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

dpb wrote:


The oxygen sensor in the fuel injection loop is probably seeing to much oxygen and is compensating by richening the fuel air mixture.
I have gas receipts going back at least two years to present so the numbers are real. The drop in economy happened when the new fuel was introduced. I have an OBD II reader plugged into the vehicle at all times, no error codes. The air cleaner is new, the vehicle well maintained. There could be other issues like water in the fuel supply from the dealer tanks.
--
Joe Leikhim K4SAT
"The RFI-EMI-GUY"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
metspitzer wrote:

When we developed a product that didn't sell as expected (more properly, as desired) the first stop was our Congressional delegation. It's difficult to convince consumers to buy a product they don't need. It's easier, with the help of a large PAC, to put a ring in the nose of legislators and in some cases compel the consumer to buy the product.
CFLs in some portions of the country have become a joke. Look at the cost of heating oil for next year and the cost of electrical energy. It's more economical to heat with electricity. Turn on all the incandescent lights and save money.
Boden
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

*sigh*
There is a *VERY* simple way to deal with energy consumption, greenhouse gases, climate change and human impact on the environment in general.
Instead of throwing all taxes into a collective pot, tax items at their cost to clean up... at their cost to the environment.
Some examples...
Gasoline: Using gasoline causes greenhouse gases and air pollution in general. Remove all general taxes from it's sale and add a single "cost of use" tax. A gallon of gas would be taxed on what it costs to clean the noxious pollution from the air.
Tires: They pollute the roadways with cast off rubber. The worn out tires need to be processed before recycling or being disposed of. Tires would be taxed based on their mileage rating and treadwear. Basically, take the expected milage of a tire and divide it by amount of material cast off of the tire during it's life.
i.e. 100,000 mile tire, 10 lbs of rubber cast off during it's life: 10/100= tax rating of .1
50,000 mile tire, 10 lbs of rubber cast off during it's life: 10/50= tax rating of .2
Garbage collection: Operating expenses are $xxx per year for garbage collection. It also costs $yyy per pound to process garbage. In a perfect world, you'd pay a yearly "garbage" tax to cover operating expenses and then you'd pay another tax to cover the amount of garbage you produced. Unfortunately, keeping track of the amount of garbage used by each property isn't easy, so taxes would be based an average.
Users would have the option to use a private company to collect and process trash and would be exempt from the government trash tax.
... This could be applied to most government taxation, fees, etc. In the long run it would simplify taxation and cause consumers to consider their impact to the environment. To lower taxes, consumers would opt for items that cost lest to "clean up after".
--
Fight Usenet Spam!!! - http://improve-usenet.org:80 /

Want a great newsgroup reader that will filter out the flood of
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| As for CFLs being made in China, so what? New sources of American Energy are | nukes (blocked by environmentalists) wind energy (blocked by | environmentalists) solar energy (blocked by environmentalists) and | coal-based energy (blocked by environmentalists).
Yes, there are environmentalists blocking nuclear power plants. I happen to be one of the environmentalists that is NOT blocking them. Instead, what I am "blocking" is stupidity by corporate executives and managers. Nuclear power _can_ be safe. But in the hands of corporations that will cut costs by reducing safety, then nuclear power _can_ be very unsafe. Letting the government run them would be no better and probably worse. What we need is a set of strong regulations and regular inspections with public reports.
| America needs 30 new power plants to up the capacity and replace aging | plants. Europe has been using nuke energy for a long time, and they have no | problems with it. But enviromentalists in this country object to it. America | has a few windmill farms, but environmentalists object to them because birds | fly into the vanes, and the NIMBYs object to the view. Solar energy is being | tried in a few places, but the environmentalists object to the space they | demand and the resulting encroachment on habitat. And, we have lots of coal | fired power plants, but environmentalists object to the coal mines and the | soot that is produced.
Europe also runs things differently. They have stronger regulations and actually do inspections by people that have a genuine concern for safety.
We'll never eliminate all environmentalist objections. Europe hasn't, either. But we can find people who do have genuine environmental concerns and do also recognize the need for more power. We need these kinds of people to oversee the whole thing. These people will be neither left-wing nor right-wing on the political spectrum.
| The American Southwest looks like it will be building new homes within the | next decade that are Zero Net users of electricity. These homes will be | built with solar collectors on the roof that will be able to generate | upwards of 10kW, and this will be more than the home needs for most of the | year. Each home will actually generate power that goes to the grid and the | home will get credit on the electricity bill. The credit will then be drawn | against on days when the air conditioner is used, resulting in an overall | zero pull from the grid for most homeowners. I'm sure the environmentalists | will figure out a complaint to lodge ...
There certainly will be environmentalists that will come up with something.
By having some "sensible environmentalists" who don't do such silliness, things like this, and building nuclear plants, and solar farms, and wind farms and such, can all be accomplished. Part of the problem, though, is that the way the environment is dealt with by so many corporations (basically shunning all environmentalists as a whole) ends up putting all environmentalists on the same side together. Instead, what we need, is a certainly level of cooperation to meet in the middle. Then the environmentalists that remain to object (who probably object to everything) will be fewer in number.
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.
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).
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.
--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Don Klipstein wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| Don Klipstein wrote:
|> 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.
--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Germany said it will met its goal of 30% solar by maybe 2030, it can be done.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In article <98eb2dcf-7250-4f9f-a08c-
says...

It's easy to say that the next generation will meet their obligations. The Congress has been doing just that with Social Security for two generations already.
-- Keith
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote:
|> 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.
--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
metspitzer wrote:

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!
--
Virg Wall, P.E.


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.