight and favorable temperatures more than CO2 content in the atmosphere.

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

In article , snipped-for-privacy@ns.sympatico.ca (Paul M. Eldridge) writes: | On 22 Jun 2008 17:16:51 GMT, ddl@danlan.*com (Dan Lanciani) wrote: | | >In article , snipped-for-privacy@trashmail.net (James Sweet) writes: | >| | >| | >| > In the past few years I've noticed that the commodity F40 and F96 tubes | >| > at the home centers are once again 40W and 75W respectively, so I assume | >| > they all now qualify for the good color rendering (or other) exemption | >| > from the requirements. (Or are they lying about the wattage?) | >| > | >| > Dan Lanciani | >| > ddl@danlan.*com | >| | >| | >| Trichromatic phosphor blends are much more common these days and a lot | >| cheaper than they used to be, so you can easily get 40W high CRI lamps. | >

| >And 75W F96 tubes, though they cost a little more than the dirt cheap CW | >versions did. I guess this is great if you like a high color rendering | >index, but I'm still not clear on how it ultimately helped with energy | >conservation or efficiency. Now if they had gone on to produce 34W F40 | >and 60W F96 tubes that put out as much light as the older 40W and 75W | >versions I could see the justification for the higer costs, ballast | >replacements, and such in the meantime. But as it is, aren't we pretty | >much back where we started (from an energy usage point of view)? | >

| > Dan Lanciani | > ddl@danlan.*com | | | Hi Dan, | | Twenty or thirty years ago, a conventional two-tube F96T12 fixture | would draw about 180-watts. Today, with 60-watt lamps and energy | saving magnetic ballasts, that number falls closer to 135 or | 140-watts, so there's been at least some improvement.

I get kind of confused when several variables change at once. :( Assume that I use the same ballasts I was using 20-30 years ago and also assume that I don't like the lower illumination from the

60W tubes so I use the current more expensive 75W tubes. (Both assumptions happen to reflect reality. :) How does my energy usage today compare to my usage when I could get the cheap 75W cool white tubes?

| In terms of operating efficacy, a 75-watt Sylvania F96T12/D41/ECO | (4,100K/70 CRI) is rated at 6,420 initial lumens and powered by a | standard magnetic-core ballast (0.88 BF), we obtain about 63 lumens | from each watt. A 60-watt Sylvania F96T12/D41/SS/ECO (4,100K/70 CRI) | at 5,600 initial lumens and driven by a newer energy saving magnetic | ballast would bump that up to perhaps 71 or 72 lumens per watt.

Can I get energy saving magnetic ballasts to drive 75W tubes at higher efficiency or do they depend on using the 60W tubes?

Dan Lanciani ddl@danlan.*com

Hi Dan,

If your 75-watt replacement tubes are driven by the fixture's original ballast, wattage remains the same -- again, about 180-watts in total.

You can; as is true of your current ballast, energy saving magnetic ballasts are compatible with both 60 and 75-watt lamps. However, if you plan to replace the ballast, you might as well switch to an electronic version and pop in a couple T8 tubes; the benefits are:

• 40% energy savings (110-watts versus 180-watts) * 50% longer lamp life (18,000 hours versus 12,000 hours) * cooler operation (potentially helpful in warmer climates) * silent operation (no annoying ballast hum) * no flicker (important if you work with some types of machinery) * typically better colour rendering (improved light quality) * better lumen maintenance (more light over the life of the tube) * typically better cold weather performance (starting down to 0F) * better long-term availability of replacement lamps (???)

A 75-watt F96T12 + standard magnetic ballast is the technical equivalent of a 1978 Ford Granada. It may have been considered a good performer in its day (** snicker **), but thirty years later we've thankfully moved the goal posts a little further.

Cheers, Paul

That was 640 kB.

Germany said it will met its goal of 30% solar by maybe 2030, it can be done.

Ah, right. Thanks for the correction.

36% above pre-industrial-revolution levels mean that the former levels constituted about 0.029% of the atmosphere. So, during the time that CO2 levels increased beyond a level detectable to an agrarian society, we've gone to the moon, eradicated many diseases, trebled our life expectancy, and invented pop-top beer containers.

In my view, the progress was worth it. Others may differ.

For all the panty-waists out there who whine about CFLs containing mercury and, in particular, those who oppose the use of energy saving lamps and advocate the construction of more coal-fired plants instead:

Cheers, Paul

| For all the panty-waists out there who whine about CFLs containing | mercury and, in particular, those who oppose the use of energy saving | lamps and advocate the construction of more coal-fired plants instead: | |

What about long tube fluorescent lights that I also refuse to put in my home for the same reason?

Will they come out and do a full EPA-grade cleanup if a CFL (or FL) breaks?

What I read somewhere is if it breaks and gets on your rug you're supposed to cut out the section of rug.. Jeez. I used to play with mercury when I was a kid, rolled it around in my hand, etc. Now they close a school if a thermometer breaks (they really did this at a Delaware school..) And yet there are near NO cases of mercury poisoning reported in a year.. Eric

In alt.engineering.electrical Paul M. Eldridge wrote: | On 21 Jun 2008 15:04:27 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: | |>|>What about ophidian lights? I've always used the standard base ones for this. |>|>I suppose I could substitute a plant light or a small infrared. |>|>

|>|>I was going to switch to low-voltage lamps for task lights, anyway, so I guess |>|>for the most part this doesn't really affect me. |>|>

|>|>We need a law that taxes or just outright bans importation of cheap CFLs. |>| |>| Hi Phil, |>| |>| I'm not sure what wattage lamp you use, but if its light output |>| exceeds 2,600 lumens, it falls outside this legislation. For example, |>| a 150-watt Osram Sylvania A21 incandescent is rated at 2,780 lumens |>| (clear) and 2,640 lumens (soft white). |>

|>So just run this on one of this half-wave rectifying dimmers to cut the |>power in half and you have a nice warm 40 watt light that uses 75 watts. | | Hi Phil, | | Alternatively, if you don't require that much light, you could simply | opt for a halogen lamp of a lesser wattage; e.g., a 40-watt Halogen? | ES provides the same amount of light as a conventional 60-watt | incandescent and lasts up to four times longer. | | If you're still contemplating a low-voltage solution, Philip's IRC | MR16 are some of the best available. | | See: |

5000 hours? Not all that good. Half will be burned out in 3 years of regular use (about 5 hours a day).

I've been considering both MR16 (GU5.3 12v) and MR11 (what pin for 6v?) for various lighting fixtures in the home I'll be building. I may opt for the smaller ones so I can select the illumination level by turning selected lights on and off rather than dimming. My original idea was to go with 6 volt 12 watt lights if those are available in MR11 or some other kind of halogen form factor.

What I don't like about these lights is the pitch of the facet in the reflector. I would like the pitch to be about 10 to 20 times smaller. A frosted glass would, of course, help, too.

In alt.engineering.electrical HeyBub wrote:

| snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: |> In alt.engineering.electrical Jeff Strickland |> wrote: |>

|>

|>

|>

|> There certainly will be environmentalists that will come up with |> something. | |> As an environmentalists myself, I do object more to extending the |> drilling for oil. I'm in favor of building nuclear power plants |> (under certain conditions, such as stronger regulations and regular |> inspections, including by academic people, with public reports ... |> and they must also be built reasonably close to the areas of power |> demand, with consideration for risks like earthquakes, so the ones |> powering California might have to be built in Utah with some big DC |> feeders). I'm in favor of building solar farms (provided they are |> not built in such a way as to shadow natural needs for light ... |> desert spaces should be OK). I'm in favor of building wind farms. | | Wind farms and solar farms won't work and can't be made to work (except for | limited applications). The amount of sunlight falling on the earth is about | 700w/m^2. At the equator. At noon. With no clouds. Assuming 50% efficiency | for solar conversion panels, and adjusting for latitude, weather, and | nightfall, it would take a solar collector farm the size of the Los Angeles | basin (~1200 sq miles) to supply power for California (peak 50gw). Not | counting the cost to erect such a monster, consider the cost to maintain it. | Plus, all of Los Angeles would be in the dark. Which, when one thinks on it, | might not be such a bad idea...

I'm not expecting these energy sources to be the complete supply (at least not for a few decades). But I do believe we need to build them, anyway, to help supplement the carbon-extraction process we depend on now.

|> My objection for oil and gas extraction in general (so my goal is to |> see less of it used, not more) is to avoid releasing more carbon that |> has been naturally sequestered. Also, known oil reserves won't last |> for too many more decades or centuries (pinning down the exact figure |> is hard, but it's definitely not going to last a thousand years at |> the rate we are growing in our use). | | What difference does it make if we release more carbon? At the current level | of 0.003% of the atmosphere, a doubling would be virtually undetecable - | except for plants who would say "Yum!"

You really think that?

|> To the extent we can make the effort to reduce the need for oil/gas, |> then whatever else we do (drilling more reserves or not), it is that |> much less we end up depending on politically unstable or even |> criminal governments who |> are the current suppliers. |>

| | It's like the Chicago cops and the gangsters: The cops need the gangster's | payoffs and the gangsters need the cops to not make too many problems. We're | at the mercy of the oil tyrants, but they need our money. It's a balance of | terror.

Huh?

We don't want to depend on others for our oil. We do depend on them now and it's a component of why we are at the mercy of their pricing. THEIR greatest fear is that WE don't want their oil anymore.

In alt.engineering.electrical HeyBub wrote: | Don Klipstein wrote: |> In article , HeyBub |> wrote in part: |>

|>> What difference does it make if we release more carbon? At the |>> current level of 0.003% of the atmosphere, |>

|> Make that .038% by volume, .0575% by weight. | | | Ah, right. Thanks for the correction. | |>

|>> a doubling would be virtually undetecable - |>> except for plants who would say "Yum!" |>

|> Current level of CO2 accounts for anywhere from 9 to 26% of |> current "greenhouse effect" (warming of the planet from a level that |> would exist if not for any greenhouse gases at all including water |> vapor). | | |>

|> How well have plants fared now that atmospheric CO2 content is about |> 36% above pre-industrial-revolution levels? It appears to me that the |> limiting factors are water, daylight and favorable temperatures more |> than CO2 content in the atmosphere. | | 36% above pre-industrial-revolution levels mean that the former levels | constituted about 0.029% of the atmosphere. So, during the time that CO2 | levels increased beyond a level detectable to an agrarian society, we've | gone to the moon, eradicated many diseases, trebled our life expectancy, and | invented pop-top beer containers.

Life expectancy has actually turned the corner and is going back down.

Hi Phil,

A Philips F32T8XLL contains 1.7 mg of Hg and has a rated life of

36,000 hours when operated on instant start ballasts (3 hours per start). It provides roughly the same amount of light as two 100-watt soft white incandescent lamps (~ 3,000 lumens). With ballast losses, we might peg its power consumption at about 30-watts (0.88 BF).

Over the life of this lamp, it would consume 1,080 kWh, whereas the two equivalent incandescents would total 7,200 kWh -- a difference, in this case, of some 6,100 kWh.

Although it varies by state, if we use the U.S. national average, the generation of those additional 6,100 kWhs would release 80 mg of Hg into the environment. At least with the fluorescent lamp, the 1.7 mg contained within can be recycled or properly disposed in a secure landfill (thereby potentially reducing our exposure to 0 mg) whereas the 80 mg of Hg released from the burning of coal indiscriminately pollutes our air, land and water.

Cheers, Paul

Hi Phil,

In the context of a regular A19 incandescent lamp with a nominal life of 750 hours to 1,500 hours, 5,000 hours strikes me as pretty good (since our original conversation pertained to standard household incandescents, I limited our options to incandescent and halogen light sources).

If long life is important, some of the new Philips T8s fluorescents have a rated service life of up to 46,000 hours but, then, as you indicated in another thread you refuse to use linear fluorescents in your home due to potential concerns related to Hg. On that basis, I presume we can rule out metal halide as well.

Cheers, Paul

What we really need is new sources of *portable* energy. It's hard to beat gasoline where a single bucket, (10 L), contains ~90 KWh.

Portable energy is the kind that fuels our cars, trucks, aircraft, most boats and many trains.

Storing energy, from whatever source, requires many times the volume and/or weight of fossil fuels, and can't be carried in a "bucket".

Ethanol may be an exception, having about two thirds the energy content of gasoline, but as many have pointed out here, it has its own problems.

So far, political correctness doesn't seem to be one of them!

How about nukes instead?

Would rather read the National Enquirer.

I agree somewhat[*], but that wasn't my point.

[*] This isn't a binary decision. The note-holders can be left to choke in their own sludge. Buy up the mortgages from the failing mortgage holders for nothing, turn around and sell them for more than they're worth. It might take a while, but the real estate market *will* come back. When it does, the Fed makes out like a bandit. In the mean time, let the people (the ones who actually occupy the houses) stay for the $$ on the original note. There are a billion ways to skin this cat, making sure the next guy doesn't take useless paper and perhaps turning this sow's ear around.

Where do you draw that line? ...other than the obvious fraud involved.

You can jail them for fraud. How do you jail them for bad financial decisions? Your answer is too simple to be of use.

What do you propose to make illegal that isn't already?

They may have merit but are irrelevant to the point being raised in this thread. IOW, a strawman (or red herring - take your pick).

Actually, it was 704K, but no one told Billy. ;-)