Conservatives vs. Liberals
- Thread starter yearofthenick
- Start date
bionicarm
Active Member
Originally Posted by AquaKnight
http:///forum/post/3273212
Either way, it should be a consumer decision to switch. Not federally mandated "no more incandescents" or retarded MPG requirements. If we all wanted spiral lights or hybrid cars, we would buy them and manufactures would stop producing the "bad stuff"
....
The government mandates certain things so that they benefit the majority of our citizens, not just the individual or minority group. You think that the Feds telling you to no longer use incandescent light bulbs is an invasion into your personal rights and freedoms, and is a form of government control. However, your use of those bulbs has an overall effect on everyone else because you are using more 'resources' that could be used by someone else. Yes, if you want to use more electricity than your neighbor, and are willing to pay for that privilege, you should be able to do that. But if you look at the 'big picture', you are costing everyone more money for your selfish wants. By using inefficient bulbs, the electric company has to spend more money on fuels to be able to generate the excess electricity required to keep those bulbs glowing. Since the electric company isn't about to 'take the hit' for the cost of those extra resources, they are going to charge that cost back to their consumers, thereby raising EVERYONE'S electric bill, not just yours. Spock said it best: “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one…”
http:///forum/post/3273212
Either way, it should be a consumer decision to switch. Not federally mandated "no more incandescents" or retarded MPG requirements. If we all wanted spiral lights or hybrid cars, we would buy them and manufactures would stop producing the "bad stuff"
The government mandates certain things so that they benefit the majority of our citizens, not just the individual or minority group. You think that the Feds telling you to no longer use incandescent light bulbs is an invasion into your personal rights and freedoms, and is a form of government control. However, your use of those bulbs has an overall effect on everyone else because you are using more 'resources' that could be used by someone else. Yes, if you want to use more electricity than your neighbor, and are willing to pay for that privilege, you should be able to do that. But if you look at the 'big picture', you are costing everyone more money for your selfish wants. By using inefficient bulbs, the electric company has to spend more money on fuels to be able to generate the excess electricity required to keep those bulbs glowing. Since the electric company isn't about to 'take the hit' for the cost of those extra resources, they are going to charge that cost back to their consumers, thereby raising EVERYONE'S electric bill, not just yours. Spock said it best: “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one…”
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by Fishtaco
http:///forum/post/3273229
Come on now, I consider myself very much into the green stuff and neither myself or any of my friends ever thought anything other than Al Gore is a complete hypocrite who is in it to make a fast buck. Just think of him as our version of Sarah Palin. I completely disagree he is the face now or has ever been face of real enviromentalists. What gets me going is when conservatives start calling people like myself a tree hugger or environut because I really want to give the government the middle finger and go completely off the grid or am made fun of because I bother to recycle as much as I can. I do put my money where my mouth is and try to buy local as much as possible even if it does cost me just a little more than going to the Wal-Mart. I'm not pushing my ideas on anyone, so I can not even begin to understand why conservatives feel so threatened by the green lifestyle and for the most part I consider people who drive hybrids a wanna-bees who think a green lifestyle is strictly one they can buy.
Fishtaco
You must understand, the context was not the average person, but the people driving the "movement". Today's green movement is a wolf in sheeps clothing. It is nothing more than a political powergrab and alchemy scheme.
People who believe and accept their statements at face value are just rubes.
Think about it, the whole thing was based on the faked hockey puck graph, and a 2 degree raise in tempuratures over a 150 year period. And the solution, being pushed around by congress right now, cap and tax. With goldman-sucks doing the credits trading... All this for a gas we naturally exhale, and trees use for photosynthesis...
http:///forum/post/3273229
Come on now, I consider myself very much into the green stuff and neither myself or any of my friends ever thought anything other than Al Gore is a complete hypocrite who is in it to make a fast buck. Just think of him as our version of Sarah Palin. I completely disagree he is the face now or has ever been face of real enviromentalists. What gets me going is when conservatives start calling people like myself a tree hugger or environut because I really want to give the government the middle finger and go completely off the grid or am made fun of because I bother to recycle as much as I can. I do put my money where my mouth is and try to buy local as much as possible even if it does cost me just a little more than going to the Wal-Mart. I'm not pushing my ideas on anyone, so I can not even begin to understand why conservatives feel so threatened by the green lifestyle and for the most part I consider people who drive hybrids a wanna-bees who think a green lifestyle is strictly one they can buy.
Fishtaco
You must understand, the context was not the average person, but the people driving the "movement". Today's green movement is a wolf in sheeps clothing. It is nothing more than a political powergrab and alchemy scheme.
People who believe and accept their statements at face value are just rubes.
Think about it, the whole thing was based on the faked hockey puck graph, and a 2 degree raise in tempuratures over a 150 year period. And the solution, being pushed around by congress right now, cap and tax. With goldman-sucks doing the credits trading... All this for a gas we naturally exhale, and trees use for photosynthesis...
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3273204
Don't buy into everything you hear about the evils of the compact fluorescent lamp. Not all liberal enviros are low life lying hippocrites like Algore. Some actually live what they believe. Check out Ed Bagley's show some time.
Unless they're living like the indians on the open plains they're not.
http:///forum/post/3273204
Don't buy into everything you hear about the evils of the compact fluorescent lamp. Not all liberal enviros are low life lying hippocrites like Algore. Some actually live what they believe. Check out Ed Bagley's show some time.
Unless they're living like the indians on the open plains they're not.
mantisman51
Active Member
I mentioned specifically fuel economy and alternative energy-Rush is using a little global warming style hysteria to make CFL's look worse than they are. Before the Gulf Coast fiasco, I thought more off-shore drilling was part of the answer. I no longer think it's a good option. It is clear to me, though, that most Republicans in congress aren't conservative. They are pro-big business and use the words "conservative" and "family values" to get elected and then vote to let multinational companies do whatever they want-in everything. That isn't conservative, nor is common sense regulation at odds with believing there is too much government intrusion currently. The Constitution grants the Federal government the authority to regulate interstate trade. So if I build a widget I shouldn't have to go through 10 layers of bureaucracy to sell it, however, that doesn't mean the government shouldn't have some inspection for safety. Republicans pretending that the banks and their corrupt management (who would have lost everything if not for money being taken from the middle class and who now are being propped up by .15% loans which they are using to buy Treasury bills at 2.5%) somehow are over regulated shows they are not conservative but bought and paid for by the banks. Common sense says if the government bails you out-the government has the right (obligation) to regulate what you do to make sure you will not endanger the economy again.
reefraff
Active Member
Off shore drilling is vital to our economic interests- Barwreck Insane Hobama
We can't stop drilling because of one major screw up. All it takes is one minor regulation change (adding the remote valve) to prevent this from happening again.
I really could care less if the government forces incandescent lamps off the market but one thing I don't think they've thought through is incandescent lamps are mostly domestically made while the compact fluorescents are not. There goes more jobs
We can't stop drilling because of one major screw up. All it takes is one minor regulation change (adding the remote valve) to prevent this from happening again.
I really could care less if the government forces incandescent lamps off the market but one thing I don't think they've thought through is incandescent lamps are mostly domestically made while the compact fluorescents are not. There goes more jobs
fishtaco
Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3273310
Off shore drilling is vital to our economic interests- Barwreck Insane Hobama
We can't stop drilling because of one major screw up. All it takes is one minor regulation change (adding the remote valve) to prevent this from happening again.
I really could care less if the government forces incandescent lamps off the market but one thing I don't think they've thought through is incandescent lamps are mostly domestically made while the compact fluorescents are not. There goes more jobs
All the CF's in the world would not make as much differences as just turning off lights when not in use. You should see the folks around here, out in a nice rural area far from the city and most seem tol need the security of leaving a porch light on all night and vapor lights that are on 365 nights a year, not only is it a complete waste of energy, they are also screwing up my view of the milky way.
Fishtaco
http:///forum/post/3273310
Off shore drilling is vital to our economic interests- Barwreck Insane Hobama
We can't stop drilling because of one major screw up. All it takes is one minor regulation change (adding the remote valve) to prevent this from happening again.
I really could care less if the government forces incandescent lamps off the market but one thing I don't think they've thought through is incandescent lamps are mostly domestically made while the compact fluorescents are not. There goes more jobs
All the CF's in the world would not make as much differences as just turning off lights when not in use. You should see the folks around here, out in a nice rural area far from the city and most seem tol need the security of leaving a porch light on all night and vapor lights that are on 365 nights a year, not only is it a complete waste of energy, they are also screwing up my view of the milky way.
Fishtaco
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by Fishtaco
http:///forum/post/3273318
All the CF's in the world would not make as much differences as just turning off lights when not in use. You should see the folks around here, out in a nice rural area far from the city and most seem tol need the security of leaving a porch light on all night and vapor lights that are on 365 nights a year, not only is it a complete waste of energy, they are also screwing up my view of the milky way.
Fishtaco
I am green. My 54 inch plasma is energy star
I have a swamp cooler instead of AC, I use some compact fluorescents, I am using LED's over the new reef tank and will use 12v pumps for flow. Of course the 350 watt pump for the pond and the 11 foot hot tub kinda offset all that greeness LOL!
http:///forum/post/3273318
All the CF's in the world would not make as much differences as just turning off lights when not in use. You should see the folks around here, out in a nice rural area far from the city and most seem tol need the security of leaving a porch light on all night and vapor lights that are on 365 nights a year, not only is it a complete waste of energy, they are also screwing up my view of the milky way.
Fishtaco
I am green. My 54 inch plasma is energy star
I have a swamp cooler instead of AC, I use some compact fluorescents, I am using LED's over the new reef tank and will use 12v pumps for flow. Of course the 350 watt pump for the pond and the 11 foot hot tub kinda offset all that greeness LOL!
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by Fishtaco
http:///forum/post/3273318
All the CF's in the world would not make as much differences as just turning off lights when not in use. You should see the folks around here, out in a nice rural area far from the city and most seem tol need the security of leaving a porch light on all night and vapor lights that are on 365 nights a year, not only is it a complete waste of energy, they are also screwing up my view of the milky way.
Fishtaco
I actually use CF lights for the most part because, I like the higher kelvin lighting. Don't fool yourself into thinking a light bulb full of heavy metals is greener than a carbon element bulb... It is a crock. 50 cent bulb vs a 5 dollar bulb. Especially since the thing they're trying to reduce, CO2 emmissions is a giant crock.
http:///forum/post/3273318
All the CF's in the world would not make as much differences as just turning off lights when not in use. You should see the folks around here, out in a nice rural area far from the city and most seem tol need the security of leaving a porch light on all night and vapor lights that are on 365 nights a year, not only is it a complete waste of energy, they are also screwing up my view of the milky way.
Fishtaco
I actually use CF lights for the most part because, I like the higher kelvin lighting. Don't fool yourself into thinking a light bulb full of heavy metals is greener than a carbon element bulb... It is a crock. 50 cent bulb vs a 5 dollar bulb. Especially since the thing they're trying to reduce, CO2 emmissions is a giant crock.
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by mantisman51
http:///forum/post/3273270
I mentioned specifically fuel economy and alternative energy-Rush is using a little global warming style hysteria to make CFL's look worse than they are. Before the Gulf Coast fiasco, I thought more off-shore drilling was part of the answer. I no longer think it's a good option. It is clear to me, though, that most Republicans in congress aren't conservative. They are pro-big business and use the words "conservative" and "family values" to get elected and then vote to let multinational companies do whatever they want-in everything. That isn't conservative, nor is common sense regulation at odds with believing there is too much government intrusion currently. The Constitution grants the Federal government the authority to regulate interstate trade. So if I build a widget I shouldn't have to go through 10 layers of bureaucracy to sell it, however, that doesn't mean the government shouldn't have some inspection for safety. Republicans pretending that the banks and their corrupt management (who would have lost everything if not for money being taken from the middle class and who now are being propped up by .15% loans which they are using to buy Treasury bills at 2.5%) somehow are over regulated shows they are not conservative but bought and paid for by the banks. Common sense says if the government bails you out-the government has the right (obligation) to regulate what you do to make sure you will not endanger the economy again.
2 things, one they've pumped billions of barrels of oil out of the gulf in the last 20 years. And haven't anything like this before, (well there was that mexican spill 30 years ago)
I wonder if they'd even drill there, if they hadn't been forced deep by the tree huggers, not letting us drill in more accessible locations...
http:///forum/post/3273270
I mentioned specifically fuel economy and alternative energy-Rush is using a little global warming style hysteria to make CFL's look worse than they are. Before the Gulf Coast fiasco, I thought more off-shore drilling was part of the answer. I no longer think it's a good option. It is clear to me, though, that most Republicans in congress aren't conservative. They are pro-big business and use the words "conservative" and "family values" to get elected and then vote to let multinational companies do whatever they want-in everything. That isn't conservative, nor is common sense regulation at odds with believing there is too much government intrusion currently. The Constitution grants the Federal government the authority to regulate interstate trade. So if I build a widget I shouldn't have to go through 10 layers of bureaucracy to sell it, however, that doesn't mean the government shouldn't have some inspection for safety. Republicans pretending that the banks and their corrupt management (who would have lost everything if not for money being taken from the middle class and who now are being propped up by .15% loans which they are using to buy Treasury bills at 2.5%) somehow are over regulated shows they are not conservative but bought and paid for by the banks. Common sense says if the government bails you out-the government has the right (obligation) to regulate what you do to make sure you will not endanger the economy again.
2 things, one they've pumped billions of barrels of oil out of the gulf in the last 20 years. And haven't anything like this before, (well there was that mexican spill 30 years ago)
I wonder if they'd even drill there, if they hadn't been forced deep by the tree huggers, not letting us drill in more accessible locations...
darthtang aw
Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3273249
The government mandates certain things so that they benefit the majority of our citizens, not just the individual or minority group. You think that the Feds telling you to no longer use incandescent light bulbs is an invasion into your personal rights and freedoms, and is a form of government control. However, your use of those bulbs has an overall effect on everyone else because you are using more 'resources' that could be used by someone else. Yes, if you want to use more electricity than your neighbor, and are willing to pay for that privilege, you should be able to do that. But if you look at the 'big picture', you are costing everyone more money for your selfish wants. By using inefficient bulbs, the electric company has to spend more money on fuels to be able to generate the excess electricity required to keep those bulbs glowing. Since the electric company isn't about to 'take the hit' for the cost of those extra resources, they are going to charge that cost back to their consumers, thereby raising EVERYONE'S electric bill, not just yours. Spock said it best: “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one…”
Read what you just typed out loud. Seriously? The electric company sets a standard price per kilowatt. If a person uses more, they are charged more. End of story. Your explanation is false. The flourscent bill did nothing but prop up a sector of a corporate entity again that was heading for trouble. GE spent a lot of research into these bulbs and their design. But due to the cost, the public wasn't switching over. End of story. GE came to washington and whispered the "green" advantage into a few political ears (along with some cash) and then pushed for the old bulbs to become banned. Track theis bill...look at the people that introduced it and pushed for it, then look at their donations from GE compared to others in congress.....
http:///forum/post/3273249
The government mandates certain things so that they benefit the majority of our citizens, not just the individual or minority group. You think that the Feds telling you to no longer use incandescent light bulbs is an invasion into your personal rights and freedoms, and is a form of government control. However, your use of those bulbs has an overall effect on everyone else because you are using more 'resources' that could be used by someone else. Yes, if you want to use more electricity than your neighbor, and are willing to pay for that privilege, you should be able to do that. But if you look at the 'big picture', you are costing everyone more money for your selfish wants. By using inefficient bulbs, the electric company has to spend more money on fuels to be able to generate the excess electricity required to keep those bulbs glowing. Since the electric company isn't about to 'take the hit' for the cost of those extra resources, they are going to charge that cost back to their consumers, thereby raising EVERYONE'S electric bill, not just yours. Spock said it best: “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one…”
Read what you just typed out loud. Seriously? The electric company sets a standard price per kilowatt. If a person uses more, they are charged more. End of story. Your explanation is false. The flourscent bill did nothing but prop up a sector of a corporate entity again that was heading for trouble. GE spent a lot of research into these bulbs and their design. But due to the cost, the public wasn't switching over. End of story. GE came to washington and whispered the "green" advantage into a few political ears (along with some cash) and then pushed for the old bulbs to become banned. Track theis bill...look at the people that introduced it and pushed for it, then look at their donations from GE compared to others in congress.....
bionicarm
Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3273346
Read what you just typed out loud. Seriously? The electric company sets a standard price per kilowatt. If a person uses more, they are charged more. End of story. Your explanation is false. The flourscent bill did nothing but prop up a sector of a corporate entity again that was heading for trouble. GE spent a lot of research into these bulbs and their design. But due to the cost, the public wasn't switching over. End of story. GE came to washington and whispered the "green" advantage into a few political ears (along with some cash) and then pushed for the old bulbs to become banned. Track theis bill...look at the people that introduced it and pushed for it, then look at their donations from GE compared to others in congress.....
Yes, if a person uses more, they are charged more. However, let's say every person in your city were to crank up a hugh saltwater tank system all at once. Are you telling me the electric company wouldn't need to produce more electricity to provide the power required to run all those tanks? And if they do, you don't think they wouldn't raise that standard price per kilowatt to circumvent what it'll cost them to produce that extra required power? Of course this is an extreme example. And yes, the difference in power requirements between a incandescent and a "green" bulb is negligible to an extent. However, if you added up that difference over time, and multiplied it by the hundreds of thousands bulbs in a major metropolis like New York or LA, I think you would see a major cost savings if every home went "green" with just their light bulbs.
http:///forum/post/3273346
Read what you just typed out loud. Seriously? The electric company sets a standard price per kilowatt. If a person uses more, they are charged more. End of story. Your explanation is false. The flourscent bill did nothing but prop up a sector of a corporate entity again that was heading for trouble. GE spent a lot of research into these bulbs and their design. But due to the cost, the public wasn't switching over. End of story. GE came to washington and whispered the "green" advantage into a few political ears (along with some cash) and then pushed for the old bulbs to become banned. Track theis bill...look at the people that introduced it and pushed for it, then look at their donations from GE compared to others in congress.....
Yes, if a person uses more, they are charged more. However, let's say every person in your city were to crank up a hugh saltwater tank system all at once. Are you telling me the electric company wouldn't need to produce more electricity to provide the power required to run all those tanks? And if they do, you don't think they wouldn't raise that standard price per kilowatt to circumvent what it'll cost them to produce that extra required power? Of course this is an extreme example. And yes, the difference in power requirements between a incandescent and a "green" bulb is negligible to an extent. However, if you added up that difference over time, and multiplied it by the hundreds of thousands bulbs in a major metropolis like New York or LA, I think you would see a major cost savings if every home went "green" with just their light bulbs.
aquaknight
Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3273249
The government mandates certain things so that they benefit the majority of our citizens, not just the individual or minority group. You think that the Feds telling you to no longer use incandescent light bulbs is an invasion into your personal rights and freedoms, and is a form of government control. However, your use of those bulbs has an overall effect on everyone else because you are using more 'resources' that could be used by someone else. Yes, if you want to use more electricity than your neighbor, and are willing to pay for that privilege, you should be able to do that. But if you look at the 'big picture', you are costing everyone more money for your selfish wants. By using inefficient bulbs, the electric company has to spend more money on fuels to be able to generate the excess electricity required to keep those bulbs glowing. Since the electric company isn't about to 'take the hit' for the cost of those extra resources, they are going to charge that cost back to their consumers, thereby raising EVERYONE'S electric bill, not just yours. Spock said it best: “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one…”
Ignoring the usage/cost bit as previously noted, that's the great thing about a free market. If most people wanted to switch SCF's and there was little to no demand for incandecents, you think manufactures would continue making them? Or I would be left out in the cold and be forced to buy them anyways?
http:///forum/post/3273249
The government mandates certain things so that they benefit the majority of our citizens, not just the individual or minority group. You think that the Feds telling you to no longer use incandescent light bulbs is an invasion into your personal rights and freedoms, and is a form of government control. However, your use of those bulbs has an overall effect on everyone else because you are using more 'resources' that could be used by someone else. Yes, if you want to use more electricity than your neighbor, and are willing to pay for that privilege, you should be able to do that. But if you look at the 'big picture', you are costing everyone more money for your selfish wants. By using inefficient bulbs, the electric company has to spend more money on fuels to be able to generate the excess electricity required to keep those bulbs glowing. Since the electric company isn't about to 'take the hit' for the cost of those extra resources, they are going to charge that cost back to their consumers, thereby raising EVERYONE'S electric bill, not just yours. Spock said it best: “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one…”
Ignoring the usage/cost bit as previously noted, that's the great thing about a free market. If most people wanted to switch SCF's and there was little to no demand for incandecents, you think manufactures would continue making them? Or I would be left out in the cold and be forced to buy them anyways?
slice
Active Member
According to this:
http://www.mge.com/home/appliances/l...comparison.htm
The energy efficiency of compact flourescent is 40-70 lumens per watt compared to incandescent
efficiency of 10-17, roughly 4x more efficient.
What is ignored many times is the manufacturing/distribution/other costs. Read: costs=resources.
If a flourescent bulb costs 5x more, it takes 5x more resources to make (given no government intervention). You *may* save a bit of resource here, but you give up more over there.
Its just like recycled materials. In general, they cost more than virgin (I know, I run the numbers nearly every day here at work). The reason for that is that collection/sorting/transportation/cleaning/reprocessing takes more resources than to make virgin from scratch. In many cases, the use of recycled product only looks good as far ahead as the end of one's nose. **this could be fixed with infrastructure, but as of now, the cart is waaaaaay before the horse. Actually, I much prefer "waste to energy" local facilities over recycling, but I digress.....
It does, however, make many people feel better about themselves...
http://www.mge.com/home/appliances/l...comparison.htm
The energy efficiency of compact flourescent is 40-70 lumens per watt compared to incandescent
efficiency of 10-17, roughly 4x more efficient.
What is ignored many times is the manufacturing/distribution/other costs. Read: costs=resources.
If a flourescent bulb costs 5x more, it takes 5x more resources to make (given no government intervention). You *may* save a bit of resource here, but you give up more over there.
Its just like recycled materials. In general, they cost more than virgin (I know, I run the numbers nearly every day here at work). The reason for that is that collection/sorting/transportation/cleaning/reprocessing takes more resources than to make virgin from scratch. In many cases, the use of recycled product only looks good as far ahead as the end of one's nose. **this could be fixed with infrastructure, but as of now, the cart is waaaaaay before the horse. Actually, I much prefer "waste to energy" local facilities over recycling, but I digress.....
It does, however, make many people feel better about themselves...
aquaknight
Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3273350
However, if you added up that difference over time, and multiplied it by the hundreds of thousands bulbs in a major metropolis like New York or LA, I think you would see a major cost savings if every home went "green" with just their light bulbs.
How does that work? The power company is a company like any other (well, not exactly). But, let's say a town's demands were 1mil kW. Everyone went 'green' and now only uses 500,000 kW. The power company didn't magically downsize overnight. Almost all of their costs are the same, they just don't have to shove in as much coal, etc. So the less power gets used, the more per kW the company has to charge? Costo logic. If everyone is consuming lots of power, the power company can charge less per kW (greed, and other not theoretical factors not applied) and make more profits, then having people consume little power.
http:///forum/post/3273350
However, if you added up that difference over time, and multiplied it by the hundreds of thousands bulbs in a major metropolis like New York or LA, I think you would see a major cost savings if every home went "green" with just their light bulbs.
How does that work? The power company is a company like any other (well, not exactly). But, let's say a town's demands were 1mil kW. Everyone went 'green' and now only uses 500,000 kW. The power company didn't magically downsize overnight. Almost all of their costs are the same, they just don't have to shove in as much coal, etc. So the less power gets used, the more per kW the company has to charge? Costo logic. If everyone is consuming lots of power, the power company can charge less per kW (greed, and other not theoretical factors not applied) and make more profits, then having people consume little power.
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3273350
Yes, if a person uses more, they are charged more. However, let's say every person in your city were to crank up a hugh saltwater tank system all at once. Are you telling me the electric company wouldn't need to produce more electricity to provide the power required to run all those tanks? And if they do, you don't think they wouldn't raise that standard price per kilowatt to circumvent what it'll cost them to produce that extra required power? Of course this is an extreme example. And yes, the difference in power requirements between a incandescent and a "green" bulb is negligible to an extent. However, if you added up that difference over time, and multiplied it by the hundreds of thousands bulbs in a major metropolis like New York or LA, I think you would see a major cost savings if every home went "green" with just their light bulbs.
that is assuming they're running at 100% usage right now. And well that isnt' accurate....
http:///forum/post/3273350
Yes, if a person uses more, they are charged more. However, let's say every person in your city were to crank up a hugh saltwater tank system all at once. Are you telling me the electric company wouldn't need to produce more electricity to provide the power required to run all those tanks? And if they do, you don't think they wouldn't raise that standard price per kilowatt to circumvent what it'll cost them to produce that extra required power? Of course this is an extreme example. And yes, the difference in power requirements between a incandescent and a "green" bulb is negligible to an extent. However, if you added up that difference over time, and multiplied it by the hundreds of thousands bulbs in a major metropolis like New York or LA, I think you would see a major cost savings if every home went "green" with just their light bulbs.
that is assuming they're running at 100% usage right now. And well that isnt' accurate....
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3273350
Yes, if a person uses more, they are charged more. However, let's say every person in your city were to crank up a hugh saltwater tank system all at once. Are you telling me the electric company wouldn't need to produce more electricity to provide the power required to run all those tanks? And if they do, you don't think they wouldn't raise that standard price per kilowatt to circumvent what it'll cost them to produce that extra required power? Of course this is an extreme example. And yes, the difference in power requirements between a incandescent and a "green" bulb is negligible to an extent. However, if you added up that difference over time, and multiplied it by the hundreds of thousands bulbs in a major metropolis like New York or LA, I think you would see a major cost savings if every home went "green" with just their light bulbs.
Our power company does tiered rates during the summer. First x killowatts are at one rate and those over y or a higher rate. Seems like a pretty good idea. They also offer a service where they install a remote switch on your ac where they can remotely kill your compressor motor for up to 20 minutes on a heavy use day. I never noticed it going off because the blower keeps running. If you were sitting right in front of a vent you might notice the air not being as cool but it isn't going to make a difference in the temp of the house. We got a 25.00 rebate once a year for allowing them to install that thing. Thats the right way to do this stuff.
http:///forum/post/3273350
Yes, if a person uses more, they are charged more. However, let's say every person in your city were to crank up a hugh saltwater tank system all at once. Are you telling me the electric company wouldn't need to produce more electricity to provide the power required to run all those tanks? And if they do, you don't think they wouldn't raise that standard price per kilowatt to circumvent what it'll cost them to produce that extra required power? Of course this is an extreme example. And yes, the difference in power requirements between a incandescent and a "green" bulb is negligible to an extent. However, if you added up that difference over time, and multiplied it by the hundreds of thousands bulbs in a major metropolis like New York or LA, I think you would see a major cost savings if every home went "green" with just their light bulbs.
Our power company does tiered rates during the summer. First x killowatts are at one rate and those over y or a higher rate. Seems like a pretty good idea. They also offer a service where they install a remote switch on your ac where they can remotely kill your compressor motor for up to 20 minutes on a heavy use day. I never noticed it going off because the blower keeps running. If you were sitting right in front of a vent you might notice the air not being as cool but it isn't going to make a difference in the temp of the house. We got a 25.00 rebate once a year for allowing them to install that thing. Thats the right way to do this stuff.
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by AquaKnight
http:///forum/post/3273358
How does that work? The power company is a company like any other (well, not exactly). But, let's say a town's demands were 1mil kW. Everyone went 'green' and now only uses 500,000 kW. The power company didn't magically downsize overnight. Almost all of their costs are the same, they just don't have to shove in as much coal, etc. So the less power gets used, the more per kW the company has to charge? Costo logic. If everyone is consuming lots of power, the power company can charge less per kW (greed, and other not theoretical factors not applied) and make more profits, then having people consume little power.
The grid isn't limited to a small area. The demand for power is steadily going up and there are old plants I am sure need to be rebuilt that the companies could build smaller or just do away with all together so I doubt they mind all the energy saving steps users are taking.
http:///forum/post/3273358
How does that work? The power company is a company like any other (well, not exactly). But, let's say a town's demands were 1mil kW. Everyone went 'green' and now only uses 500,000 kW. The power company didn't magically downsize overnight. Almost all of their costs are the same, they just don't have to shove in as much coal, etc. So the less power gets used, the more per kW the company has to charge? Costo logic. If everyone is consuming lots of power, the power company can charge less per kW (greed, and other not theoretical factors not applied) and make more profits, then having people consume little power.
The grid isn't limited to a small area. The demand for power is steadily going up and there are old plants I am sure need to be rebuilt that the companies could build smaller or just do away with all together so I doubt they mind all the energy saving steps users are taking.
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by Slice
http:///forum/post/3273356
According to this:
http://www.mge.com/home/appliances/l...comparison.htm
The energy efficiency of compact flourescent is 40-70 lumens per watt compared to incandescent
efficiency of 10-17, roughly 4x more efficient.
What is ignored many times is the manufacturing/distribution/other costs. Read: costs=resources.
If a flourescent bulb costs 5x more, it takes 5x more resources to make (given no government intervention). You *may* save a bit of resource here, but you give up more over there.
Its just like recycled materials. In general, they cost more than virgin (I know, I run the numbers nearly every day here at work). The reason for that is that collection/sorting/transportation/cleaning/reprocessing takes more resources than to make virgin from scratch. In many cases, the use of recycled product only looks good as far ahead as the end of one's nose. **this could be fixed with infrastructure, but as of now, the cart is waaaaaay before the horse. Actually, I much prefer "waste to energy" local facilities over recycling, but I digress.....
It does, however, make many people feel better about themselves...
A family friend used to be a big wig at a glass company. By law they had to buy old glass from people but the cost to reprocess it was so high they just took the glass they were forced to buy to the dump. Certain glass they would keep, the blue glass with cobalt added I think it was.
http:///forum/post/3273356
According to this:
http://www.mge.com/home/appliances/l...comparison.htm
The energy efficiency of compact flourescent is 40-70 lumens per watt compared to incandescent
efficiency of 10-17, roughly 4x more efficient.
What is ignored many times is the manufacturing/distribution/other costs. Read: costs=resources.
If a flourescent bulb costs 5x more, it takes 5x more resources to make (given no government intervention). You *may* save a bit of resource here, but you give up more over there.
Its just like recycled materials. In general, they cost more than virgin (I know, I run the numbers nearly every day here at work). The reason for that is that collection/sorting/transportation/cleaning/reprocessing takes more resources than to make virgin from scratch. In many cases, the use of recycled product only looks good as far ahead as the end of one's nose. **this could be fixed with infrastructure, but as of now, the cart is waaaaaay before the horse. Actually, I much prefer "waste to energy" local facilities over recycling, but I digress.....
It does, however, make many people feel better about themselves...
A family friend used to be a big wig at a glass company. By law they had to buy old glass from people but the cost to reprocess it was so high they just took the glass they were forced to buy to the dump. Certain glass they would keep, the blue glass with cobalt added I think it was.
bionicarm
Active Member
Originally Posted by AquaKnight
http:///forum/post/3273358
How does that work? The power company is a company like any other (well, not exactly). But, let's say a town's demands were 1mil kW. Everyone went 'green' and now only uses 500,000 kW. The power company didn't magically downsize overnight. Almost all of their costs are the same, they just don't have to shove in as much coal, etc. So the less power gets used, the more per kW the company has to charge? Costo logic. If everyone is consuming lots of power, the power company can charge less per kW (greed, and other not theoretical factors not applied) and make more profits, then having people consume little power.
I would think that if the power consumption went down by half, the power company could also reduce their output to accomodate that reduction, thereby reducing their production costs. Would they charge you less per kilowatt, or provide you with a credit because of the savings? We're talking electric companies here. You tell me.
http:///forum/post/3273358
How does that work? The power company is a company like any other (well, not exactly). But, let's say a town's demands were 1mil kW. Everyone went 'green' and now only uses 500,000 kW. The power company didn't magically downsize overnight. Almost all of their costs are the same, they just don't have to shove in as much coal, etc. So the less power gets used, the more per kW the company has to charge? Costo logic. If everyone is consuming lots of power, the power company can charge less per kW (greed, and other not theoretical factors not applied) and make more profits, then having people consume little power.
I would think that if the power consumption went down by half, the power company could also reduce their output to accomodate that reduction, thereby reducing their production costs. Would they charge you less per kilowatt, or provide you with a credit because of the savings? We're talking electric companies here. You tell me.