|
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: A number of utilities have purchased changes in the rules so they can avoid paying for improvements to coal burning facilities. And I do mean purchased. Environmentally speaking, there isn't much more the modern coal-fueled facility can do. I haven't seen any SMOKE coming from the stacks around here in decades. -- :) JR |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
"Jim Redelfs" wrote in message
... In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: A number of utilities have purchased changes in the rules so they can avoid paying for improvements to coal burning facilities. And I do mean purchased. Environmentally speaking, there isn't much more the modern coal-fueled facility can do. I haven't seen any SMOKE coming from the stacks around here in decades. -- :) JR Yah OK. |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
In article , ransley wrote:
Again JOE SPARE BEDROOM POSTS **** what dribble from a **** head Pot - kettle - black ... |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 21:33:00 -0600, dpb wrote:
Paul Franklin wrote: ... But it seems to me that vilifying environmentalists as having done no good by opposing nuclear power is an inconsistent argument when at the same time one praises the nuclear industry's safety record. Here's why: ... If you're criticizing me, I've never said there wasn't value in environmental work -- I've only criticized the demonization of nuclear and the manner in which many environmentalist organizations have told less than the honest story of what the relative risks are of one alternative vis a vis another. And I agree with you. It's unfortunate that groups of all types on all sides of most issues, not just this one, seem to feel it's necessary to take extreme positions or overstate their case to make a point. This just generally seems to contribute more noise, when we need more signal. (Don't get me started on the appalling lack of critical thinking we see on all fronts :-) ) It is indeed unfortunate that the US nuclear power industry has been stalled, for whatever reasons, for so long. If we do turn back in that direction, we will greatly miss the additional experience and history we would have gained with even a few new plants. Slow but steady rollout and testing of new designs, materials, operating procedures, maintenance, security, etc. would have provided not only invaluable real world data, but would have given the public more confidence in the industry and would have helped silence some of the most extreme rhetoric. Restarting the domestic nuclear program will require lots of talent with rather specialized skills, and we haven't been doing much to build the talent pool. If we're going to restart, let's do it soon so the industry can grow slowly and cautiously. Paul F. |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
In article ,
Paul Franklin wrote: vilifying environmentalists and others who oppose nuclear energy without recognizing that they have had and should have a valid role in the system of checks and balances is wrong, IMO. I respectfully disagree. The environmental movement did MUCH to vilify nuclear power generation with no basis in fact or experience. TMI's little "belch" of irradiated steam, magnified a million times by a mass media with a well documented anti-nuke bias and Hanoi Jane's little movie did the rest. Any group with a baseless counter agenda should NOT be part of a system of checks and balances. -- :) JR |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
Paul Franklin writes:
Been following this thread with interest, and sometimes a little amusement, I might add. In general, I agree with the position that nuclear is probably the best short/medium term solution to providing our energy needs. But it seems to me that vilifying environmentalists as having done no good by opposing nuclear power is an inconsistent argument when at the same time one praises the nuclear industry's safety record. Here's why: The current state of affairs, both good and bad aspects, was arrived at via long series of events. Demands of the market, developments by industry, regulation and oversight by federal agencies, and yes, opposition by citizens and environmental groups, all intertwine in a system of action, reaction, checks, balances, disturbances and corrections. One can't rationally blame environmentalists for all the bad and give credit to industry for all the good in such a complex situation. Reality is somewhere in the middle. Agree completely. Won't work in this thread though. Here everything is either good or evil. |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: there's an important word to keep in mind when you're tempted to use the word "environmentalist". Try substituting the word "customer", which pretty much ends all disagreements about whether it's important to address people's concerns. Not at all. Call them what you like, they are still extremists with an anti-nuke agenda. As such, they should be mostly, if not completely, discounted. My doctor has stopped using the word "patient", and uses "customer" instead, since it's much more correct For tripping over such semantics, your doctor is an idiot. I can just see the kindly, old, bespectacled M.D. enter his PATIENT'S room during grand rounds and ask, "How is my CUSTOMER doing this morning?" Gag me. it takes him down a notch from the pedestal on which some doctors place themselves. As usual, you're wrong again. (Habit-forming, isn't it?) It is those the M.D. SAVES and cures that place him/her on a pedestal. Admittedly, some physicians LIKE it "up there" and make no effort to come down, but few self-ascend to such a status. Then there's you: Not an M.D. yet you have ascended to a pedestal of your own making. It must be quite a balancing act to stay up there considering the stack of chips on each shoulder. You will now ask why ALL customers don't express the same concerns as the subset you like to call "environmentalists". Why ask something to which I already know the answer? The answer is a very simple one. Let's see if you know the answer. Of course, you won't like it but, here it is: They are informed and rational. The subset to which you refer is not. Now wasn't that simple? No wonder it eluded you. -- :) JR |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: Imagine if the subject had involved 100w bulbs instead! It would have attracted even more DIM BULBS than this one. -- snotty grin JR |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: I have a theory which says that if bus occupancy increased that much, it might be possible to buy more busses. I'm not sure, though. I'll bet you're not. Ridership has NOTHING to do (anymore) with buying new busses. Additional fleecing of the non-riding taxpayer has EVERYTHING to do with it. You're welcome. -- :) JR |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote: maybe that's because most all of them stunk,so they were all used to being around stinky people..... and being diehard bike commuters,were more tolerant of odor caused by biking. Geez, you guys. Get over it. Wearing CLEAN clothing, the average CLEAN body can sweat profusely and generate little odor. Aren't you glad you use Dial? Don't you wish everyone did? -- :) JR |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 22:14:14 -0600, Jim Redelfs
wrote: In article , Paul Franklin wrote: vilifying environmentalists and others who oppose nuclear energy without recognizing that they have had and should have a valid role in the system of checks and balances is wrong, IMO. I respectfully disagree. The environmental movement did MUCH to vilify nuclear power generation with no basis in fact or experience. TMI's little "belch" of irradiated steam, magnified a million times by a mass media with a well documented anti-nuke bias and Hanoi Jane's little movie did the rest. Any group with a baseless counter agenda should NOT be part of a system of checks and balances. In any discourse, there will always be outliers. Groups with extreme views driven by ignorance, hidden (or not) agendas, or other motivations. In science and engineering, outliers in data receive special scrutiny. When such scrutiny reveals valid reasons for excluding them from further consideration, they are set aside. Not removed from the record, but set aside for valid reasons. We need to do the same in public discourse and policy. Critically examine the points and counter points and set aside the ones that are truly outliers and invalid. This requires a great deal of leadership, critical thinking, and impartiality. You don't have to convince me that those skills are way too rare in our chosen leaders. We need leaders who can identify and set aside the outliers, and then make an informed decision on the basis of what remains. So I agree with you. If a group's position, under the cold light of critical thinking, is determined to be an outlier, then it should be excluded from the remainder of the decision making process. But a point I am would like to make is this. One can't exclude a post ion just because it appears to be outside the mainstream. (I don't mean to imply that's what your doing, but there's a lot of it going on out there) One must do the study, do the analysis, apply critical thinking, and make the informed decision. Now what I didn't take care to do in my previous post was to make it clear that I believe environmental groups and other opponents of nuclear power should not be lumped all together and painted with a broad brush. Some are outliers, others can add value to the discussion. I believe this is true with the other side(s) as well. Paul F. |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
... In article , ransley wrote: Again JOE SPARE BEDROOM POSTS **** what dribble from a **** head Pot - kettle - black ... Miller, a long time ago, you put the bottle to your head and pulled the trigger. |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
"Jim Redelfs" wrote in message
... In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: there's an important word to keep in mind when you're tempted to use the word "environmentalist". Try substituting the word "customer", which pretty much ends all disagreements about whether it's important to address people's concerns. Not at all. Call them what you like, they are still extremists with an anti-nuke agenda. As such, they should be mostly, if not completely, discounted. My doctor has stopped using the word "patient", and uses "customer" instead, since it's much more correct For tripping over such semantics, your doctor is an idiot. I can just see the kindly, old, bespectacled M.D. enter his PATIENT'S room during grand rounds and ask, "How is my CUSTOMER doing this morning?" Gag me. it takes him down a notch from the pedestal on which some doctors place themselves. As usual, you're wrong again. (Habit-forming, isn't it?) It is those the M.D. SAVES and cures that place him/her on a pedestal. Admittedly, some physicians LIKE it "up there" and make no effort to come down, but few self-ascend to such a status. Then there's you: Not an M.D. yet you have ascended to a pedestal of your own making. It must be quite a balancing act to stay up there considering the stack of chips on each shoulder. You will now ask why ALL customers don't express the same concerns as the subset you like to call "environmentalists". Why ask something to which I already know the answer? The answer is a very simple one. Let's see if you know the answer. Of course, you won't like it but, here it is: They are informed and rational. The subset to which you refer is not. Now wasn't that simple? No wonder it eluded you. -- :) JR No. 54% of the country questions nothing at all. For the remaining 46%, further discussion is in order. |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
Kurt Ullman wrote:
Heck Teddy Kennedy's car has killed more people than nuclear plants, and I have seen the bumper sticker that proves it...(g) Go ahead, blame the car. What about the 2nd Amendment? No, wait. Nevermind. |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message t... In article , ransley wrote: Again JOE SPARE BEDROOM POSTS **** what dribble from a **** head Pot - kettle - black ... Miller, a long time ago, you put the bottle to your head and pulled the trigger. You forgot your meds again, Kanter -- you're making even less sense than usual today. |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
dpb wrote:
bud-- wrote: .... Some people were killed by direct radiation at Chernobyl, including firemen spraying water on the reactor. And many in the general population died from more indirect effects, like fallout. Different reactor type than US. None of these fit Doug's 'nobody killed in the US in power generation'. Yes, I also specifically limited the discussion to LWR reactors. As somebody else mentioned way back in the thread, the Chernobyl reactor did not have a containment building at all in the sense of what we think of--it was simply in a metal-clad building. Such a reactor would never have been built in any of the western nations. The Chernobyl design and the operational misdeeds that lead to the event are prime examples of "how _NOT_ to do it". I don't remember the radiation released from Three Mile Island, but there could have been indirect deaths as at Chernobyl. And uranium miners have died from radon breakdown or other radiation effects. While TMI is a "could be", there are no confirmable injuries or deaths in the general public (or in the workforce at the plant, either) around TMI that can be attributed to those releases. In talking w/ a co-worker who spent a great deal of time on site during and immediately after the event (while they were still dealing with the "H bubble" in the SG upper leg), he said his greatest concern was being run over by the teeming hordes of media reporters every time he approached or left the plant. :) .... As simply some background information, while there was a massive release of fission products from Chernobyl, it was _not_ a "nuclear accident" in that there was not a nuclear explosion as in a weapon. The reactor over-heated owing to mis-operation following a turbine overspeed trip test which was conducted in violation of several safety procedures in that all proscribed systems were not operational at the time. Anyway, it was the fire that was the real culprit combined with the atrocious design feature of having no reactor containment building as do all LWRs worldwide. Being a graphite-moderated pile reactor design, when the temperature reached a critical point, the graphite ignited and that fire was the main feature of the accident. At its peak, it was hot enough that it disassociated the H and O in water sprayed on it in attempts to contain it. This type of accident is not physically realizable in a LWR, either P- or B- type. As they are water-moderated. TMI was a core-melt accidental LOCA (not the double-guillotine design type, but manually induced by operator error(s) following the initial reactor trip and stuck-open PORV). In that event, owing to the design features and the containment, while there was significant fuel melt, containment was not breached and once the fresh shift came on duty and recognized what the previous shift had done wrong and restarted the primary RCPs and HPI to re-cover the core w/ primary coolant and establish primary coolant circulation, the incident was under control. As noted earlier, if the operating shift had recognized they had an incident that had been specifically addressed in (then) recent bulletins to all utilities of the specific reactor design, they would undoubtedly have not been fooled as they were and taken proper action initially and the whole thing would have been simply a relatively short outage to repair the PORV and implement the upgrades/operational guidances. The upshot is, however, that while expensive, it essentially was a test of the design and systems intended to deal with a LOCA that was as if a full-scale test reactor had been sacrificed to prove the systems adequate to the task. -- |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 22:36:58 -0600, Jim Redelfs wrote:
In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: I have a theory which says that if bus occupancy increased that much, it might be possible to buy more busses. I'm not sure, though. I'll bet you're not. Ridership has NOTHING to do (anymore) with buying new busses. Additional fleecing of the non-riding taxpayer has EVERYTHING to do with it. I was wondering when the psychotic trolls would chime in. You're welcome. |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
Pete C. wrote:
Jim Yanik wrote: "Pete C." wrote in : Phisherman wrote: On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 03:28:42 -0600, Jim Redelfs wrote: Say "goodbye" to the venerable 100w and 75w, cheap, light bulb. (Thomas Alva Edison will surely turn over in his grave). And say "Hello" to additional mercury compounds (from fluorescent tubes) seeping into our soils. Supposedly the 75% power savings prevents more mercury emissions from coal fired power plants than the mercury contained in the lamp. Then they want us to convert to electric autos... Using nuclear power plants will eliminate even more mercury emissions. If anything,we should be converting our coal to auto fuels,and drilling in ANWR for more US oil.And buying from Canada. What we really should do is: - Quickly build a number of new nuclear plants (which have a long safe emissions free track record) I am well informed supporter of nuclear power. Your immediately preceeding sentence tells me you are a cheerleader witout srious knowledge f the facilities. Even with pebble bed technology, commercial power reactor construction is not somethingone does "quickly". You can have two of the following with rregad to any major engineering project: on time, on budget, or works, You choose. And we'll wait while you Google pebble bed tehnology. Plant siting is not solely effected by NIMBYs or BANANAs (Again, we'll wait while you Google BANANA.) There are always serious seismic issues for any power plant, including windills, nukes, and tide generators. Ignore them at you peril Nukes pollute as much as, but differently from, fossil fueled generators. The thermal pollution from nukes is far greater than with a similar mega wattage fossil plant. Particulate and gas emmissions with nukes are far lower. "Spent" nuclear fuel has its own unique issues. The primary two, diversion and longeity, can both be dealyt with with acceptable risks. Who is going to operate your nukes? Please don't say the IOPCs and their staffs (Again we'll wait while you Google IOPCs.) Where is the capital to come from for building your nukes? - Shut down all of the emissions belching coal and NG plants "...all..." You live in a fantasy world as extreme and as unconnected from reality as the Luddite anti nukers. - Provide separately metered very low cost electricity for charging electric vehicles / plug in hybrids - Provide low cost NG for commercial vehicles, providing an incentive to convert some of the critical trucking from diesel. - Drill ANWR using the proven clean, safe directional drilling technology from a limited number of locations located at the edges of ANWR and having near zero environmental impact. Screw ANWR, drill seriously in the Gulf of Texas and off the Northern California / Oregon / Washington coast. The reserves are there and the return is a lot quicker than ANWR. - Provide support for development of practical renewable resources as appropriate for a given area, without preferences that lead to impractical development that leads to construction of facilities for the initial subsidies and then subsequent write off of operating losses. What does rhat mean in English? - Provide protection from baseless NIMBY lawsuits, baseless environmentalist lawsuits, HOA restrictions, etc. for development and installation of renewable facilities, both commercial and private. Plenty more that should be done, but those are starters. Of course something like this starts to become a comprehensive energy policy, something our useless government (both left and right wings) can't manage to put together. |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
HeyBub wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote: Just shows you what pussies the so-called "arms control experts are." Even I can think of a way to deal with "rogue states." Yeah, I'm sure you can think of a way, and it gives you a hard-on. Too bad your way doesn't involve a brain. "Getting a hard on" is just a fringe benefit. Killing the mopes is where it's at. It's in the Book. Ain't the Quran wonnerful? |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
That latest intelligence stinker about Iran seems to have stopped him from waving his dick around for the moment. Now, if only we could silence people like HeyBub. The Stalinists on the left ceaselessly out themseles. Joe's solution to serious political debate is to silence those who dare to disagree with him. Yeah, I sure wat to live in a country governed by the principles of Joe and his ilk. |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 22:15:47 -0600, dpb wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote: ... ... Money is the only thing that makes people behave correctly. You know that. No, I don't "know that". Didn't seem to be much of a motivating factor for Mother Teresa. She was subsidized you idiot. |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
In article , Jim Yanik wrote:
(Don Klipstein) wrote in : In article , Jim Yanik wrote: Wayne Boatwright wrote in .173.184: On Wed 26 Dec 2007 03:19:50p, Jim Yanik told us... My boss, who is a frequest iron man competitor, routinely rides his bike to work several or more times per week (no bus for him). He lives about 20 miles from work. I hope there's a shower where you work! Otherwise;EWWWW,skunkola! I have worked at two places already where many people commute by bike, and some or most of the people ride bikes for the job. Neither workplace had a shower, and one of them was a bicycle messenger dispatch office. I never heard many complaints about biker odors, except for a couple with apparent mental problems and who did not keep their jobs long. - Don Klipstein ) maybe that's because most all of them stunk,so they were all used to being around stinky people..... and being diehard bike commuters,were more tolerant of odor caused by biking. But bike messenger customers did not say we stunk, and the dispatchers did not say we stunk, and the people for the other company (including their shippers) who had most of the space in the building (and gave us many of our deliveries) did not say we stunk. And non-bike-commuting portion of the sandwich shop people where I do the sandwich delivery job and their customers don't say we stink. - Don Klipstein ) |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
MERCIFUL SNIPPAGE Time for a reality check. Boston is not a peninsula. Oddly enough, neither is Long *Island*, but Joe never lets facts get in the way of his fervid delusions. |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
|
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
In article , Jim Yanik wrote:
(Don Klipstein) wrote in : In article , Jim Yanik wrote: (Don Klipstein) wrote in : In article , Jim Yanik wrote: Wayne Boatwright wrote in news:Xns9A12EDDA95DDFwayneboatwrightatgma@69. 28.173.184: On Wed 26 Dec 2007 03:19:50p, Jim Yanik told us... My boss, who is a frequest iron man competitor, routinely rides his bike to work several or more times per week (no bus for him). He lives about 20 miles from work. I hope there's a shower where you work! Otherwise;EWWWW,skunkola! I have worked at two places already where many people commute by bike, and some or most of the people ride bikes for the job. Neither workplace had a shower, and one of them was a bicycle messenger dispatch office. I never heard many complaints about biker odors, except for a couple with apparent mental problems and who did not keep their jobs long. - Don Klipstein ) maybe that's because most all of them stunk,so they were all used to being around stinky people..... and being diehard bike commuters,were more tolerant of odor caused by biking. But bike messenger customers did not say we stunk, and the dispatchers did not say we stunk, and the people for the other company (including their shippers) who had most of the space in the building (and gave us many of our deliveries) did not say we stunk. And non-bike-commuting portion of the sandwich shop people where I do the sandwich delivery job and their customers don't say we stink. - Don Klipstein ) maybe they just figured it was your natural state? ;-) Of course,many people,especially these days,will not voice their beefs,as it often brings adverse reactions. Not brought up by the stuffy stuffed-shirts most stuffy law firm among the messenger customers that was willing to complain about bicycle messengers with visibly mismatched socks. And the messengers were required to wear long pants rather than shorts by the messenger firm that I worked for then, even on every July and August weekday with whatever weather downtown Philadelphia gets that time of year. Having to wear long pants on a 95-99 degree F day with tropical humidity was addressed more by the bosses (they reinforced requirement to wear long pants) than body odor except to one misfit who failed to keep his job too long there in large part to wearing clothes with stale old sweat. And certainly some of the printing/publishing firm employees upstairs that enough of the messengers went to innorder to deliver incoming packages or to pick up outgoing ones complained about dress, appearance, behavior, and sanity of the messengers both generically and specifically as in specifically to specific individuals but did not complain about odor thereof! Fresh sweat by fit individuals who are expert at sweating and wearing clothes lacking stale sweat has a high rate of not stinking! Even has a pretty good rate of not changing from non-stinking to stinking within 8-10 or so hours for that matter! - Don Klipstein ) |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: ... ...and I wonder about nuclear plant security as well. Ever been to visit a US commercial nuclear site? -- No. But, my trust level these days is virtually zero. Matches your credibility level. |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
dpb wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "dpb" wrote in message ... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "dpb" wrote in message ... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "dpb" wrote in message ... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: ... ...and I wonder about nuclear plant security as well. Ever been to visit a US commercial nuclear site? No. But, my trust level these days is virtually zero. Well, maybe some education on issues you're ranting against would be a worthy objective as a New Year's resolution. Education is always a good thing. I read constantly. But, no matter how much I learn, I can't keep your washing machine from breaking down or keep you from setting your hair on fire by getting too close to your BBQ. Know what I mean? Not with respect to nuclear facility safety, no. -- In other words, my knowledge is not likely to change physical occurrences elsewhere. I deal in absolutes. If I can't see and touch something, I don't trust it. You can talk all day long about nuke plant security, but as long as there are human beings involved, I will always have doubts. So, how do you manage to live from day to day? Every action you take is also dependent upon someone else whether it's getting on the train you're so fond of or an airplane or just crossing the street or even in opening a carton of milk. Consider this -- there have been _ZERO_ (that's none, nada, not a one, nil, ...) deaths caused from a nuclear accident in a commercial nuclear facility in the US in the existence of the industry. That constitutes something on the order of 40 years times roughly 60 operating units or 2400 reactor-years of operation and not a single fatality(*). Of course ifyou want to seea really safe and well run nuclear power pogram, look at the US Nay. Makes the civilian commercial power reactor programs look poitiively Evel Knevil-ish. That's a good demonstration that taking care and fail-safe design techniques work. There are folks (I happened to have an adjacent office to one for about 15 years) who continually take every incident at every operating facility and analyze it for root cause(s) and evaluate what, if anything, went wrong and how to modify or upgrade procedures and/or equipment or training to ensure it doesn't occur elsewhere and that other utility operators of similar facilities are made aware of how to deal with it were it to occur at one of their facilities as well. The difference in the nuclear utility operations as opposed to the kind of daily "run of the mill" accidents you're aware of is that the level of design of the facilities for safety and the backup systems and training in place in the event of operational failures are at a far higher level of redundancy and contingent planning than virtually any other industry. While the level of QA and QC and inspection, etc., in the civilian aviation business is of similar level, there isn't a backup parachute for everybody to bail. So, while remarkably safe overall, airplanes do crash on occasion at a level of risk society in general considers acceptable although regrettable when it does. (*) There have been, of course, some industrial accidents where there have been serious injuries and fatalities from falls or other industrial causes, but none in which the nuclear characteristic of the facility had anything to do with the accident. The nuclear safety itself that folks are so inherently afraid of owing to the initial exposure by way of WWII and the incessant drumming of the anti-nukes' propaganda continuing to tie commercial power to weapons is simply not justified by the facts. -- |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
On Dec 26, 6:10*pm, (Don Klipstein) wrote:
In , z wrote in part: Well, although I generally disagree with everything in your post, I agree with your basic premise, that eliminating incandescents is silly. Never mind 12 degrees Fahrenheit, I've discovered differences between brands of fluorescents in ability to fire up at temps at which I keep my living quarters, broke as I am. * Most with outer bulbs work just fine at any temperature I take without needing climate control or at least a hooded sweatshirt. *And I am a hard core cyclist with high metabolism and I complain about summer a lot, and I don't mind cool places, and I know compact fluorescents that work well there. * Heck, use some outdoor types, such as Philips SL/O. *The main drawback is that these wider temperature range ones with outer bulbs generally start dimmer and take longer to warm up. And, those times of year when the fluorescents don't like to light because it's cold... are times when there is no such thing as "waste heat" inside the house. * Do you have oil heat? *Gas heat? *Heat pump? *If so, it should cost less to get an extra whatever BTU per hour from those sources than from resistive electrical heating. Maybe folks in the great hot southland will benefit from switching over to fluorescents, but up where the price of heating is more than the price of air conditioning each year, not so much. * I would rather pay 2 cents per 1,000 BTU for oil heat with today's sky high oil prices (furnace efficiency was considered here) than 3-4 cents per 1,000 btu for electric heat. *In addition, I would want to reduce my air conditioning bills! *Plus, I have dimmers.....- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Maybe the outdoor bulbs are designed to fire at lower temps than the indoor bulbs? Anyway, yeah, electric heat is cheaper (although I suspect a light bulb makes an efficient heater, compared to a furnace) but even at twice the cost per net BTU, it obviously cuts the energy/ cost advantage of switching to fluorescents in half. |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
jJim McLaughlin wrote:
.... Of course ifyou want to seea really safe and well run nuclear power pogram, look at the US Nay. Makes the civilian commercial power reactor programs look poitiively Evel Knevil-ish. ..... Well, they're two _totally_ differing environments and there are essentially no constraints in terms of cost on the military side so it's hardly a fair comparison. Not to say anything against Adm Rickover's legacy (after all, we built all their fuel for them in Lynchburg) but just not the same animal--might as well compare a commercial airliner w/ a stealth bomber for radar evasion effectiveness. -- |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
In ,
z wrote in part: Maybe the outdoor bulbs are designed to fire at lower temps than the indoor bulbs? Anyway, yeah, electric heat is cheaper Where? Not USA national average, nor the metropolitan areas of NYC, Chicago or Philadelphia. A KWH of electricity pushed into a resistive heater is about 3413 BTU. A gallon of #2 fuel oil has about 142,000 BTU. Figure cost per BTU for your area from these. (although I suspect a light bulb makes an efficient heater, compared to a furnace) Actually, they are pretty efficient, except for top floor ones heating your roof. Even the light becomes heat, except for the bit escaping through your windows. But I do think most furnaces are now a good 80% efficient and some are closer to 90. but even at twice the cost per net BTU, it obviously cuts the energy/ cost advantage of switching to fluorescents in half. At my electricity rate (Philadelphia metro area), that's still quite a bit, let alone full break when it is not heating season (almost half the year, more for hardier people who hate heating costs), and more still when it is air conditioning season (about 3 months). |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
Don Klipstein wrote:
In article , larry wrote: In a year or two, all of your CFL complaints and CFLs will be history too. In the past two months, I've seen a big rise in local office space being finished out in ALL LED lighting. It's instant on, it dims, it can change color from red to violet, and it makes CF look like a real energy hog. The very most efficient LEDs that I have been able to buy are slightly less efficient than T8 fluorescents. And ones that efficient only come in an icy cold shade of white and in green. LEDs are advancing gradually and their cost is coming down gradually. It's going to be more than a couple years before they become the main light source in homes or offices. LED's aren't at CFL prices, yet, unless you average in the 10-20 year life. White ones mostly have rated life of 50,000 hours. - Don Klipstein ) Thats what I've see, too. The LED "bulbs" *CURRENTLY AVAILABLE* are energy hogs; have poor color rendition and are expensive Hopefully three deficiencies will be remedied over time. |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
"jJim McLaughlin" wrote in message
. .. JoeSpareBedroom wrote: MERCIFUL SNIPPAGE Time for a reality check. Boston is not a peninsula. Oddly enough, neither is Long *Island*, but Joe never lets facts get in the way of his fervid delusions. It would certainly function as a peninsula, in the event of an evacuation. But, you already knew that. |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
"jJim McLaughlin" wrote in message
... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "dpb" wrote in message ... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: ... ...and I wonder about nuclear plant security as well. Ever been to visit a US commercial nuclear site? -- No. But, my trust level these days is virtually zero. Matches your credibility level. Not surprisingly, you can't offer an example. |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
MERCIFUL SNIPPAGE Based on everything I've read, much of the unrest in Saudi Arabia, for instance, is *already* due to the gross inequities between the royals and everyone else. This is why the royal family continues to support schools whose teachers instruct students that WE are the reason for their miserable lives. We should've fulfilled their fantasies and put THEIR country under new management, instead of Iraq. But, that would've required balls. Wha's this "we" ****, Kimosabe? You are wearing what uniform and on active duty with which branch of the US armed forces. Yeah, thats what I thought. |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
"jJim McLaughlin" wrote in message
... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: MERCIFUL SNIPPAGE Based on everything I've read, much of the unrest in Saudi Arabia, for instance, is *already* due to the gross inequities between the royals and everyone else. This is why the royal family continues to support schools whose teachers instruct students that WE are the reason for their miserable lives. We should've fulfilled their fantasies and put THEIR country under new management, instead of Iraq. But, that would've required balls. Wha's this "we" ****, Kimosabe? You are wearing what uniform and on active duty with which branch of the US armed forces. Yeah, thats what I thought. You're the queen of useless posts today, aren't you? Is this the best you can do, obsessing about words like "we", instead of the substance of the message? |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"jJim McLaughlin" wrote in message ... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: MERCIFUL SNIPPAGE Based on everything I've read, much of the unrest in Saudi Arabia, for instance, is *already* due to the gross inequities between the royals and everyone else. This is why the royal family continues to support schools whose teachers instruct students that WE are the reason for their miserable lives. We should've fulfilled their fantasies and put THEIR country under new management, instead of Iraq. But, that would've required balls. Wha's this "we" ****, Kimosabe? You are wearing what uniform and on active duty with which branch of the US armed forces. Yeah, thats what I thought. You're the queen of useless posts today, aren't you? Is this the best you can do, obsessing about words like "we", instead of the substance of the message? Message? Substance? You? Now that at least is funny and mildly entertainng. |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
"jJim McLaughlin" wrote in message
... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "jJim McLaughlin" wrote in message ... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: MERCIFUL SNIPPAGE Based on everything I've read, much of the unrest in Saudi Arabia, for instance, is *already* due to the gross inequities between the royals and everyone else. This is why the royal family continues to support schools whose teachers instruct students that WE are the reason for their miserable lives. We should've fulfilled their fantasies and put THEIR country under new management, instead of Iraq. But, that would've required balls. Wha's this "we" ****, Kimosabe? You are wearing what uniform and on active duty with which branch of the US armed forces. Yeah, thats what I thought. You're the queen of useless posts today, aren't you? Is this the best you can do, obsessing about words like "we", instead of the substance of the message? Message? Substance? You? Now that at least is funny and mildly entertainng. Thank you for proving my point. You are afraid of dealing with substance. Why is that? What conflict frowned upon in your family? Were you taught to keep quiet to avoid being slapped around by one of your "fathers"? |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
AZ Nomad wrote:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 22:36:58 -0600, Jim Redelfs wrote: In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: I have a theory which says that if bus occupancy increased that much, it might be possible to buy more busses. I'm not sure, though. I'll bet you're not. Ridership has NOTHING to do (anymore) with buying new busses. Additional fleecing of the non-riding taxpayer has EVERYTHING to do with it. I was wondering when the psychotic trolls would chime in. What part of Redfels post has anything to do with "...psychotic trolls..."? Where I live, Portland, Oregon, the local mass transit agency, Tri-Met makes no bones about the failure of the farebox to actually pay for the service. Tri Met reports that less than 20% of costs are paid by he farebox. The rest comes from a special income tax on all businesses within the Tri Met operating area (major parts of 3 counties), whether those businesses are actually on Tri Met lines; have employees who ride Tri Met, or have customers who ride Tri Met to the business. Having lived in three major cities (NYC; Boston, D.C.) with real transit systems (Portland does not have a _real_ transit system) I have never seen a transit system that actually operates on fare box revenue. Every transit system I've requires a general tax revenue stream to operate it, and that tax stream comes predominately from non riders. Whether using a dedicated tax revenue stream coming predominately from non riders to subsidize operation of a mass transit system is good public policy or not is a whole other debate, and not on topic in alt.home.repair. Its sad that you consider a simple, true, factual statement to be a "... psychotic troll...". |
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message ... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: The point is that in some cities, mass transportation isn't foisted on people. They choose to use it because the physical realities of trying to drive into those cities make it insane to consider using a car on a daily basis. People who use the word "foisted" must be possessed by some sort of childish cowboy independence mentality. If the light rail idea had become a reality here in my county, nobody would've been forced to use it. Yeah, but you (and millions of others) are forced to PAY for it. Fares never come close to the operating budget. We're forced to pay for all sorts of crap. I wouldn't mind paying for a light rail system. Then you'd be even more of a fool than you routinely demonstrate yourself to be. Light rail doesn't work as mass transit No capacity, no speed. Heavy rail works. Busses work very very well. Light rail is a farce. You don't mind paying for the invasion of the wrong country in the Middle East. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:52 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter