Politics even affects light bulb choice.

[DrPizza]

Well supposedly for every 1 trash can made at home, there were 70 cans of of trash made upstream in manufacturing etc.

If you recycle 100% of your trash, say 10 cans of trash. There were still 700 dumped into a landfill. People make fun of liberals for being impractical hippies for a reason. Sure recycling tricks you into thinking you are helping the environment but you're not.

Your argument is a disingenuous, else scientifically ignorant piece of crap. Let's take aluminum or iron for example. The vast majority of that waste upstream; and your 70 cans is a gross exaggeration in any case, is unavoidable. Recycling an aluminum can results in tremendous upstream savings in that all that bauxite doesn't have to be refined; the tremendous amount of electricity in refining it is saved.

 

[Nebor]

Or it could also be used to say 'tribalism causes people to make irrational decisions to their personal detriment and that seems bad'.

People like to belong. You're just throwing a fit because some people don't want to belong to your particular tribe.

 

[OverVolt]

Your argument is a disingenuous, else scientifically ignorant piece of crap. Let's take aluminum or iron for example. The vast majority of that waste upstream; and your 70 cans is a gross exaggeration in any case, is unavoidable. Recycling an aluminum can results in tremendous upstream savings in that all that bauxite doesn't have to be refined; the tremendous amount of electricity in refining it is saved.

People buy 12-packs of canned normal air? :awe:

All the waste is externalized on someone else. China is a toxic waste dump at this point but its not us so we don't care but we are going to run of out countries willing to volunteer as dumping grounds sooner rather than later.

Agbogbloshie is interesting since its where most electronics wind up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agbogbloshie

 

[BlueWolf47]

If conservatives would realize that the short-term costs are outweighed by the long-term benefits of environmentally friendly products. Why would you not want a bulb that lasts longer and uses a fraction of the energy of another bulb. Why would you not want your SUV or Truck to get 25+ mpg. Though there are short term investments that must be made, the benefits in the long term can be astounding. Why should we pay more and more in electrical costs to utility company's when everyone could theoretically generate their own energy needs. I guess conservatives would rather spend more on obsolete technology to maintain their view of Ammurrica.

 

[fskimospy]

People like to belong. You're just throwing a fit because some people don't want to belong to your particular tribe.

Ah, the good old attempt at false equivalence.

 

[michal1980]

If conservatives would realize that the short-term costs are outweighed by the long-term benefits of environmentally friendly products. Why would you not want a bulb that lasts longer and uses a fraction of the energy of another bulb. Why would you not want your SUV or Truck to get 25+ mpg. Though there are short term investments that must be made, the benefits in the long term can be astounding. Why should we pay more and more in electrical costs to utility company's when everyone could theoretically generate their own energy needs. I guess conservatives would rather spend more on obsolete technology to maintain their view of Ammurrica.

Because you like eskimospy are missing the damage the 'green' movement has done to it self with all its radical wingnuts.

The people that want to ban trucks, the people that dont want oil. The people that want you to ride a bike to work. etc etc.

maybe it needs to be more blunt.

That sticker is associated with people like Al Gore to conservatives. Its only logical not to support products you associate with wacko's like that.

 

[glenn1]

If conservatives would realize that the short-term costs are outweighed by the long-term benefits of environmentally friendly products. Why would you not want a bulb that lasts longer and uses a fraction of the energy of another bulb. Why would you not want your SUV or Truck to get 25+ mpg. Though there are short term investments that must be made, the benefits in the long term can be astounding. Why should we pay more and more in electrical costs to utility company's when everyone could theoretically generate their own energy needs. I guess conservatives would rather spend more on obsolete technology to maintain their view of Ammurrica.

Such a blanket statement ignores the sometimes very real tradeoffs involved. A longer lasting bulb may not work in a particular application or for a particular user (e.g. fluorescent bulb may cause headaches for some consumers). Likewise, an SUV getting 25+ MPG may not have the passenger capacity for a large family. And sometimes people select a particular item over another for irrational reasons, and generally this isn't the subject of a "Ha Ha, look at the primitive rubes buying inferior products" thread. For some reason however, when the products involved can be interpreted as having some deeper political symbolism you sometimes end up with people like the OP creating a thread to be an asshole about it. Same concept when conservatives bash people for choosing a hybrid car.

 

[Thebobo]

Because you like eskimospy are missing the damage the 'green' movement has done to it self with all its radical wingnuts.

The people that want to ban trucks, the people that dont want oil. The people that want you to ride a bike to work. etc etc.

maybe it needs to be more blunt.

That sticker is associated with people like Al Gore to conservatives. Its only logical not to support products you associate with wacko's like that.

Al Gore is hardly a radical or a wacko. You just label him and as such becuase then anything he stands for you can dismiss.

 

[michal1980]

Al Gore is hardly a radical or a wacko. You just label him and as such becuase then anything he stands for you can dismiss.

The point went over your head.

 

[OverVolt]

If conservatives would realize that the short-term costs are outweighed by the long-term benefits of environmentally friendly products. Why would you not want a bulb that lasts longer and uses a fraction of the energy of another bulb. Why would you not want your SUV or Truck to get 25+ mpg. Though there are short term investments that must be made, the benefits in the long term can be astounding. Why should we pay more and more in electrical costs to utility company's when everyone could theoretically generate their own energy needs. I guess conservatives would rather spend more on obsolete technology to maintain their view of Ammurrica.

People can't generate their own power needs lol. Centralized power generation is more efficient. The bigger the generator the more efficient usually. The engines in boats/cruise liners/tankers for example actually convert a higher percentage of the energy in fuel to kinetic energy versus heat.

http://www.mpoweruk.com/heat_engines.htm

I'm taking Pchem right now *bangs head on wall*

But basically all the little 4banger 1.6L engines actually do a terrible job of converting the energy in oil to kinetic energy, they just have long gears and less weight to carry around IE a honda Fit.

Their actual efficiency is however, very very terrible.

In terms of power generation there is no way something at home can get the efficiency of a steam turbine powered by coal.

If you are talking about solar panels etc, not only is there the upfront cost but alot of the waste is externalized upstream in manufacturing. So for us its a green technology but not so much for wherever we dump the waste we used to produce them.

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-04/solar-panels-now-make-more-electricity-they-use

Solar panels won't pay themselves off until 2020 but who knows if that will hold true if any of them are damaged or need repair.

So solar is *barely* pulling its own weight. If you place the panels out in the desert, yeah they will pay themselves off. If people were putting them on their roofs like you propose people could do for their own energy needs, then no they wouldn't pay themselves off and would be a net energy drain.

http://www.bmwblog.com/2009/06/12/bmw-m3-vs-toyota-prius-its-how-you-drive-it-that-matters/

This kind of highlights the effect. Pushing the Prius hard drops its mpg to 17.2mpg and the BMW simply had to keep pace, and got 19.4mpg. I'm not really surprised because bigger engines are more efficient. The Prius just has long gears and drives slower, and in traffic recaptures some of the energy from braking.

Just kind of an FYI I guess that there is no magic bullet to energy problems like the eco-kooks believe.

 

[Nebor]

Ah, the good old attempt at false equivalence.

Because your tribe is better than theirs. Obviously.

 

[fskimospy]

Because your tribe is better than theirs. Obviously.

/facepalm.

Of all the various groups of posters on this board, by far the most vacuous and insipid are the 'pox on both your houses' people who think drawing constant false equivalencies is somehow reasoned analysis because they are blaming both sides.

 

[OverVolt]

Meh people can't deal with the fact that fossil fuels is all we have, save maybe nuclear power.

Solar cells don't pay for themselves in energy yet, I'm not sure if the power it takes to make a wind turbine generates enough electricity to be energy neutral either. Everything basically crutches on fossil fuels, even the "green" tech.

Thats why i'm anti-eco-kook because its all just a big feel-good campaign. Everyone with a solar panel on their house is totally guilty of this. With subsidies it might pay for itself in $$$ terms but in energy terms it'll probably get damaged in a hail storm or something long before it ever returns the energy invested into it since it would take like 50 years especially if you live somewhere that the sun isn't very strong.

The source of mercury in CFL's is probably from burning coal. Its such a big herp derp. The eco guys don't care much for EROEI, or where chemicals actually come from, just feeling good about doing things differently.

 

[glenn1]

Meh people can't deal with the fact that fossil fuels is all we have, save maybe nuclear power.

Solar cells don't pay for themselves in energy yet, I'm not sure if the power it takes to make a wind turbine generates enough electricity to be energy neutral either. Everything basically crutches on fossil fuels, even the "green" tech.

Thats why i'm anti-eco-kook because its all just a big feel-good campaign. Everyone with a solar panel on their house is totally guilty of this. With subsidies it might pay for itself in $$$ terms but in energy terms it'll probably get damaged in a hail storm or something long before it ever returns the energy invested into it since it would take like 50 years especially if you live somewhere that the sun isn't very strong.

The source of mercury in CFL's is probably from burning coal. Its such a big herp derp. The eco guys don't care much for EROEI, just feeling good about doing things differently.

Actually, solar is now considered to be net energy generators compared to manufacturing inputs.

 

[OverVolt]

^

Its similar to my article. And lol @ 50% confidence. They produce more energy than it took to produce them but still haven't offset the initial investment. We'll see in 2020 :awe: Things can go wrong is my belief, panels can get damaged, their efficiency drops over time, they ignore that.

"Take current slope and extrapolate with 50% confidence" what a joke :/

 

[glenn1]

^

Its similar to my article. And lol @ 50% confidence. They produce more energy than it took to produce them but still haven't offset the initial investment. We'll see in 2020 :awe: Things can go wrong is my belief, panels can get damaged, their efficiency drops over time, they ignore that.

Agreed there are plenty of caveats, and solar's best promise is always likely to be for local point-source needs (i.e. solar attic fan, home water heating, etc) than centralized mass production/base load electricity generation. But it's not as slam dunk for fossil fuels as it used to be. And we've also gotten off the OP topic of light bulb choice, but given we've probably exhausted that vein of discussion that's probably not a bad thing.

 

[fskimospy]

Meh people can't deal with the fact that fossil fuels is all we have, save maybe nuclear power.

Solar cells don't pay for themselves in energy yet, I'm not sure if the power it takes to make a wind turbine generates enough electricity to be energy neutral either. Everything basically crutches on fossil fuels, even the "green" tech.

Thats why i'm anti-eco-kook because its all just a big feel-good campaign. Everyone with a solar panel on their house is totally guilty of this. With subsidies it might pay for itself in $$$ terms but in energy terms it'll probably get damaged in a hail storm or something long before it ever returns the energy invested into it since it would take like 50 years especially if you live somewhere that the sun isn't very strong.

The source of mercury in CFL's is probably from burning coal. Its such a big herp derp. The eco guys don't care much for EROEI, or where chemicals actually come from, just feeling good about doing things differently.

Biofuel is a bunch of crap too, you are recycling foodstuffs that was farmed from the petro-agro industry. I'm not knocking it, its just how it is. The pesticides, the equipment the watering, all powered by fossil fuels. Alllll the way weee down the supply chain you put old Mexican frying grease into a converted car and think you are saving the environment - nope. It took way more fossil fuels to make that cooking oil than you are ever going to get by recycling it, a huge EROEI fail.

That other article in here where it cost $59/gallon for biofuel. Thats the real cost of it if you don't externalize the cost on someone else.

The mercury in CFLs is a byproduct of something we're already doing. It's even better for the environment that we are re-using the byproducts of coal burning instead of creating mercury some other way.

If some day the demand for CFLs was so high and coal power production so low that other mercury sources had to be created that damaged the environment you would have a point. Re-using byproducts of things we already do? Not so much.

 

[OverVolt]

I'd rather them attempt to dispose of it properly instead of sending it to everyone's house to get crushed in the garbage inevitably :awe:

I think Mercury CFLs could be the new leaded gasoline as more and more of them get crushed/broken in peoples homes. Especially once the law goes into effect that you can't buy incandescent bulbs.

 

[Nebor]

/facepalm.

Of all the various groups of posters on this board, by far the most vacuous and insipid are the 'pox on both your houses' people who think drawing constant false equivalencies is somehow reasoned analysis because they are blaming both sides.

I'm not calling a pox on anyone's house; I don't have a dog in the fight. I do think you are the epitome of a high horse liberal, who is so imbued with self-righteousness that the other side isn't even worth listening to. You attempt to cast all of your views as those of common sense, and the other side's as the ramblings of Neanderthals. You also think that throwing out a few SAT words somehow diminishes the ad hominem nature of the little tantrums you throw when someone criticizes your position.

A lot of sailors should be thanking their lucky stars that you didn't stick it out and become a Chief.

 

[wirednuts]

/this

I try to buy green. But these CFL's are a joke! i think they are doing more harm then the old ones. they last a shorter time and cost 3x as much.

I baught a bunch of the old bulbs. i think i'm good for a year or two.

LED's will gradually take over. give it another decade...

 

[Brainonska511]

I'd rather them attempt to dispose of it properly instead of sending it to everyone's house to get crushed in the garbage inevitably :awe:

I think Mercury CFLs could be the new leaded gasoline as more and more of them get crushed/broken in peoples homes. Especially once the law goes into effect that you can't buy incandescent bulbs.

There is no law that forbids incandescent bulbs. Only the most inefficient were phased out, and you can still buy them, because there were various exemptions written into the law.

And the mercury from the CFLs is far, far less than what a coal-fired power plant releases directly into the atmosphere. How many bulbs do you think people are breaking every year their home?

 

[SparkyJJO]

No, we're not going down that road as I counted far too many hilariously stupid straw men, bald misrepresentations, red herrings, and non sequiturs in that paragraph to have it be worth that time.

For rational adults amenable to scientific evidence if all other aspects are equal as they were here a reduction in carbon emissions is an unarguably good thing. If you don't feel that way you're way too far off the deep end on too many other topics for this one to have much meaning.

Says the guy who's at the bottom of the deep end in the other pool.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Well this isn't pretty, but it is educational.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm not calling a pox on anyone's house; I don't have a dog in the fight. I do think you are the epitome of a high horse liberal, who is so imbued with self-righteousness that the other side isn't even worth listening to. You attempt to cast all of your views as those of common sense, and the other side's as the ramblings of Neanderthals. You also think that throwing out a few SAT words somehow diminishes the ad hominem nature of the little tantrums you throw when someone criticizes your position.

A lot of sailors should be thanking their lucky stars that you didn't stick it out and become a Chief.

lol. I've always been very up front with my opinion that if someone repeatedly makes stupid arguments you should call them stupid. But yeah, it's totally my fault for mocking them as opposed to the fault of those who write them to begin with. I frequently think that you make stupid or borderline sociopathic arguments and I've never shied away from telling you that. Most recently you just happened to start making some false equivalence arguments, which is why that came up.

Trust me, nobody is thanking their lucky stars more than me that I didn't stay on to become a chief. While I had no desire to stay in the military in any capacity, being a chief is the second most embarrassing role in the Navy outside of working in deck. You get to play officer every once in awhile, but you're never actually invited to the club. No thanks.

 

[blankslate]

LED's will gradually take over. give it another decade...

This^

LED bulbs are at least as efficient as CFL's and they aren't prone to having their life shortened by some things that shorten the life of a CFL.

CFLs are a stopgap until LEDs improve enough and prices come down from ~$30 a bulb. Even at $30 though it saves you money in the long run.