In article i5Tbi.21246$xq1.10947@pd7urf1no, Noozer wrote:
I just had a thought...

Pushing everyone over to CFLs from incandecent bulbs is supposed to save a
lot of electricity, right?

Well, how much power does it take to cook a roast for a family of five in
your average electric oven? Bet we'd save a lot more money if we forced
everyone over to microwave/convection systems.

Since most ovens are not electric and on any given moment there are
usually planty of lightbulbs and no ovens running, I think lighting is
something to go after more than ovens.

The biggest consumer of electricity is electric motors in climate
control equipment and refrigeration equipment - compressor motors, fan
motors and blower motors.

Lighting is second to that group. It appears to me that third place is
electric heating.

I would think that the cost of electric stoves makes a lot of people
do much of their cooking with microwaves and convection ovens more
than electric stoves anyway.

- Don Klipstein )

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. net...
In article , "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
.net...
In article , "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"We" have not decided that a certain level of mercury from power plants
is
OK. That was decided in meetings with attendees whose identity has been
CLASSIFIED by Dick Cheney. They decided what mercury levels they could
afford to release or control.

I think you need to renew the lining in your tinfoil hat, Kanter.


You still don't read much.

And you still don't understand *any* of what little you do read.

One of many articles on the issue:

"The Cheney case centered on whether the GAO could demand to know who met
with the interagency task force, chaired by Cheney, that wrote Bush's
energy
policy. Democrats had argued that Big Business was having too much
influence
in the process. When Cheney refused to cooperate, the GAO went to court
for
the first time in its 81-year history."
http://www.post-gazette.com/nation/2...eneynat7p7.asp

Q: What does that have to do with mercury emissions from power plants?
A: Absolutely nothing, as is typical for Doug "Moving Target" Kanter.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)


In this message, read all the text beginning at the top. You won't see the
connection, but it is definitely there.

In article , JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"HerHusband" wrote in message
. ..
Pushing everyone over to CFLs from incandecent bulbs is supposed to
save a lot of electricity, right?
Well, how much power does it take to cook a roast for a family of five
in your average electric oven? Bet we'd save a lot more money if we
forced everyone over to microwave/convection systems.

I think ANY step you can take to save electricity is a good one, whether
it be to save the earth, or simply to reduce your electric bill. But
convenience and practicality play a big part. Most people won't change
their lifestyles just to save electricity.

Switching from an incandescent to a CFL costs less than $5, the bulb will
last years, and the light output is usually the same or greater than the
incandescent. There's very little negative effect to the consumer. Of
course, a CFL isn't the right alternative for all applications, but in
most cases it's a win-win situation.

....except for the mercury in CFL bulbs. We need a solution to the disposal
problem, and fast.

Where much of the electricity comes from coal, CFLs actually reduce
mercury pollution.

Meanwhile, why hasn't mercury been as big a deal back when 4-foot
fluorescents had 80 milligrams of mercury and CFLs now average 3-4?

- Don Klipstein )

In article , Larry W wrote:

...In article ,
...HeyBub wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:


....except for the mercury in CFL bulbs. We need a solution to the
disposal problem, and fast.

The Mercury in a CFL is a non-issue. Use of CFL actually releases LESS
Mercury into the environment than the extra generation necessary to power
incandescent bulbs.

In other words, if we've already made the decision that the Mercury released
into the environment from coal-powered plants is acceptable to power our
incandescent bulbs, the amount of Mercury in CFLs is more than offset by the
reduced power generation.

We can put all that "saved" Mercury into vaccines.



What you state makes good sense, however, our laws and regulations
require disposal of lamps containing mercury and certain other materials
under the "universal waste" rules. I'm not certain that a residential
consumer is bound by these regulations but business or industrial
users are. As it stands now, the end user can use all the electricty he
or she wants; If that user chooses to save electricity by using CFL or
standard florescent lamps, though, then the rules on disposing of
those lamps must be followed.

In most jurisdictions, household fluorescent bulbs can be disposed of in
regular trash.

However, where there is need or when there is desire to do better, there
is www.lamprecycle.org

- Don Klipstein )

In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

In this message, read all the text beginning at the top. You won't see the
connection, but it is definitely there.

I'm sure you see a lot of things that aren't there...

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article .com,
wrote:
On Jun 13, 11:11 am, HerHusband wrote:
Pushing everyone over to CFLs from incandecent bulbs is supposed to
save a lot of electricity, right?
Well, how much power does it take to cook a roast for a family of five
in your average electric oven? Bet we'd save a lot more money if we
forced everyone over to microwave/convection systems.

I think ANY step you can take to save electricity is a good one, whether
it be to save the earth, or simply to reduce your electric bill. But
convenience and practicality play a big part. Most people won't change
their lifestyles just to save electricity.

Switching from an incandescent to a CFL costs less than $5, the bulb will
last years, and the light output is usually the same or greater than the
incandescent. There's very little negative effect to the consumer. Of
course, a CFL isn't the right alternative for all applications, but in
most cases it's a win-win situation.

How about:

The CFL light is harsher and not nearly as pleasing as the light
available from an incandescent.

Only sometimes true. I have found most non-sylvania non-special-color
non-dollar-store spirals 19 watts or less to be quite impressively
incandescent-like in the color of their light.

Sylvania ones appear to me a bit harsher-whiter. Then there are "Bright
White" (3500K) ones that are somewhat whiter still but still "warm" - and
I like those, though though they can clash a bit when mixed with
incandescents.

"Daylight" ones are normally an icy cold slightly bluish white, which I
think is not good for most indoor home use.

Then there are the dollar store junkers, which I usually have multiple
complaints about.

The ones that I've tried that are screw in replacements take a long
time to warm up. I just bought 2 at HD for the kitchen. At night,
it takes at least a couple of mins for them to get to anywhere near
acceptable output.

Most get to nearly full light output in less than a minute, often less
than half a minute. Outdoor types and any types with outer bulbs over
them (whether "outdoor" or not) tend to have greater warmup issues.

For the first minute+ they are like a night
light. Oh, and btw, you wouldn't know how fast they reach any light
output, because it's never specd.

And the ones mentioned above were indoor flood type. When I tried to
screw them into the existing ceiling cans, they would not fit because
while the bulb is the right size, the neck near the base is wider to
accomodate the electronics. I had to go buy extenders, which now
leaves them sticking slightly out of the fixture.

How about N:Vision A19 or 40 watt ceiling fan ones? If you want faster
warmup and brighter start than ones with outer bulbs, how about regular
spirals? If a flood light type's bulb fits, you should be able to screw a
spiral in while holding the ballast housing part rather than the tubing.

Plus most can't be dimmed, and those that can are only dimmable over a
narrow range.

So, I'm not so sure the observation about conventional electric ovens
vs microwave is so far off. I'm not saying they can't be a good fit
for certain applications. But I think there is plenty that is
negative about them, including that they contain mercury, which
creates more hazardous waste.

As many are saying, they often actually reduce mercury pollution by
decreasing coal consumption. And why weren't all the 4-footers that
schools, hospitals and businesses used so big a problem back when they had
20-plus times more mercury than modern compact ones ahve?

And instead of telling people the
truth, there are nuts running around like those in California that
want to pass laws that ban incandescents.

Many in sci.engr.lighting have favored a tax over a ban.

It also doesn't do much
good to claim they are peachy keen, and have folks try a couple
thinking they are just like regular light bulbs, then give up on them
because they don't work well in the particular application. It
would be far better to be honest about their shortcomings, so people
can use them where they make sense. In my case, so far, that's the
garage, basement and closets.

I think closets are where CFLs usually make less sense, due to short
ontime and low usage.

- Don Klipstein , http://www.misty.com/~don/cfapp.html)

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
et...
In article , "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

In this message, read all the text beginning at the top. You won't see the
connection, but it is definitely there.

I'm sure you see a lot of things that aren't there...

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)


Well, so far, you're the only one here who has not been able to follow the
conversation. Step away from the MD 20/20.

In article , Proctologically Violated©® wrote:
Yeah, that short neck thing is a pita.
Really very little forethought.
Sodium lamps I think are just as efficient. Wonder why they can't compact
those, and dispense with the Hg.

High pressure sodium lamps do have Hg, and none have as good color
rendering as most CFLs, few have color rendering better than that of
the worst dollar store CFLs, and all start dimmer and take longer to warm
up than most CFLs, and I have yet to hear of an HPS under 35 watts.

Low pressure sodium has warmup issues as severe as an outdoor CFL on a
cold winter day, and the worst color rendering that any common
illumination lamp technology ever had.

- Don Klipstein )

In article , dicko wrote:
I dont understand the big push to convert over to CFLs. I did a little
googling and came up with this statement:

"Lighting accounted for 9.4 percent of all electricity consumption in
U.S. households in 1993, less than air conditioning, water heating,
space heating, or refrigeration (Figure ES4). [13] Residential
lighting thus represents three percent of total U.S. sales of
electricity to all sectors. [14] Because the end-use estimates do not
distinguish between indoor and outdoor lighting, this estimate of
lighting consumption includes both."

And where electricity costs more, which has some positive correlation
with being other than hydropower, electric heat is used less. So I would
say environmental impact and cost percentages of home electricity being
from lighting being higher than the total nationwide electricity
consumption percentage from lighting.

Of course, I would favor efficiency standards for refrigerators and air
conditioners.

- Don Klipstein )

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
..


....except for the mercury in CFL bulbs. We need a solution to the
disposal problem, and fast.

Current CFL's have very little mercury and save enough energy
that if supplied by a coal fired plant, the mercury reduced at the
plant is greater than that in the lamp.

--
Joseph Meehan


Everybody's a comedian tonight.

?????? Are you saying you don't agree?




Question for you: What is the sum of 2+2+2+2+2?

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit

dicko wrote:
I dont understand the big push to convert over to CFLs. I did a little
googling and came up with ...

It is a big push because it is a tool that actually works are reducing
the problem. It certainly is not the whole answer, but add together enough
small answers and you may just maybe reduce the problem.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
..


....except for the mercury in CFL bulbs. We need a solution to the
disposal problem, and fast.

Current CFL's have very little mercury and save enough energy
that if supplied by a coal fired plant, the mercury reduced at the
plant is greater than that in the lamp.

--
Joseph Meehan


Everybody's a comedian tonight.

?????? Are you saying you don't agree?

Actually, it's irrelevant. Mercury in landfills will be a more concentrated
point source, and therefore a potential threat to nearby communities.

In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:


Where much of the electricity comes from coal, CFLs actually reduce
mercury pollution.
I have seen this figure tossed about, but even after Googling AND
Yahooing, I can't find an original (or any approaching) an actual
citation. Anyone know where I ca get it, I'd like to see how it was
figured.


Meanwhile, why hasn't mercury been as big a deal back when 4-foot
fluorescents had 80 milligrams of mercury and CFLs now average 3-4?


Wasn't a big deal before we knew it was a big deal and they are
now much less mercury? Also CFL average 3-4 mg mercury, but how many
more of them would there be if used instead of incandescent and that
woudl do what to the TOTAL amount of mercury floating around.

In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:


In most jurisdictions, household fluorescent bulbs can be disposed of in
regular trash.

They are not supposed to be. EPA suggests recycling or taking to
municipal hazardous materials disposal it at all possible. States may
restrict your ability to put these with regular trash. EPA and others
also suggest a whole different method of disposal (starting with
clearing and sealing the room for 15 minutes while the Hg dissipates)
than with regular lights. All revolves around the mercury.

Eigenvector wrote:

"Noozer" wrote in message
news:i5Tbi.21246$xq1.10947@pd7urf1no...

I just had a thought...

Pushing everyone over to CFLs from incandecent bulbs is supposed to save a
lot of electricity, right?

Well, how much power does it take to cook a roast for a family of five in
your average electric oven? Bet we'd save a lot more money if we forced
everyone over to microwave/convection systems.



Well let us know how it works out okay?


If it's a convection oven, it could very well turn out great.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
..


....except for the mercury in CFL bulbs. We need a solution to the
disposal problem, and fast.

Current CFL's have very little mercury and save enough energy
that if supplied by a coal fired plant, the mercury reduced at the
plant is greater than that in the lamp.

--
Joseph Meehan


Everybody's a comedian tonight.

?????? Are you saying you don't agree?

Actually, it's irrelevant. Mercury in landfills will be a more
concentrated point source, and therefore a potential threat to nearby
communities.

That's assuming the mercury makes it through the concrete liner of the
landfill. AND, you are also assuming the mercury is in a particular form.
Not all forms of mercury are toxic.

"CJT" wrote in message
...
Eigenvector wrote:

"Noozer" wrote in message
news:i5Tbi.21246$xq1.10947@pd7urf1no...

I just had a thought...

Pushing everyone over to CFLs from incandecent bulbs is supposed to save
a lot of electricity, right?

Well, how much power does it take to cook a roast for a family of five in
your average electric oven? Bet we'd save a lot more money if we forced
everyone over to microwave/convection systems.



Well let us know how it works out okay?
If it's a convection oven, it could very well turn out great.

Possibly, but somehow I seriously doubt the original poster is actually
going to try it. Sure would be nice if he did though.

On Jun 13, 10:34 am, Abe wrote:
Pushing everyone over to CFLs from incandecent bulbs is supposed to save a
lot of electricity, right?

Well, how much power does it take to cook a roast for a family of five in
your average electric oven? Bet we'd save a lot more money if we forced
everyone over to microwave/convection systems.

It's not an either/or thing. Plus, microwave/convection ovens don't
cook meats well, in my opinion.

IMO, they don't cook them at all. OTOH, nothing heats a cup of
cold coffee as fast.

In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. net...
In article , "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

In this message, read all the text beginning at the top. You won't see the
connection, but it is definitely there.

I'm sure you see a lot of things that aren't there...

Well, so far, you're the only one here who has not been able to follow the
conversation. Step away from the MD 20/20.

Kanter, somehow *you* turned a conversation about power plant mercury
emissions into a political rant about Dick Cheney. You really should wait to
post until after you've sobered up. When you post in this condition, you make
even less sense than you usually do.

How come you stopped using your real name on your posts, Kanter? Ashamed?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
..


....except for the mercury in CFL bulbs. We need a solution to the
disposal problem, and fast.

Current CFL's have very little mercury and save enough energy
that if supplied by a coal fired plant, the mercury reduced at the
plant is greater than that in the lamp.

--
Joseph Meehan


Everybody's a comedian tonight.

?????? Are you saying you don't agree?

Actually, it's irrelevant. Mercury in landfills will be a more
concentrated point source, and therefore a potential threat to nearby
communities.

I seldom say this, but THAT's CRAZY.

OK, there is some potential logic to it, but it really does not hold up.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
et...
In article , "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
.net...
In article , "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

In this message, read all the text beginning at the top. You won't see
the
connection, but it is definitely there.

I'm sure you see a lot of things that aren't there...

Well, so far, you're the only one here who has not been able to follow the
conversation. Step away from the MD 20/20.

Kanter, somehow *you* turned a conversation about power plant mercury
emissions into a political rant about Dick Cheney. You really should wait
to
post until after you've sobered up. When you post in this condition, you
make
even less sense than you usually do.


Here's your "somehow", professor:

Heybub said this:
"In other words, if we've already made the decision that the Mercury
released
into the environment from coal-powered plants is acceptable to power our
incandescent bulbs, the amount of Mercury in CFLs is more than offset by the
reduced power generation."

I pointed out that the word "we", in his paragraph, was null and void, since
"we" decided nothing. Acceptable emissions levels were decided behind closed
doors by Cheney and a group of attendees whose identity he refused to
reveal. That's where YOU jumped in and made a tinfoil hat comment, which
suggests that Cheney did NOT consider the list of attendees to be a secret.

I taught you that indeed, the list WAS a secret and that the GAO had to hit
him over the head for information.

If a government official meets with some shady character to find out where
American hostages are being held, THAT is a good reason for secrets. But, it
is NOT appropriate to hide the identities of corporate slobs who are
manipulating regulations intended to protect the health of this country.

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
..


....except for the mercury in CFL bulbs. We need a solution to the
disposal problem, and fast.

Current CFL's have very little mercury and save enough energy
that if supplied by a coal fired plant, the mercury reduced at the
plant is greater than that in the lamp.

--
Joseph Meehan


Everybody's a comedian tonight.

?????? Are you saying you don't agree?

Actually, it's irrelevant. Mercury in landfills will be a more
concentrated point source, and therefore a potential threat to nearby
communities.

I seldom say this, but THAT's CRAZY.

OK, there is some potential logic to it, but it really does not hold
up.

--
Joseph Meehan


Why?

In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. net...
In article , "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
y.net...
In article , "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

In this message, read all the text beginning at the top. You won't see
the
connection, but it is definitely there.

I'm sure you see a lot of things that aren't there...

Well, so far, you're the only one here who has not been able to follow the
conversation. Step away from the MD 20/20.

Kanter, somehow *you* turned a conversation about power plant mercury
emissions into a political rant about Dick Cheney. You really should wait to
post until after you've sobered up. When you post in this condition, you make
even less sense than you usually do.

Here's your "somehow", professor:

Heybub said this:
"In other words, if we've already made the decision that the Mercury released
into the environment from coal-powered plants is acceptable to power our
incandescent bulbs, the amount of Mercury in CFLs is more than offset by the
reduced power generation."

I pointed out that the word "we", in his paragraph, was null and void, since
"we" decided nothing. Acceptable emissions levels were decided behind closed
doors by Cheney and a group of attendees whose identity he refused to
reveal. That's where YOU jumped in and made a tinfoil hat comment, which
suggests that Cheney did NOT consider the list of attendees to be a secret.

No, Kanter, it suggested that you're a loon for thinking that Cheney decided
emissions levels behind closed doors.

I taught you that indeed, the list WAS a secret and that the GAO had to hit
him over the head for information.

If a government official meets with some shady character to find out where
American hostages are being held, THAT is a good reason for secrets. But, it
is NOT appropriate to hide the identities of corporate slobs who are
manipulating regulations intended to protect the health of this country.

And now "Moving Target" Kanter has switched the subject *again*. Amazing --
from power plant mercury emissions to "American hostages being held" in just
three posts.

You need to put another layer of foil in your beanie.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
et...
In article , "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
.net...
In article , "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
gy.net...
In article , "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

In this message, read all the text beginning at the top. You won't see
the
connection, but it is definitely there.

I'm sure you see a lot of things that aren't there...

Well, so far, you're the only one here who has not been able to follow
the
conversation. Step away from the MD 20/20.

Kanter, somehow *you* turned a conversation about power plant mercury
emissions into a political rant about Dick Cheney. You really should
wait to
post until after you've sobered up. When you post in this condition, you
make
even less sense than you usually do.

Here's your "somehow", professor:

Heybub said this:
"In other words, if we've already made the decision that the Mercury
released
into the environment from coal-powered plants is acceptable to power our
incandescent bulbs, the amount of Mercury in CFLs is more than offset by
the
reduced power generation."

I pointed out that the word "we", in his paragraph, was null and void,
since
"we" decided nothing. Acceptable emissions levels were decided behind
closed
doors by Cheney and a group of attendees whose identity he refused to
reveal. That's where YOU jumped in and made a tinfoil hat comment, which
suggests that Cheney did NOT consider the list of attendees to be a
secret.

No, Kanter, it suggested that you're a loon for thinking that Cheney
decided
emissions levels behind closed doors.

I taught you that indeed, the list WAS a secret and that the GAO had to
hit
him over the head for information.

If a government official meets with some shady character to find out where
American hostages are being held, THAT is a good reason for secrets. But,
it
is NOT appropriate to hide the identities of corporate slobs who are
manipulating regulations intended to protect the health of this country.

And now "Moving Target" Kanter has switched the subject *again*.
Amazing --
from power plant mercury emissions to "American hostages being held" in
just
three posts.

You need to put another layer of foil in your beanie.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)


Now you're trying to dance and doing a lousy job of it.

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:


Where much of the electricity comes from coal, CFLs actually reduce
mercury pollution.
I have seen this figure tossed about, but even after Googling AND
Yahooing, I can't find an original (or any approaching) an actual
citation. Anyone know where I ca get it, I'd like to see how it was
figured.


Start he

"Mercury emissions from power plants are considered the largest
anthropogenic source of mercury released to the atmosphere; about 48 tons
are emitted annually in the U.S.A. as a result of fossil fuel combustion,
mostly from coal-fired power plants."
http://igs.indiana.edu/Geology/coalO...Coal/index.cfm

And do the math.

Or

"Over five years, a coal power plant will emit 10 milligrams of mercury to
power an incandescent bulb, and only 2.4 milligrams to operate a CFL."
http://www.acterra.org/greenathome/d...ndoutCFLv4.pdf

In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. net...
In article , "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
y.net...
In article , "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
igy.net...
In article , "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

In this message, read all the text beginning at the top. You won't see
the
connection, but it is definitely there.

I'm sure you see a lot of things that aren't there...

Well, so far, you're the only one here who has not been able to follow
the
conversation. Step away from the MD 20/20.

Kanter, somehow *you* turned a conversation about power plant mercury
emissions into a political rant about Dick Cheney. You really should
wait to
post until after you've sobered up. When you post in this condition, you
make
even less sense than you usually do.

Here's your "somehow", professor:

Heybub said this:
"In other words, if we've already made the decision that the Mercury
released
into the environment from coal-powered plants is acceptable to power our
incandescent bulbs, the amount of Mercury in CFLs is more than offset by
the
reduced power generation."

I pointed out that the word "we", in his paragraph, was null and void,
since
"we" decided nothing. Acceptable emissions levels were decided behind
closed
doors by Cheney and a group of attendees whose identity he refused to
reveal. That's where YOU jumped in and made a tinfoil hat comment, which
suggests that Cheney did NOT consider the list of attendees to be a
secret.

No, Kanter, it suggested that you're a loon for thinking that Cheney
decided
emissions levels behind closed doors.

I taught you that indeed, the list WAS a secret and that the GAO had to
hit
him over the head for information.

If a government official meets with some shady character to find out where
American hostages are being held, THAT is a good reason for secrets. But,
it
is NOT appropriate to hide the identities of corporate slobs who are
manipulating regulations intended to protect the health of this country.

And now "Moving Target" Kanter has switched the subject *again*.
Amazing --
from power plant mercury emissions to "American hostages being held" in
just
three posts.

You need to put another layer of foil in your beanie.

Now you're trying to dance and doing a lousy job of it.

That's really pretty funny, coming from you, Kanter -- the guy who constantly
changes the subject every time he's confronted. Forget to take your Ritalin
this morning?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. net...
In article , "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
.net...
In article , "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
gy.net...
In article , "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
digy.net...
In article , "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

In this message, read all the text beginning at the top. You won't
see
the
connection, but it is definitely there.

I'm sure you see a lot of things that aren't there...

Well, so far, you're the only one here who has not been able to follow
the
conversation. Step away from the MD 20/20.

Kanter, somehow *you* turned a conversation about power plant mercury
emissions into a political rant about Dick Cheney. You really should
wait to
post until after you've sobered up. When you post in this condition,
you
make
even less sense than you usually do.

Here's your "somehow", professor:

Heybub said this:
"In other words, if we've already made the decision that the Mercury
released
into the environment from coal-powered plants is acceptable to power our
incandescent bulbs, the amount of Mercury in CFLs is more than offset by
the
reduced power generation."

I pointed out that the word "we", in his paragraph, was null and void,
since
"we" decided nothing. Acceptable emissions levels were decided behind
closed
doors by Cheney and a group of attendees whose identity he refused to
reveal. That's where YOU jumped in and made a tinfoil hat comment, which
suggests that Cheney did NOT consider the list of attendees to be a
secret.

No, Kanter, it suggested that you're a loon for thinking that Cheney
decided
emissions levels behind closed doors.

I taught you that indeed, the list WAS a secret and that the GAO had to
hit
him over the head for information.

If a government official meets with some shady character to find out
where
American hostages are being held, THAT is a good reason for secrets.
But,
it
is NOT appropriate to hide the identities of corporate slobs who are
manipulating regulations intended to protect the health of this country.

And now "Moving Target" Kanter has switched the subject *again*.
Amazing --
from power plant mercury emissions to "American hostages being held" in
just
three posts.

You need to put another layer of foil in your beanie.

Now you're trying to dance and doing a lousy job of it.

That's really pretty funny, coming from you, Kanter -- the guy who
constantly
changes the subject every time he's confronted. Forget to take your
Ritalin
this morning?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)


You're done here, I guess. You are unable to address the subject at hand,
even after it's been rehashed and clearly laid out for you.

On Jun 14, 7:51 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message

...





JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
.. .
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
..

....except for the mercury in CFL bulbs. We need a solution to the
disposal problem, and fast.

Current CFL's have very little mercury and save enough energy
that if supplied by a coal fired plant, the mercury reduced at the
plant is greater than that in the lamp.

--
Joseph Meehan

Everybody's a comedian tonight.

?????? Are you saying you don't agree?

Actually, it's irrelevant. Mercury in landfills will be a more
concentrated point source, and therefore a potential threat to nearby
communities.

I seldom say this, but THAT's CRAZY.

OK, there is some potential logic to it, but it really does not hold
up.

--
Joseph Meehan

Why?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Because, nothing you say makes sense. You're even arguing with
Joseph now, who tried to support your position. And despite your
unsupported attempts to claim Cheney somehow allowed power companies
to spew mercury, below are the actual facts. Like every plan to deal
with pollution in the real world, there is going to be disagreement.
And nothing will ever satisfy the kook environmentalist extremists,
who are against everything. A classic example is wind power.
That's all the environmentalists have been bitching about for years.
We should rely on solar and wind. Well, guess what? Here in NJ
there is a plan to start building offshore windmills to generate
electricity. Guess whose blocking that? Why, the
environmentalists, of course. Same thing off Cape Cod.

The cap and trade program may not be perfect. But it's more than we
had in the past and will REDUCE mercury emissions. BTW, if you don't
like cap and trade, what do you think about all the environmentalists,
like Al Gore that think trading carbon offsets is peachy keen, and
cleanses their hands as they ride in private jets and live in multiple
10,000 sq ft houses? That kook concept has no cap and it's one of
the biggest frauds ever perpetrated.

Oh, and BTW, it's kind of stupid to cite Harry Reid in your
arguments. Last time I checked, he runs the Senate and his party
controls both houses of Congress. So, if they don't like the mercury
limits, they are free to pass legislation any time.


http://www.epa.gov/oar/mercuryrule/basic.htm
On March 15, 2005, EPA issued the first-ever federal rule to
permanently cap and reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired power
plants. This rule makes the United States the first country in the
world to regulate mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants.

The Clean Air Mercury Rule will build on EPA's Clean Air Interstate
Rule (CAIR) to significantly reduce emissions from coal-fired power
plants -- the largest remaining sources of mercury emissions in the
country. When fully implemented, these rules will reduce utility
emissions of mercury from 48 tons a year to 15 tons, a reduction of
nearly 70 percent.
CAIR and the Clean Air Mercury Rule are important components of the
Bush Administration's plan to improve air quality. The Administration
remains committed to working with Congress to help advance the
President's Clear Skies legislation in order to achieve greater
certainty and nationwide emission reductions, but believes the U.S.
needs regulations in place now.
EPA believes it makes sense to address mercury, SO2 and NOx emissions
simultaneously through CAIR and the Clean Air Mercury Rule. These
rules will protect public health and the environment without
interfering with the steady flow of affordable energy for American
consumers and business.
The Clean Air Mercury Rule establishes "standards of performance"
limiting mercury emissions from new and existing coal-fired power
plants and creates a market-based cap-and-trade program that will
reduce nationwide utility emissions of mercury in two distinct phases.
The first phase cap is 38 tons and emissions will be reduced by taking
advantage of "co-benefit" reductions - that is, mercury reductions
achieved by reducing sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx)
emissions under CAIR. In the second phase, due in 2018, coal-fired
power plants will be subject to a second cap, which will reduce
emissions to 15 tons upon full implementation.
New coal-fired power plants ("new" means construction starting on or
after Jan. 30, 2004) will have to meet stringent new source
performance standards in addition to being subject to the caps.
Mercury is a toxic, persistent pollutant that accumulates in the food
chain. Mercury in the air is a global problem. While fossil fuel-fired
power plants are the largest remaining source of human-generated
mercury emissions in the United States, they contribute only a small
amount (about 1 percent) of total annual mercury emissions worldwide.
EPA's modeling shows that CAIR will significantly reduce the majority
of the coal-fired power plant mercury emissions that deposit in the
United States, and those reductions will occur in areas where mercury
deposition is currently the highest. The Clean Air Mercury Rule is
expected to make additional reductions in emissions that are
transported regionally and deposited domestically, and it will reduce
emissions that contribute to atmospheric mercury worldwide.
Mercury Emissions

On Jun 13, 3:52 pm, "Proctologically Violated©®"

Think soy protein.

I think soy protein is fit for animals to eat.

Cindy Hamilton

In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
.net...
In article , "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
y.net...
In article , "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
igy.net...
In article , "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
odigy.net...
In article , "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

In this message, read all the text beginning at the top. You won't
see
the
connection, but it is definitely there.

I'm sure you see a lot of things that aren't there...

Well, so far, you're the only one here who has not been able to follow
the
conversation. Step away from the MD 20/20.

Kanter, somehow *you* turned a conversation about power plant mercury
emissions into a political rant about Dick Cheney. You really should
wait to
post until after you've sobered up. When you post in this condition,
you
make
even less sense than you usually do.

Here's your "somehow", professor:

Heybub said this:
"In other words, if we've already made the decision that the Mercury
released
into the environment from coal-powered plants is acceptable to power our
incandescent bulbs, the amount of Mercury in CFLs is more than offset by
the
reduced power generation."

I pointed out that the word "we", in his paragraph, was null and void,
since
"we" decided nothing. Acceptable emissions levels were decided behind
closed
doors by Cheney and a group of attendees whose identity he refused to
reveal. That's where YOU jumped in and made a tinfoil hat comment, which
suggests that Cheney did NOT consider the list of attendees to be a
secret.

No, Kanter, it suggested that you're a loon for thinking that Cheney
decided
emissions levels behind closed doors.

I taught you that indeed, the list WAS a secret and that the GAO had to
hit
him over the head for information.

If a government official meets with some shady character to find out
where
American hostages are being held, THAT is a good reason for secrets.
But,
it
is NOT appropriate to hide the identities of corporate slobs who are
manipulating regulations intended to protect the health of this country.

And now "Moving Target" Kanter has switched the subject *again*.
Amazing --
from power plant mercury emissions to "American hostages being held" in
just
three posts.

You need to put another layer of foil in your beanie.

Now you're trying to dance and doing a lousy job of it.

That's really pretty funny, coming from you, Kanter -- the guy who
constantly
changes the subject every time he's confronted. Forget to take your
Ritalin
this morning?

You're done here, I guess. You are unable to address the subject at hand,
even after it's been rehashed and clearly laid out for you.

You've apparently forgotten that the "subject at hand" was mercury, which
you're clearly unable to address without going off on tangents about Dick
Cheney, secret meetings, American hostages, and whatever else may occur to you
in the next five seconds.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article . com, wrote:

http://www.epa.gov/oar/mercuryrule/basic.htm
On March 15, 2005, EPA issued the first-ever federal rule to
permanently cap and reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired power
plants. This rule makes the United States the first country in the
world to regulate mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants.

Note to Kanter: this happened while the evil Dick Cheney was VP.

The Clean Air Mercury Rule will build on EPA's Clean Air Interstate
Rule (CAIR) to significantly reduce emissions from coal-fired power
plants -- the largest remaining sources of mercury emissions in the
country. When fully implemented, these rules will reduce utility
emissions of mercury from 48 tons a year to 15 tons, a reduction of
nearly 70 percent.
CAIR and the Clean Air Mercury Rule are important components of the
Bush Administration's plan to improve air quality.

Note to Kanter: that's the same Bush Administration that the evil Dick Cheney
is part of.


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article . com,
wrote:



The cap and trade program may not be perfect. But it's more than we
had in the past and will REDUCE mercury emissions. BTW, if you don't
like cap and trade, what do you think about all the environmentalists,
like Al Gore that think trading carbon offsets is peachy keen, and
cleanses their hands as they ride in private jets and live in multiple
10,000 sq ft houses? That kook concept has no cap and it's one of
the biggest frauds ever perpetrated.

There are two levels of hypocrasy here. One is the buying and
selling of carbon production quotas (bad word here, but best I can come
up with). Basically that is where some plant somewhere can under the
regs produce x amount of carbon but only uses x-y amount. They can then
sell the rest of their quota on the open market. Sometimes it is bought
by those who produce v+z carbon and need to get the okay to produce
more. It can also be bought by those like Al who want everybody else to
cut back but themselves (sorta like buying dispensations from the Church
a while back). The third (true environmentalists to my mind) buy them
and retire them so nobody can use them and amount of carbon goes down.
The REAL fraud is in the non-marketable offsets. In this case (and
my understanding is it Al's biggest "contribution") they pay someone to
plant a tree to use as a carbon sink to "offset" so much carbon. This is
just a scam of the highest magnitude.

On Jun 14, 10:03 am, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article . com,

wrote:

The cap and trade program may not be perfect. But it's more than we
had in the past and will REDUCE mercury emissions. BTW, if you don't
like cap and trade, what do you think about all the environmentalists,
like Al Gore that think trading carbon offsets is peachy keen, and
cleanses their hands as they ride in private jets and live in multiple
10,000 sq ft houses? That kook concept has no cap and it's one of
the biggest frauds ever perpetrated.

There are two levels of hypocrasy here. One is the buying and
selling of carbon production quotas (bad word here, but best I can come
up with). Basically that is where some plant somewhere can under the
regs produce x amount of carbon but only uses x-y amount. They can then
sell the rest of their quota on the open market. Sometimes it is bought
by those who produce v+z carbon and need to get the okay to produce
more. It can also be bought by those like Al who want everybody else to
cut back but themselves (sorta like buying dispensations from the Church
a while back). The third (true environmentalists to my mind) buy them
and retire them so nobody can use them and amount of carbon goes down.
The REAL fraud is in the non-marketable offsets. In this case (and
my understanding is it Al's biggest "contribution") they pay someone to
plant a tree to use as a carbon sink to "offset" so much carbon. This is
just a scam of the highest magnitude.



It's a scam because in the case of the carbon offsets, there are no
caps or monitoring of anything worldwide. In China, you could build a
new dirty power plant, then get dopes to pay you millions to clean it
up. The case of a true cap and trade free market program, with
monitoring, like the mercury program, is very different. That is a
very good system and any decent and fair economist will tell you it
achieves an efficient solution. It's not perfect and there are some
legitimate problems with it, but it does reduce overall emissions to
the target level.

Doug Miller wrote:

One of many articles on the issue:

"The Cheney case centered on whether the GAO could demand to know
who met with the interagency task force, chaired by Cheney, that
wrote Bush's energy policy. Democrats had argued that Big Business
was having too much influence in the process. When Cheney refused to
cooperate, the GAO went to court for the first time in its 81-year
history." http://www.post-gazette.com/nation/2...eneynat7p7.asp

Q: What does that have to do with mercury emissions from power plants?
A: Absolutely nothing, as is typical for Doug "Moving Target" Kanter.

So what? Cheney and his group evidently made no decision about Mercury. The
decision on Mercury vis-a-vis the environment was made in 1995 (amendment to
the 1990 Clean Air Act).

"On March 15, 2005, EPA issued the Clean Air Mercury Rule to permanently cap
and reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants for the first time
ever. This rule, combined with EPA's Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), will
significantly reduce emissions from the nation's largest remaining source of
human-caused mercury emissions."

http://www.epa.gov/mercury/control_emissions/index.htm

Evidently, it was the Clinton administration (1995) that set previously high
Mercury standards and the Bush administration (2005) that lowered them.

Sorry.

On Jun 13, 10:23 am, "Noozer" wrote:
I just had a thought...

Pushing everyone over to CFLs from incandecent bulbs is supposed to save a
lot of electricity, right?

Well, how much power does it take to cook a roast for a family of five in
your average electric oven? Bet we'd save a lot more money if we forced
everyone over to microwave/convection systems.

I use a fluorescent oven to save energy.

"z" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jun 13, 10:23 am, "Noozer" wrote:
I just had a thought...

Pushing everyone over to CFLs from incandecent bulbs is supposed to save
a
lot of electricity, right?

Well, how much power does it take to cook a roast for a family of five in
your average electric oven? Bet we'd save a lot more money if we forced
everyone over to microwave/convection systems.

I use a fluorescent oven to save energy.


Hmm. A couple of weeks to warm up some bread? :-)

On Jun 13, 8:47 pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:



In most jurisdictions, household fluorescent bulbs can be disposed of in
regular trash.

They are not supposed to be. EPA suggests recycling or taking to
municipal hazardous materials disposal it at all possible. States may
restrict your ability to put these with regular trash. EPA and others
also suggest a whole different method of disposal (starting with
clearing and sealing the room for 15 minutes while the Hg dissipates)
than with regular lights. All revolves around the mercury.

No they don't, they recommend you open a window.
http://www.nema.org/lamprecycle/epafactsheet-cfl.pdf

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 14:23:10 GMT, "Noozer" wrote:

I just had a thought...

Pushing everyone over to CFLs from incandecent bulbs is supposed to save a
lot of electricity, right?

Well, how much power does it take to cook a roast for a family of five in
your average electric oven? Bet we'd save a lot more money if we forced
everyone over to microwave/convection systems.



NewScientist magazine recently ran an article on how long the minerals
in the Earth will last. It had this sentence in it

"He estimates that Zinc cold be used up by 2037, Both indium and
Hafnium - which is increasingly important in computer chips - could be
gone by 2017, and Terbium - used to make the green phosphors in
fluorescent lights could run out before 2012."

So the way I read this is that with the current demand for Terbium, we
stop making fluorescent lights in 5 years. With the increased demand
from CFLs, its some time sooner. Is that right? In 5 years we'll be
sitting in the dark and in 10 years we wont even be able to watch TV
while sitting in the dark.

I think I'm gonna make some large investments in the recycling
industry.

dickm

dicko wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 14:23:10 GMT, "Noozer" wrote:

I just had a thought...

Pushing everyone over to CFLs from incandecent bulbs is supposed to
save a lot of electricity, right?

Well, how much power does it take to cook a roast for a family of
five in your average electric oven? Bet we'd save a lot more money
if we forced everyone over to microwave/convection systems.



NewScientist magazine recently ran an article on how long the minerals
in the Earth will last. It had this sentence in it

"He estimates that Zinc cold be used up by 2037, Both indium and
Hafnium - which is increasingly important in computer chips - could be
gone by 2017, and Terbium - used to make the green phosphors in
fluorescent lights could run out before 2012."

So the way I read this is that with the current demand for Terbium, we
stop making fluorescent lights in 5 years. With the increased demand
from CFLs, its some time sooner. Is that right? In 5 years we'll be
sitting in the dark and in 10 years we wont even be able to watch TV
while sitting in the dark.

I think I'm gonna make some large investments in the recycling
industry.

dickm

That's OK; the world ends in 9 years, anyway.

Pop` wrote:
dicko wrote:

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 14:23:10 GMT, "Noozer" wrote:


I just had a thought...

Pushing everyone over to CFLs from incandecent bulbs is supposed to
save a lot of electricity, right?

Well, how much power does it take to cook a roast for a family of
five in your average electric oven? Bet we'd save a lot more money
if we forced everyone over to microwave/convection systems.



NewScientist magazine recently ran an article on how long the minerals
in the Earth will last. It had this sentence in it

"He estimates that Zinc cold be used up by 2037, Both indium and
Hafnium - which is increasingly important in computer chips - could be
gone by 2017, and Terbium - used to make the green phosphors in
fluorescent lights could run out before 2012."

So the way I read this is that with the current demand for Terbium, we
stop making fluorescent lights in 5 years. With the increased demand
from CFLs, its some time sooner. Is that right? In 5 years we'll be
sitting in the dark and in 10 years we wont even be able to watch TV
while sitting in the dark.

I think I'm gonna make some large investments in the recycling
industry.

dickm


That's OK; the world ends in 9 years, anyway.


Dubya has been trying to accelerate that for the past 6 years.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .