It's not without certain significant flaws itself though, not least as a result of oversimplifying the issues too just as the AGWists do.
However it's clear to me that global warming is way over-exaggerated with Al Gore claiming that the Greenland ice sheet will melt in 100 years whilst real scientists put the timescale of that happening with modest temp rises well over a thousand years.
In the meantime a European satellite survey showed the huge interior of Greenland's ice sheet to be *GROWING* ! Only the edges are melting it seems.
I don't think that anyone is disputing that the weather patterns are changing, or that the temperature is heading in an upwards direction. The issue is as to just what man is doing, if anything, to cause it. For instance, it has been much warmer in the Northern hemisphere than it is now, in the comparitive recent past. Take 2000 years ago when the Roman army occupied the British Isles. They grew grapes at significantly northern lattitudes. You couldn't do that now. 2000 years ago, man was doing nothing to even *potentially* alter weather patterns on the planet. As I pointed out before in the thread, only 35 years ago, we were being told that we were entering a mini ice age. Where has that gone now ? Just try to get a look at that TV programme. Yes, of course, I accept that it has been made to put the 'alternative' position in a mildly forceful and entertaining way, but never-the-less, I think that it contains some very valuable insights into what is really going on, put forward by reputable scientists who are prepared to put their professional necks on the line by dissenting, and not in the hysterical way that seems to be the norm for this subject, now that it has gained political credence and status.
The planet is warming but I dont believe it is entirely due to mankinds activities. I think that it is part of a naturally occurring long period cycle which is solar system wide. The climate on Mars is also warming at the present time, scientists believe that it is emerging from an ice age. Obviously not down to anything we are doing on Earth.
There are also indications that Saturn & Jupiter are receiving more solar energy. I find it _very_ interesting that there are scientists trying to find an alternative explanation for Martian warming - any explanation, since if it's caused by the sun, that kind of knocks a very large hole in their anthropomorphic global warming hypothesis.
Sorry, but I have to disagree. There's just too much evidence that the way the global warming research is being conducted is "I know mankind is causing it, now all I have to do is prove it". I especially note that when a researcher says that "solar forcing" (the sun) can't account for the observed temperature increase, he does not add: according to my model. It's just assumed that the model must be correct. Now ask if any of the models have been validated. That is, we know what conditions are now, if we use one of the models and go back to say 1920, and attempt to run the mdoel forward from there, does it predict _today_? And of course all of the journalists and politicians have jumped on GW as another chance to implement environmental controls and regulations. Now explain to me what most of these politicians and journalists know about science. Anthropomorphic GW isn't even a theory at this point, it's a hypothesis.
Based on the article in that link, how can you say that ? Yes, OK, the amount of mercury is not hazardous to the point of needing a toxic waste cleanup team after a single breakage, but the article never stops discussing the hazardous nature of the CFLs, their toxic contents, and the special facilities to dispose of them safely. ' Do not use a vacuum cleaner' it says. 'Secure the broken bits in a plastic bag and seal up' it says. 'Open the windows' it says. If that makes the safety angle bullshit in comparison to incandescents, then you and I have very different understandings of that word ...
Mpffffff.... The BS is in the requirement for a HazMat team. Not "normal precautions". As it happens, you are in far more danger from mouse droppings (Hanta Virus) and their mishandling, some of the salts used in the coating inside incandescent lamps (phosphor salts amongst others), beryllium coatings on HID lamps... even the toxic build up of Triclosan in mothers' milk, insecticides and many other materials and chemicals commonly found in the house.
So, if something contains a potentially toxic chemical or substance, one simply does not lean into the punch and spread it all over creation in ignorance.
One needs to learn that the opposite of "Black" is not necessarily "White"... but simply "not black". William of Occam figured this out in the 14th century, it still has not gotten through to the general population. We live in a world where polar opposites are almost life- necessity, and one is either "with" or "against" on any given point, process, belief or system, where anything but certainty is viewed with deep suspicion... and >your< necessities are madness and mine are truth and reason. It ain't necessarily so.
Mpffffff.... The BS is in the requirement for a HazMat team. Not "normal precautions". As it happens, you are in far more danger from mouse droppings (Hanta Virus) and their mishandling, some of the salts used in the coating inside incandescent lamps (phosphor salts amongst others), beryllium coatings on HID lamps... even the toxic build up of Triclosan in mothers' milk, insecticides and many other materials and chemicals commonly found in the house.
So, if something contains a potentially toxic chemical or substance, one simply does not lean into the punch and spread it all over creation in ignorance.
One needs to learn that the opposite of "Black" is not necessarily "White"... but simply "not black". William of Occam figured this out in the 14th century, it still has not gotten through to the general population. We live in a world where polar opposites are almost life- necessity, and one is either "with" or "against" on any given point, process, belief or system, where anything but certainty is viewed with deep suspicion... and >your< necessities are madness and mine are truth and reason. It ain't necessarily so.
wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Well Peter, I'm more confused than ever now ... I think that the original reference to governments getting involved referred to the pseudo-science that they force on us in the name of green - such as the lead free solder, the eco light bulbs and so on. I agree with you that a hazardous waste team is not required to clean up a broken CFL, and that it is just sensationalist bull, perpetrated by some hack who has read that these devices contain toxic chemicals - it's the aforementioned government pseudo-science from the other side as well, if you like. But surely the article that you pointed at doesn't really support your (apparent?) view that these things are not dangerous per se ? It seems to put the view that compared to incandescents, these things are dangerous, if not singly, then in terms of disposing of them in quantity. You must accept, surely, that if lead which is firmly chemically locked up in solder, and does not leech as a result of water, is hysterically banned for eco disposal reasons, then a fragile bulb which contains *free* mercury and phosphors, and which the governments are trying to force on us instead of 'inefficient' incandescents, must pose a much more serious disposal threat ? Or am I understanding you wrongly ? In the next breath, you seem to be supporting the view that these things are potentially dangerous. It might just be the old American English / English English thing again. Two nations separated by a common language, and all that ...! d;~}
Didn't W. of Occam advocate 'keeping it simple' ( black and white ... ?? ) and 'limited responsible government' ?
OK.... Lead in solder is not "firmly chemically locked up" by any means. These days, rain is approximately as acidic as household vinegar or lemon juice, both of which will do a quick number on solder in terms of releasing lead. Lead in uncounted tons has been released into the atmosphere for a near-50 year period in the form of tetra- ethyl lead in gasoline. THAT has wound up (and still winds up) in our food supply as it is leached out of soils and into food grown where it has been deposited. Lead from solder is leached out of landfills and into ground water anywhere there is acid rain... do you know of anywhere there is *not* acid rain?
Now, let's get into CFL/PL type lamps (I prefer PL-types as the ballast stays with the fixture and only the tube is changed... first- cost is slightly higher but long-term costs are much cheaper) vs. incandescent lamps, and life-cycle costs. But let's stick to CFL lamps here.
Assume for the purposes of this discussion: Incandescent lamp at 100 watts lasts 1000 hours, weighs about 4 ounces of which mostly glass, some aluminum, a wee bit of copper-coated steel wire, a tiny bit of tungsten, some phosphor or alumina coating, and a dab of solder at each connection (lead-free, of course). Assume that a CFL/PL lamp at
23 watts will last 15,000 hours (more in reality but let's go with the manufacturer's typical ratings). It weighs about 8 ounces, includes some copper, aluminum, glass, about 5mg of mercury and so forth.
Some brutal realities: Most of the electricity generated in the world today comes from coal, with nuclear being about 16%. In the US it goes this way: Year-to-date, 50.2 percent of the Nation's electric power was generated at coal-fired plants. Nuclear plants contributed 20.6 percent, 17.4 percent was generated at natural gas-fired plants, and
2.2 percent was generated at petroleum-fired plants. Conventional hydroelectric power provided 6.7 percent of the total, while other renewables (primarily biomass, but also geothermal, solar, and wind) and other miscellaneous energy sources generated the remaining electric power. And the US has an unusually high number of nuclear plants by world comparison (though by percentage less than France or Japan for example).
Coal, when burnt, gives off considerable amounts of mercury. THAT mercury is spewed into the atmosphere with only limited means of control. Sure, coal plants attempt to control for particulates, use limestone beds to control acidity, but the mercury goes out as the technology to control it while better than before is still limited.
So, we have a lamp that will burn 1,500,000 watts of power and generate 60 ounces of waste vs. a lamp that will burn 345,000 watts of power and generate about 8 ounces of waste in the same time-span. The mercury released generating the additional power will far exceed the amount of mercury in the lamp itself (don't take my word for it, look it up for yourself). And the mercury in the lamp is in an identifiable container with understood requirements for disposal, not spewed willy- nilly wherever the wind might blow.
Come on guys and gals, get a grip.
William of Occam was famous for his "razor" of course. But he did have a few cautionary tales about excess simplicity and his "law of parsimony": That is: if one were to come across the results of a chess game at its end, it the simplest explanation would be that the pieces were simply placed in those positions. Not quite reality. But "Black and White" taken as arguments would have driven him straight up the wall, across the ceiling and had him twirling all the while. What he was doing was attempting to break down that sort of limited thinking where the only opposite to "black" would be white. His position was that if you wanted Black, anything that was not black was not what you wanted. Period.
Ok, I am seeing your position now with regard to the numbers, and of lifetime energy useage and disposal issues. However, to some extent, this is taking the "black and white" view in that no account is taken of the additional energy budget in manufacturing, shipping and assembling all of the additional components required in a CFL over an incandescent, as well as the processes to refine the mercury and phosphors required, and manufacturing the much more complex glass structures that these units employ (complex tubing inside a 'globe' in many cases). You must also add to this, the manufacturing and disposal costs of the much more elaborate protective packaging that they come in, and the added energy budget of shipping something that weighs twice as much as an incandescent, around the world. Also add in the energy budget for specialist handling and disposal at life end, and take out from the incandescent lamp, the energy contribution that it makes to heating the premises that it is employed in anywhere in the world that has a temperate or substantially 'cold' climate. Whilst all of these factors may still not make the balance equal, they do tend to be ignored by advocates of the technology, and would, I am sure, make a significant difference to the 'preferred' figures, if properly factored into the equation.
As far as 'opposites' go, it is largely a matter of semantics, and philosophical debate. Black is the opposite of white in purely physical terms, in that black represents the absence of any wavelengths of visible light reaching the eye, whereas white represents the presence of all visible light. Trying to show that there is no such thing as a true opposite is an old schoolboy debating society chestnut that we have probably all taken part in. Philosophical debate can show anything that you want it to. If you have "black", and then something else that is not "white", then what you have is not an 'opposite'. It is just what it says - something else ... :-)
Opposite vs. Polar Opposite. Occam's position was that something either "was" or "was not". There is no subsantive or substantial difference in quality between something that IS NOT, and the Polar Opposite of what IS if only what IS is desired or required. So, puce, ecru, sienna, magenta or any other color may as well be Black if White is desired or required, and for all the difference it makes.
Getting more into life-cycle costs, now you are discussing incremental costs as the cost of heating and fusing glass and transporting a given volume (and unless transport is by air, the nature of these items is by volume, not weight), and the labor in assembly. One more reason I prefer PL-type lamps as the subsantial difference in the making of the ballast is paid only once. But anyway... I can purchase a Euro-made CFL from a local industral supplier (23 watts ~ 100 watts incandescent) for about $5. A Chinese version for about $2 at Home Depot. Both makers and sellers are making a profit. The labor in Europe will be about 4X the cost of the labor in China, but as these lamps are largely made and packed on highly automated machines, that is negligible in the grand scheme of things. So, 1,500,000/1000 =
1,500kw of electricity. Which, at $0.14/kwh = $210 in operating costs. If I purchase Hungarian "Action Tungsram" Lamps at 2/$1.00, and use 15 lamps, that will cost me $7.50. If I purchase GE or Sylvania US-made lamps, that will cost me $15. So, my operating & purchase cost is $218 for round figures. For the PL/CFL at $5, and using 325kw, it is $50.36 assuming I purchase Euro-lamps. Add even $10 for "correct" disposal as a future consideration.
Heat in a cold climate: An incandescent puts out about 6 watts of light for 100 watts of power. So, 94 watts in heat. A CFL puts out the same 6 watts of light at 23 watts of power. 1 watt = 3.413 BTU.
94 watts waste heat (summer and winter) will contribute 321 BTUH. One gallon of #2 fuel oil = 130,000BTU. Or, the lamp contribute 1/405th of the heat value of a gallon of fuel. At $3/gallon, that comes to $0.00704 of saved fuel. However, the lamp burnt $0.01344 worth of power to save that fuel. Not a good balance. Even at $3/gallon where fuel (around here) is hovering around $2.25/gallon. Let's not discuss the fuel burnt at the power-plant as that makes the trade-off even worse. Gas or propane, the balance is yet worse. Only with electricity is the balance nearly equal, and would be equal whether CFL/PL or incandescent.
Of course, in the summertime, now one is burning electricity to remove this waste heat.
Think it through, the numbers are implacable and pretty horrific in reality.
The figures look impressive in your favour, but it's actually very difficult to equate energy budget to monetary costs. Every process involved is very inefficient, including transport. How do you arrive, for instance, at the transport energy cost only being a real factor if we are talking air ? A ship with x tons of cargo on board, will use less fuel than if it was carrying 2x tons. If 2x tons won't fit on there, because its volume is greater, then it will be necessary to either use a bigger ship, or do the run twice. Either way, something that's heavier for the same physical volume, will cost more energy to ship, no matter what the method - yes ? Many factories are involved in making the constituent parts of a CFL compared to an incandescent. All of those factories have to be lit and heated. The workers have to be fed, and have to get to work, and back home again. All of these factors contribute to the manufacturing energy budget.
I guess that we are never going to even come close to being together on this one ... Still, it's been an interesting exchange, and has stimulated me, at least, to look from some slightly different angles at the whole thing.
"Arfa Daily" wrote in news:wEG4i.1859$ snipped-for-privacy@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net:
Don't forget moral and ethical responsibility for every coal miner's death, etc., costs of environmental damage, species exterpated, replacing the stored fossile energy that is being consumed at ever increasing rates. Figure in the cost of restoring the environment to pristine conditions and recreating all the species that have been wiped out.
--
bz 73 de N5BZ k
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+ser@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
My point about the article was the hysteria about a _very_ tiny amount of mercury and ludicrousness of calling in a hazmat team for a broken CFL. Flourescent tubes have been in use, especially in commercial settings, including hospitals and schools for at least 50 years. In all that time I have a _very_ difficult time believing that no flourescent tubes were broken or that any special precautions were taken when cleaning up the ensuing mess, other than the normal precautions involved when dealing with broken glass. The same hysteria is now happening for lead, in some states, I believe, you need special "lead abatement" contractors when deaing whit lead paint. And of course it's part of the idea that we can make life risk free.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.