Dimmable CFL bulbs and fixtures-you would probably have less trouble with the bulbs if you don't run them dimmed all the the time-like halogen bulbs.both the Halogen and flourscent bulbs should be run a full brightness perodically.The halogen cycles don't work on halogens that are dimmed all of the time-the bulb isn't getting hot enough for the halogen cycles to work.Otherwards a halogen bulb dimmed all of the time won't really last as long as one that runs a full power.Sounds strange but the bulb and its bulb walls have to run hot to evaporate the halogen chemical and tungsten to regenerate the tungsten back into the filament.the halogen(Iodine or Bromine) acts as the chemical "carrier" for the process.For flourescent and HID bulbs-there are dimming fixtures and ballasts for HID bulbs-esp metal halides.the color quality of these can change when the lamp is dimmed.Flourescent bulbs and hid bulbs should be run at full brightness and power for about 100hrs before dimming so as to distribute the mercury and chemicals in the bulb or its arc tube.then after the 100 hr break in period the bulb should dim better and be more stable.
Farewell to the incandescent light bulb
- Thread starter supersuds
- Start date
Help Support AutomaticWasher.org:
Sorry, no.
Sorry, I will go black market for bulbs if I can't get what I want here. My (well sort of) government wants to turn me into a criminal because I like a certain kind of light? You find me a replacement bulb that has the same color qualities and look as a halogen spot and I might try it. I have about 40 recessed lights in my home and I sure as hell don't want that dull diffused fluorescent crap that passes for light coming out of them. CFLs have their uses, I have 4 outside in my lampposts, and some in a closet or two, but that is as far as I'm willing to go with them. LED technology is progressing, and perhaps a combination of CFL and LED can approximate an incandescent bulb, but that is a ways off.
I design with light. I want pools of sharply focused light. I want shadows. I want to set a mood, to make items pop, to flood a work area with focused light. I use uplights around my house plants, they would not survive the winter with CFLs. Light is important to me and some govt. lackey is going to dictate to me what I can use in my home? We are becoming the USSR.
Sorry, I will go black market for bulbs if I can't get what I want here. My (well sort of) government wants to turn me into a criminal because I like a certain kind of light? You find me a replacement bulb that has the same color qualities and look as a halogen spot and I might try it. I have about 40 recessed lights in my home and I sure as hell don't want that dull diffused fluorescent crap that passes for light coming out of them. CFLs have their uses, I have 4 outside in my lampposts, and some in a closet or two, but that is as far as I'm willing to go with them. LED technology is progressing, and perhaps a combination of CFL and LED can approximate an incandescent bulb, but that is a ways off.
I design with light. I want pools of sharply focused light. I want shadows. I want to set a mood, to make items pop, to flood a work area with focused light. I use uplights around my house plants, they would not survive the winter with CFLs. Light is important to me and some govt. lackey is going to dictate to me what I can use in my home? We are becoming the USSR.
Mattl-for replacement light sources for Halogen-try low wattage metal halides-its a discharge lamp-provides higher efficiencies than halogen-but MH has the disadvantage it needs a ballast-takes time to warm up.Some varieties are dimmable-requires a dimming ballast.Otherwise I am with you that the nonsense of Gov't intrusion in our homes,bathrooms,laundry rooms,kitchens,and lawns has got to stop.Take note of the records of legislatiopn passed by Senators and Congressmen,vote away the ones that come up with these silly laws.
perc-o-prince
Well-known member
Find out more on his web site, I am there too.
Bob,
I went to the Kucinich site, and there's a link to "take the test," but the link goes to a domain registering service! Can you access the test?
Chuck
Bob,
I went to the Kucinich site, and there's a link to "take the test," but the link goes to a domain registering service! Can you access the test?
Chuck
What I don't get
is why on earth folks are so willing to ignore reality.
In 1973, at the very latest, we were told in no uncertain terms that we had placed our economies and welfare (we meaning EC and US) in the hands of suppliers who hate us, wish us harm and are willing to see the world go up in flames before they grant women, gays, children or dogs the most basic rights.
Since then, the US has done virtually nothing to reduce this vulnerability. Under the current administration, in fact, it has, sadly, made Americans even more vulnerable to these horrid people.
The EC has done better, if only marginally. It really wasn't until about five years ago in Germany that politicians woke up and realized that developing new technologies and exploiting other forms of energy creates lots of new jobs and provides security.
Would someone please explain to me just why it is patriotic to hold the US hostage to people who wish to destroy western culture? I am visiting relatives here in Colorado and Wyoming these days and to listen to them tell it...well, gosh.
is why on earth folks are so willing to ignore reality.
In 1973, at the very latest, we were told in no uncertain terms that we had placed our economies and welfare (we meaning EC and US) in the hands of suppliers who hate us, wish us harm and are willing to see the world go up in flames before they grant women, gays, children or dogs the most basic rights.
Since then, the US has done virtually nothing to reduce this vulnerability. Under the current administration, in fact, it has, sadly, made Americans even more vulnerable to these horrid people.
The EC has done better, if only marginally. It really wasn't until about five years ago in Germany that politicians woke up and realized that developing new technologies and exploiting other forms of energy creates lots of new jobs and provides security.
Would someone please explain to me just why it is patriotic to hold the US hostage to people who wish to destroy western culture? I am visiting relatives here in Colorado and Wyoming these days and to listen to them tell it...well, gosh.
danemodsandy
Well-known member
Heh.
"In 1973, at the very latest, we were told in no uncertain terms that we had placed our economies and welfare (we meaning EC and US) in the hands of suppliers who hate us, wish us harm and are willing to see the world go up in flames before they grant women, gays, children or dogs the most basic rights."
And that's just our own corporations and Congress.
"In 1973, at the very latest, we were told in no uncertain terms that we had placed our economies and welfare (we meaning EC and US) in the hands of suppliers who hate us, wish us harm and are willing to see the world go up in flames before they grant women, gays, children or dogs the most basic rights."
And that's just our own corporations and Congress.
sudsmaster
Well-known member
I got on the CFL bandwagon early on. I remember buying clunky magnetic coil ballast light "bulbs" at a now-defunct Home Depot clone in the early 90's (name escapes me) and running those in my home. Also, the circular ones with magnetic ballast. The technology has come a long way since then of course.
I also got some dimmable circular fluorescent torchieres back around 1999. I didn't much like they way they acted (and sounded) when dimmed, so I kept them mostly on full brightness. The mercury diffusion explanation makes sense... and it does seem to me that they work better nowadays than earlier.
I figure LED's will take the place of halogen spot lights, eventually, as they can shine a very focused beam of light. I put an LED replacement in one of my big Maglite flashlights, and am very impressed with the brightness and how long the batteries last. The color rendition seems pretty good as well. It wasn't cheap - about $20 - but I figure it's worth it.
Tolivac is right; refrigeration (and air conditioning) is probably the biggest energy consumer in a home with non-electric heating. Others have probably heard me say it multiple times, but I replaced a '70's GE sxs fridge with a year 2000 KA unit, and the yearly consumption (officially) went from 1700 kwh/yr to about 650 kwh/yr. That's a dramatic improvement.
I also got some dimmable circular fluorescent torchieres back around 1999. I didn't much like they way they acted (and sounded) when dimmed, so I kept them mostly on full brightness. The mercury diffusion explanation makes sense... and it does seem to me that they work better nowadays than earlier.
I figure LED's will take the place of halogen spot lights, eventually, as they can shine a very focused beam of light. I put an LED replacement in one of my big Maglite flashlights, and am very impressed with the brightness and how long the batteries last. The color rendition seems pretty good as well. It wasn't cheap - about $20 - but I figure it's worth it.
Tolivac is right; refrigeration (and air conditioning) is probably the biggest energy consumer in a home with non-electric heating. Others have probably heard me say it multiple times, but I replaced a '70's GE sxs fridge with a year 2000 KA unit, and the yearly consumption (officially) went from 1700 kwh/yr to about 650 kwh/yr. That's a dramatic improvement.
My thoughts...
My thoughts as to why we are in the energy mess we are in tend to focus on lobbyists and a president that is owned by big oil. Once, back a few decades, when this country was great we had leaders who did not shy away from a challenge. We faced problems head on and turned to our brilliant minds and vast manufacturing infrastructure to find solutions. We had the minds and capabilities to win WW II. We prospered in the 50's and 60's due to technical inventions, creating jobs and a better life for many. We created the Apollo project to get us to the moon. Is there any leader out there that has to foresight see see the myriad benefits a program like that would create?
What we need is true leadership. We need and Apollo project to replace the internal combustion engine. We need a Manhattan project to replace coal, oil and gas generated electricity. But this won't happen because big oil owns the president and congress. GM , Ford and Toyota all fight any regulations that might create more efficient vehicles. This isn't a government for the people, it's government for big business. We get what big business and it's stock holders want us to get. We have a disappearing middle class, because it cost took too much from the bottom line to support the people who bought the products they were producing. Ship that job to Cambodia, they'll work for pennies and not ask for health insurance.
So, we are told we can't light our homes as we see fit. We are not allowed to choose how this is done. It's simply by fiat. Because our leaders do not have the balls to do something innovative and forward thinking we are doomed to live in darkened caves. Government at it's Soviet styled best, "you will take what we decree and like it!"
Bah, humbug.
My thoughts as to why we are in the energy mess we are in tend to focus on lobbyists and a president that is owned by big oil. Once, back a few decades, when this country was great we had leaders who did not shy away from a challenge. We faced problems head on and turned to our brilliant minds and vast manufacturing infrastructure to find solutions. We had the minds and capabilities to win WW II. We prospered in the 50's and 60's due to technical inventions, creating jobs and a better life for many. We created the Apollo project to get us to the moon. Is there any leader out there that has to foresight see see the myriad benefits a program like that would create?
What we need is true leadership. We need and Apollo project to replace the internal combustion engine. We need a Manhattan project to replace coal, oil and gas generated electricity. But this won't happen because big oil owns the president and congress. GM , Ford and Toyota all fight any regulations that might create more efficient vehicles. This isn't a government for the people, it's government for big business. We get what big business and it's stock holders want us to get. We have a disappearing middle class, because it cost took too much from the bottom line to support the people who bought the products they were producing. Ship that job to Cambodia, they'll work for pennies and not ask for health insurance.
So, we are told we can't light our homes as we see fit. We are not allowed to choose how this is done. It's simply by fiat. Because our leaders do not have the balls to do something innovative and forward thinking we are doomed to live in darkened caves. Government at it's Soviet styled best, "you will take what we decree and like it!"
Bah, humbug.
andrewinorlando
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2004
- Messages
- 1,392
I agree with many of the things posted in the discussions here....many of you raise very valid and excellent points. But remember, energy in its raw form that we know of today, is not an infinite supply. And while most of us, myself included, don't like to be told what we can buy or not buy or use in or homes to wash our clothes and our dishes, energy conservation and efficiency have to start somewhere. There is no one perfect solution that works for all. I think we can agree that that would never happen. So, either we alienate the "working poor" by mandating more expensive higher efficiency appliances/light bulbs, or we piss of more affluent folks by levying substantial energy impact fees (taxes) on that new BMW 750i that Muffy just had to have for her birthday. Where do you draw the line between what's fair and what's over the top? And are additional energy taxes going to solve anything? How does that money get spent? What good does it do for the energy consuming public? Is its end result the reduction of energy consumption or is it just beaureaucratic bullshit? Can we measure it? Or is it better to do nothing and hope/expect/pray that ordinary citizens will feel the necessity and take action on their own, maybe once energy becomes prohibitively expensive in its essential daily forms to the point that it impacts the economy? If government mandates the more expensive, higher efficiency technologies, their prices will come down, no question about that, because these will no longer be considered "premium" products. They now become more run of the mill. Years ago, CFL bulbs were in the area of $8 - $12 a piece. Today, you can get them for under $2 or even less.
My point is that the line has to be drawn somewhere. Do we do like France does, and have a long range plan to replace electric generation in this country with nuclear power? That would solve a whole slew of problems....pollution, fossil fuel reliance, transportation of fossil fuels, etc., and create a whole new set of problems, but electricity will be plentiful and less expensive, and we'll be at no one's mercy as far as our fuel supply goes. Or do we just do nothing and hope that folks will get the message when they feel the pain?
Banning light bulbs alone ain't gonna do squat, and I think we pretty much know this. It's the precedent such an action sets for future legislation to restrict or regulate other products and choices that we currently enjoy. The problem with the United States has always been that we are a nation of plenty, and we seem to think we have the right to continue to expect that this "plenty" will never run out. And maybe it won't. But do we take that chance? Do we put ourselves on the precipice of potential disaster just because we believe we have that right and/or expectation? It's a very tough balancing act, and not everyone is going to be happy with the solutions, but that doesn't mean those solutions shouldn't be put out there, through legislation if absolutely needed to avoid catastrophes that it may be difficult from which to recover.
I remember back in the early 80's when the former LILCO came out with their CFL Residential Rebate program. The CFL lamp technology was fairly new, and the CFLs that came from Lights of America and from SATCO, in my opinion, really sucked. The light was yellow, not "soft white", but yellow. Some of the bulbs barely lasted 6 months, flickered, and caused radio/TV interference in some cases, and some of the bulbs wouldn't fit certain lamps unless the customer bought a harp extender. But look at this technology now...different sizes, shapes and color outputs to suit a variety of different uses. With necessity being the mother of invention, the possibilities could be endless, but, we have to start somewhere. Yeah, it's a drop in the bucket, but many other countries have a head start on us, and many of them did it without legislation or regulation. To me (and this is just my own humble opinion), that's where we should be because we're not a nation of idiots.
My point is that the line has to be drawn somewhere. Do we do like France does, and have a long range plan to replace electric generation in this country with nuclear power? That would solve a whole slew of problems....pollution, fossil fuel reliance, transportation of fossil fuels, etc., and create a whole new set of problems, but electricity will be plentiful and less expensive, and we'll be at no one's mercy as far as our fuel supply goes. Or do we just do nothing and hope that folks will get the message when they feel the pain?
Banning light bulbs alone ain't gonna do squat, and I think we pretty much know this. It's the precedent such an action sets for future legislation to restrict or regulate other products and choices that we currently enjoy. The problem with the United States has always been that we are a nation of plenty, and we seem to think we have the right to continue to expect that this "plenty" will never run out. And maybe it won't. But do we take that chance? Do we put ourselves on the precipice of potential disaster just because we believe we have that right and/or expectation? It's a very tough balancing act, and not everyone is going to be happy with the solutions, but that doesn't mean those solutions shouldn't be put out there, through legislation if absolutely needed to avoid catastrophes that it may be difficult from which to recover.
I remember back in the early 80's when the former LILCO came out with their CFL Residential Rebate program. The CFL lamp technology was fairly new, and the CFLs that came from Lights of America and from SATCO, in my opinion, really sucked. The light was yellow, not "soft white", but yellow. Some of the bulbs barely lasted 6 months, flickered, and caused radio/TV interference in some cases, and some of the bulbs wouldn't fit certain lamps unless the customer bought a harp extender. But look at this technology now...different sizes, shapes and color outputs to suit a variety of different uses. With necessity being the mother of invention, the possibilities could be endless, but, we have to start somewhere. Yeah, it's a drop in the bucket, but many other countries have a head start on us, and many of them did it without legislation or regulation. To me (and this is just my own humble opinion), that's where we should be because we're not a nation of idiots.
toggleswitch
Well-known member
What's our oil doing under their sand?
Now, if we would only divert the money we stick into war into alternative energy including solar energy.........
It is our patriotic duty to stop sending money to these place that supply oil. Especially when some are hell-bent on world domination and hate-mongering.
Perhas we need to burn garbge to produce electricity (to partialy reduce oil consumption)and we need to have a photvoltiac solar panels on every roof courtesy of the gov't, feeing the grid. Beefed-up thermal insulation in every new and renovated structure, etc. In my own office buildng there are no sensors to turn-off or dim common-area/ hallway lighting at night when the buildng is unoccupied.
There are so many ways to save energy. So simple, so effective and some are extremely easy to adjust to with no measurable decrease in living standards or comfort.
To me, getting rid of incandescent lighting is not the answer to anything. I am not by nature a hoarder, but since it is a very base instinct, I can learn to be to keep my light bulbs!
Now, if we would only divert the money we stick into war into alternative energy including solar energy.........
It is our patriotic duty to stop sending money to these place that supply oil. Especially when some are hell-bent on world domination and hate-mongering.
Perhas we need to burn garbge to produce electricity (to partialy reduce oil consumption)and we need to have a photvoltiac solar panels on every roof courtesy of the gov't, feeing the grid. Beefed-up thermal insulation in every new and renovated structure, etc. In my own office buildng there are no sensors to turn-off or dim common-area/ hallway lighting at night when the buildng is unoccupied.
There are so many ways to save energy. So simple, so effective and some are extremely easy to adjust to with no measurable decrease in living standards or comfort.
To me, getting rid of incandescent lighting is not the answer to anything. I am not by nature a hoarder, but since it is a very base instinct, I can learn to be to keep my light bulbs!
toggleswitch
Well-known member
Sorry; my proof-reading at work is weak!
brisnat81
Well-known member
The reason I think the mandate about CFL bulbs has come about, is that it is something everyone can do, and that for 90% of the population it will have no appreciable difference on their quality of life.
For Example, I replaced the 4 100watt Spotlights at the top and bottom of each flight of stairs with 23watt CFL bulbs (120Watt Equiv). These four lights probably run for about 5 hours per day. The Energy Saving is therefore 77watts x 4 = 308watts x 5 hours is 1.540KwH x 300 days = 450KwH per year.
Say 1 Billion households internationally changed out 4 globes to those that used 1/4 of the power. The saving then becomes, 450 Billion KwH saved per year. It doesnt seem like much effort to acheive these monumental power savings. The cost to each household is about $8 per globe.
If my arithmatic is incorrect in any way, please let me know.
To mandate water usage or gas usage, people have to start changing how they live. Take shorter showers, adjust the heat, drive less, buy smaller cars etc etc. CFL globes mean you can make savings without changing your life.
We've made the change quite easily to try and do our part and there is no appreciable difference in our lifestyle. Our water usuage has gone from 450L per person to 150L per person per day. Our power consumption has gone from $350 per quarter to $245. We havent changed how we live, we've just got fixtures and fittings that've enabled us to make the savings. Excluding the washer and dishwasher the total cost to us has been about $400AUD.
For Example, I replaced the 4 100watt Spotlights at the top and bottom of each flight of stairs with 23watt CFL bulbs (120Watt Equiv). These four lights probably run for about 5 hours per day. The Energy Saving is therefore 77watts x 4 = 308watts x 5 hours is 1.540KwH x 300 days = 450KwH per year.
Say 1 Billion households internationally changed out 4 globes to those that used 1/4 of the power. The saving then becomes, 450 Billion KwH saved per year. It doesnt seem like much effort to acheive these monumental power savings. The cost to each household is about $8 per globe.
If my arithmatic is incorrect in any way, please let me know.
To mandate water usage or gas usage, people have to start changing how they live. Take shorter showers, adjust the heat, drive less, buy smaller cars etc etc. CFL globes mean you can make savings without changing your life.
We've made the change quite easily to try and do our part and there is no appreciable difference in our lifestyle. Our water usuage has gone from 450L per person to 150L per person per day. Our power consumption has gone from $350 per quarter to $245. We havent changed how we live, we've just got fixtures and fittings that've enabled us to make the savings. Excluding the washer and dishwasher the total cost to us has been about $400AUD.
We need a Manhattan project to replace coal, oil and gas generated electricity.
We had one. It was, surprisingly, named The Manhattan Project.
France gets 80% of its power from nuke. We can, too. That alone would make a HUGE dent in our carbon footprint.
And give us cheaper electricity (nukes are fractionally cheaper than coal plants, per kw/h).
It's the idiots out there who can't grasp splitting atoms to make heat that have been holding it up for all these years...
We know more about nuclear power than any other source out there. We've studied plant design to death. We know more about radiation than we do about the common cold. The nuke industry all but invented modern industrial risk analysis and plant safety. We know how to build, operate, and deconstruct nuke plants in as perfect safety as one could achieve. We know what to do with the waste. We know how to store it safer than just about anything else.
Right after WWII, a good chunk of those 'who were there' in Nevada, went right on and designed/built the first generation of nuclear plants in the US, which serve as the basis for virtually all nukes built since then (ignoring Russian designs and the silly Magnox the Brits had).
Utilities want to build new ones - they're applying for licenses.
We always hear from anti nukes how it's so dangerous and how a few solar cells can fix the world. Ever look at the nasty stuff that goes into solar cell manufacture?
We had one. It was, surprisingly, named The Manhattan Project.
France gets 80% of its power from nuke. We can, too. That alone would make a HUGE dent in our carbon footprint.
And give us cheaper electricity (nukes are fractionally cheaper than coal plants, per kw/h).
It's the idiots out there who can't grasp splitting atoms to make heat that have been holding it up for all these years...
We know more about nuclear power than any other source out there. We've studied plant design to death. We know more about radiation than we do about the common cold. The nuke industry all but invented modern industrial risk analysis and plant safety. We know how to build, operate, and deconstruct nuke plants in as perfect safety as one could achieve. We know what to do with the waste. We know how to store it safer than just about anything else.
Right after WWII, a good chunk of those 'who were there' in Nevada, went right on and designed/built the first generation of nuclear plants in the US, which serve as the basis for virtually all nukes built since then (ignoring Russian designs and the silly Magnox the Brits had).
Utilities want to build new ones - they're applying for licenses.
We always hear from anti nukes how it's so dangerous and how a few solar cells can fix the world. Ever look at the nasty stuff that goes into solar cell manufacture?
The problem we have in America is that too many people think this way: "Saving a few thousand gallons of water and a few kilowatts isn't going to save the planet, so I'm not going to bother."
The whole point, to my way of thinking, is that if all of us do a few small things to save water/energy, our quality of life won't be drastically altered, but the savings will be enormous.
I'd like to see a LOT more wind-generated power. Windmills are popping up all over southwestern Minnesota and I couldn't be happier. We have nothing but wind out here on a daily basis. What could be cleaner or cheaper?
The whole point, to my way of thinking, is that if all of us do a few small things to save water/energy, our quality of life won't be drastically altered, but the savings will be enormous.
I'd like to see a LOT more wind-generated power. Windmills are popping up all over southwestern Minnesota and I couldn't be happier. We have nothing but wind out here on a daily basis. What could be cleaner or cheaper?
sudsmaster
Well-known member
I can sort of see a parallel here, with the phosphate bans on laundry detergents. In many cases, institutions and commercial laundries are still permitted to use phosphates, but the average citizen is banned. And there is some scientific doubt that the ban on consumer detergent phosphates have any great environmental impact. But it's something that didn't cost the mfg's anything (they just replaced STPP with cheaper washing soda, charged the same price, slapped a "contains no phophates" label on the packaging, let the consumer be darned).
That is, if light bulbs were the only thrust of the energy bill. But they aren't. Cars, appliances, etc are also covered. Haven't seen it yet, or even a good summary, but there's a lot more to it than just bulbs.
That is, if light bulbs were the only thrust of the energy bill. But they aren't. Cars, appliances, etc are also covered. Haven't seen it yet, or even a good summary, but there's a lot more to it than just bulbs.
Nuclear power-we should go whole hog on this as an energy source.The US is rich with nuclear fuel bearing ore.USE IT!!Same with coal-USE IT!!Build new Nuclear and coal plants.We need the power.Its possible to burn the coal more cleanly-If you carefully look at pollution maps of the world the US,Europe,Canada,UK,Asia, are NOT the offenders-Look and see who they are!!You will be surprized!These countries listed above burn their fuels in a more clean and efficient manner.And are not chopping down trees to burn as fuel.Yes, semiconductor manufacturing does involve lots of very toxic chemicals-but we can't give these semiconductor products up-if we did there goes your computer to type into and look up Applianceville!!Maybe some Applianceville members from France can shed some light on this subject-didn't France use some Breeder reactors supplied by ---General Electric?Yes-we should use breeders-you can "recharge" the spent fuel and generate power at the same time!No storing spent fuel cells when they can be kept in use and recharged like a battery.
sudsmaster
Well-known member
My understanding is that the Europeans use a more advanced, pressurized nuclear reactor system than our more antiquated boiling water reactor (such as at 3 Mile Island). No doubt we can do the more advanced design, but I don't think we've built any reactors for power generation in several decades. The real problem, apparently, is operator error.
Actually most of the commercial power nuclear reactors in the US and on ships-are of the PWR design.Westinghouse and Babcock-Wilcox came up with those boilers.The reactor at TMI was a PWR design.As you stated it was operator error that caused the incident-if the equipment was left on its own without the intervention the reactor would have been tripped off line before the problem got serious and loss of coolent occured.With any boiler or reactor loss of coolant is the primary hazard.This was even a concern in the old steam Rail locomotive days-That "firemans" other job was to monitor the sight glasses on the locomotive boilers to keep up the water levels-NO EXPOSED CROWNSHEETS!! otherwise a fatal boiler explosion would occur.the uncovered metal is weakend from heat due to the loss of water-becomes a soft spot-and the steam-BLEWIE!In the case of TMI the cleanup of emergency coolant and reactor "poisons" would have been less serious.Reactor "poisons" are chemicals dumpted into the fuel core to further kill the reaction along with the dropping of the control rods-a full "Scram" shutdown of the reactor.Boiling water reactors were built by General Elec tric in the earlier dayas of Commerical power reactors-none of these have been involved in known serious accidents.The boiling water units are very efficient and less expensive-the steam from the reactor fuel core goes to the generator turbine-but that steam is radioactive.Since the PWR has an isolated loop-the steam from the PWR isn't radioactive.Both types of reactors are used in the US power generation grids.Both are safe if ooperated correctly by well trained and licensed operators.Remember ANY form of electric power generation is potentially dangerous.Each has their own dangers.Since electric power generation is an energy conversion process-we just have to do this in as safe and efficient manner as possible.Also Chernobyl wouldn't have been a hazard if the operators there weren't playing "Mr Wizard" with their unsheilded reactor plant.At least US reactors are REQUIRED to be in containement buildings or enclosures.The Russian Reactors are more antiquated than US and European reactors.the older models you have to be more careful in using them.the Breeder system is an advanced nuclear system that uses a primary fuel core along with the secondary cores yopu want to "recharge"the operation operates at high tempartures and requires Sodium-Potassium mixture to cool the fuel cores."NAK" is used becuase of its very high boiling point.There are two NAK coolant loops on a usual breeder-one thru the main core-than feeds to the secondary one that goes to the steam generator-boiler.Needless to say these NAK loop plumbing is critical-you can imagine what would happen if liquid pressurized NAK hits water at about 1500 Degrees!A BIG BOOM!I think the hazards of the breeder are offset by the reuse of conventiaonl fission reactor fuel cores-keeping them in use-no "storage"And the Breeder is generating useful power as well!I think its worth the risk.One would think if the radioactive fuel cores are in the brreder being recharged or in a fission reactor being used they would present less of a security and enviormental risk.Just make sure the plant operators know what they are doing and follow ALL safety emergency procedures to the letter-no deviations!People have been hurt or killed in conventiaonl power plants as well-High pres-hi temp steam can be invisible-you could walk into the blast and be cut in half.Some people I knew that worked in boiler rooms in ships carried broomsticks in front of them when they heard the steam blasts-the steam would cut the broom in half if waved thru the blast-better it than your arm!
my biggest worry
About nuclear energy is not the process itself; the technology is proven and can be run safely.
Unfortunately, the history of private nuclear industry has been a horrid tale of sacrificing safety to maximize profit.
If we are going to return to nuclear energy, then not in the way safety has been turned over to the private sector in the last years.
Just think of all the toys pulled off the shelves in the last year, all the food contamination stories of the last years, all the other cover-ups and 'turned a blind eye' reports in the press.
About nuclear energy is not the process itself; the technology is proven and can be run safely.
Unfortunately, the history of private nuclear industry has been a horrid tale of sacrificing safety to maximize profit.
If we are going to return to nuclear energy, then not in the way safety has been turned over to the private sector in the last years.
Just think of all the toys pulled off the shelves in the last year, all the food contamination stories of the last years, all the other cover-ups and 'turned a blind eye' reports in the press.
"The government forcing people do to things" has lead to some great strides in product quality and safety: Seat belts, lead-free paint, Clean drinking water, safer food, truth in lending, flame resistant clothing for children - The list goes on and on.
Capitalism is a great economical system, but it needs regulation, or it will kill itself (and us with it). Irresponsible corporations whine about regulation like this, but it forces them to be more accountable to the consumer and ultimately to the stockholders.
As the article states, not all incandescent bulbs are being outlawed, and CFLs are only a stopgap measure. We are already seeing LED technology being used for a lot of commercial and industrial applications, I'm sure we will see it in our homes faster, thanks to this initiative.
Capitalism is a great economical system, but it needs regulation, or it will kill itself (and us with it). Irresponsible corporations whine about regulation like this, but it forces them to be more accountable to the consumer and ultimately to the stockholders.
As the article states, not all incandescent bulbs are being outlawed, and CFLs are only a stopgap measure. We are already seeing LED technology being used for a lot of commercial and industrial applications, I'm sure we will see it in our homes faster, thanks to this initiative.
Unfortunately, the history of private nuclear industry has been a horrid tale of sacrificing safety to maximize profit.
And in the US, the safety record of nuclear power is still better than every other industrialized country, except maybe France.
If we are going to return to nuclear energy, then not in the way safety has been turned over to the private sector in the last years.
Sure, we could go the government run route, and have a Hanford on every block. Or, just look what a mess it's been in the UK - aging plants (with no containment because the UK government says a nuke plant accident "isn't all that bad, really!") with numerous safety problems (which aren't all that bad, really!), being run with who knows what safety record (well, the partial meltdown at Chapelcross is semi-known, the fuel handing issues are pretty well known), with no real replacement record ("They're only 50 years old!") and no real public accountability.
Or, we could be like Canada, where the state run CANDU plants are worn out and in need of heavy overhaul....after 20 years of operation (look at Bruce-A). With who knows what happening along the way (it's known at least one "impossible" sudden pressure tube rupture happened over the years).
Or we could be like the Russians...
Like it or not, the simple fact is the US nuclear industry outperforms just about everyone else in terms of safety (Maybe the French beat us, but the French don't talk about nuclear accidents, so maybe they do, maybe they don't).
True, nuclear power's dangerous - EVERY form of electric generation is. But we lead the world in managing the risks - others countries come to US for the know-how. The PWR and BWR designs that dominate the world were both developed here, as was the containment, as was the idea of redundant safety systems, etc etc etc etc.
As far as breeders - I've read that lead-bismuth has been an idea the Russians have played with. The whole NAK thing is more because of the US DOE's hangup with sodium cooling than anything else (Shippingport ran as a breeder the last few years, and was a PWR).
I actually like the BWR, but it's hard to argue the PWR isn't a good design and mostly equal....
Nearly 50 years of commercial power generation in the US and there's been one major accident, two less major (Davis-Besse's top head corrosion issue, Brown's Ferry's fire), and a lot of annoying issues along the way (mostly because there were so many 'bleeding edge' plants built here). But no fatalities. Even Hydrolelectric can't say that. And let's not think of what could happen if a dam pops (and they do)
And in the US, the safety record of nuclear power is still better than every other industrialized country, except maybe France.
If we are going to return to nuclear energy, then not in the way safety has been turned over to the private sector in the last years.
Sure, we could go the government run route, and have a Hanford on every block. Or, just look what a mess it's been in the UK - aging plants (with no containment because the UK government says a nuke plant accident "isn't all that bad, really!") with numerous safety problems (which aren't all that bad, really!), being run with who knows what safety record (well, the partial meltdown at Chapelcross is semi-known, the fuel handing issues are pretty well known), with no real replacement record ("They're only 50 years old!") and no real public accountability.
Or, we could be like Canada, where the state run CANDU plants are worn out and in need of heavy overhaul....after 20 years of operation (look at Bruce-A). With who knows what happening along the way (it's known at least one "impossible" sudden pressure tube rupture happened over the years).
Or we could be like the Russians...
Like it or not, the simple fact is the US nuclear industry outperforms just about everyone else in terms of safety (Maybe the French beat us, but the French don't talk about nuclear accidents, so maybe they do, maybe they don't).
True, nuclear power's dangerous - EVERY form of electric generation is. But we lead the world in managing the risks - others countries come to US for the know-how. The PWR and BWR designs that dominate the world were both developed here, as was the containment, as was the idea of redundant safety systems, etc etc etc etc.
As far as breeders - I've read that lead-bismuth has been an idea the Russians have played with. The whole NAK thing is more because of the US DOE's hangup with sodium cooling than anything else (Shippingport ran as a breeder the last few years, and was a PWR).
I actually like the BWR, but it's hard to argue the PWR isn't a good design and mostly equal....
Nearly 50 years of commercial power generation in the US and there's been one major accident, two less major (Davis-Besse's top head corrosion issue, Brown's Ferry's fire), and a lot of annoying issues along the way (mostly because there were so many 'bleeding edge' plants built here). But no fatalities. Even Hydrolelectric can't say that. And let's not think of what could happen if a dam pops (and they do)
Incandescent light bulbs are far more efficient heaters than light producers. Substituting more efficient lighting not only reduces the energy used for lighting, but also cuts the air conditioning load and power consumption in a building. Does anyone remember going into the lighting department at Sears with all of those incandescent bulbs lighted? It was like walking under a broiler. CFLs are not the only efficient alternative . Look at all of the LED Christmas lights. The new tol WP range uses LEDs for lighting the cooking surface, so these and other advances will be available as the use of incandescent bulbs declines. Somehow, I thought that people who appreciated technology would not be so negative about more energy efficient lighting. In this area, apartment and office buildings that once had incandescent lighting in the halls and other public spaces changed to CFLs when they came out and replaced other fixtures with fluorescent lights to save energy and maintenance costs. Many even upgraded to much nicer fixtures to accommodate energy efficient lighting. If you voluntarily changed to efficient lighting, HVAC or appliances, do you feel that you should continue to pay higher electrical rates to finance higher fuel costs and building increased generating capacity needed, in part, because of those who do not care to conserve? If some will not conserve voluntarily, is it not in everyone's interest to encourage the change to more efficient lighting? Isn't that better than doing nothing to reduce the factors that can lead to massive blackouts or rolling blackouts?
Incandescent light bulbs produce fewer lumens over the life of the bulb. The tungsten filament slowly vaporizes and condenses on the cooler glass surface. Have you noticed that a burned out bulb often has a dark gray shading on the normally white inner surface?
With appliances, lighting and automobiles, increasingly expensive energy is going to move consumers to more energy efficient products and increased sales will lead to improvements. I remember the 2 "energy crises" in the 70s. People went looking for more energy efficient cars and bought Japanese. Detroit howled, but did not seriously change their offerings. They will spend untold millions lobbying against change, but are not nearly as ready to spend money to update their offerings. They had decided for decades what people were going to drive and they still want to. The Japanese car brands were lobbying with Detroit against changes this time around, so I guess it will be up to other manufacturers to step in and offer more energy efficient alternatives. Maybe advances in technology will improve hybrids and lower the cost.
Incandescent bulbs came along and provided light with an ease and convenience only dreamed of before Mr. Edison's invention. Even though parents used to say, "Turn off the lights when you're not in the room" and other slogans to teach their children thrift, domestic incandescent lighting was not a budget breaker and that's why, after the fluorescent tube came along, there was not much call for innovation in lighting while energy costs were stable. Now, with the vast amount of energy used for so many tasks, lighting is something ripe for energy efficiency improvement. Research and innovation into alternate forms of lighting are paying off for manufacturers and the public utilities. When CLFs were introduced, our power company sent out very generous savings coupons to encourage their purchase and use. The only incandescent bulbs for area lighting in my house are the ones over the vanity in the guest bath, which are hardly used and one of those big round globe bulbs in a fixture that is not used much. Yes, I had to modify some lamp shades, but the reduced energy draw does not burn up lamp sockets like using incandescents could. Most of the earlier CFLs from the 90s have burned out. They generally went from working to dead without going through weird light producing death throes. I replaced them with newer ones that are more compact in design, cost between $3 and $7 (for a special bulb) each and produce a better quality of light for truer colors. I guess I do not have enough of the decorator gene to be horribly affected by the light the CFLs produce, but incandescent bulbs affect colors too; we just are accustomed to that and make adjustments to compensate. The two areas where I spend most of my waking time, the kitchen and basement have fluorescent lighting with tubes delivering full spectrum light. The plants like it and I feel that they are experts when it comes to the quality of light.
Incandescent light bulbs produce fewer lumens over the life of the bulb. The tungsten filament slowly vaporizes and condenses on the cooler glass surface. Have you noticed that a burned out bulb often has a dark gray shading on the normally white inner surface?
With appliances, lighting and automobiles, increasingly expensive energy is going to move consumers to more energy efficient products and increased sales will lead to improvements. I remember the 2 "energy crises" in the 70s. People went looking for more energy efficient cars and bought Japanese. Detroit howled, but did not seriously change their offerings. They will spend untold millions lobbying against change, but are not nearly as ready to spend money to update their offerings. They had decided for decades what people were going to drive and they still want to. The Japanese car brands were lobbying with Detroit against changes this time around, so I guess it will be up to other manufacturers to step in and offer more energy efficient alternatives. Maybe advances in technology will improve hybrids and lower the cost.
Incandescent bulbs came along and provided light with an ease and convenience only dreamed of before Mr. Edison's invention. Even though parents used to say, "Turn off the lights when you're not in the room" and other slogans to teach their children thrift, domestic incandescent lighting was not a budget breaker and that's why, after the fluorescent tube came along, there was not much call for innovation in lighting while energy costs were stable. Now, with the vast amount of energy used for so many tasks, lighting is something ripe for energy efficiency improvement. Research and innovation into alternate forms of lighting are paying off for manufacturers and the public utilities. When CLFs were introduced, our power company sent out very generous savings coupons to encourage their purchase and use. The only incandescent bulbs for area lighting in my house are the ones over the vanity in the guest bath, which are hardly used and one of those big round globe bulbs in a fixture that is not used much. Yes, I had to modify some lamp shades, but the reduced energy draw does not burn up lamp sockets like using incandescents could. Most of the earlier CFLs from the 90s have burned out. They generally went from working to dead without going through weird light producing death throes. I replaced them with newer ones that are more compact in design, cost between $3 and $7 (for a special bulb) each and produce a better quality of light for truer colors. I guess I do not have enough of the decorator gene to be horribly affected by the light the CFLs produce, but incandescent bulbs affect colors too; we just are accustomed to that and make adjustments to compensate. The two areas where I spend most of my waking time, the kitchen and basement have fluorescent lighting with tubes delivering full spectrum light. The plants like it and I feel that they are experts when it comes to the quality of light.
Tomturbomatic, I understand what you are saying. The difference we have is that you did your conversion VOLUNTARILY. No one told you you had to. You found products that fit your needs, made the necessary adjustments, and are happy with the results. I've done that in many areas too.
However, at the moment there is not a comparable product to replace the bulbs I choose to use. Lets' say you're a toploader guy. The government has decreed that henceforth all top loaders are to be banned. From this point on no replacement parts of any kind are to be sold. Your lid switch broke and your machine will no longer operate and you are not allowed to buy a $5.95 part to make your machine operable. You are now forced to buy and use something you very much dislike. Sure the economies are different, but the point is the same.
I've spent a lot of time and money renovating my home to archive a look that I like. By fiat the hundreds or more likely thousands of dollars I've invested are worthless. Now, if there was a product that produced a similar light and effect perhaps I wouldn't be as upset, but the product has to be cost effective. I'm not willing to replace a $3.95 bulb with a $30.00 bulb just to satisfy the government.
I'm being asked to pay, and in a way suffer, because of some decisions made by some corporation. The various energy producers decided it was better for their bottom line and their stockholders not to invest in cleaner energy. Their decisions which in no way was I involved are affection millions of citizens who had no say in the matter. The end result is that everyone is paying for bad decisions by a few corporations who have befitted greatly, in effect we are subsidizing their greed.
However, at the moment there is not a comparable product to replace the bulbs I choose to use. Lets' say you're a toploader guy. The government has decreed that henceforth all top loaders are to be banned. From this point on no replacement parts of any kind are to be sold. Your lid switch broke and your machine will no longer operate and you are not allowed to buy a $5.95 part to make your machine operable. You are now forced to buy and use something you very much dislike. Sure the economies are different, but the point is the same.
I've spent a lot of time and money renovating my home to archive a look that I like. By fiat the hundreds or more likely thousands of dollars I've invested are worthless. Now, if there was a product that produced a similar light and effect perhaps I wouldn't be as upset, but the product has to be cost effective. I'm not willing to replace a $3.95 bulb with a $30.00 bulb just to satisfy the government.
I'm being asked to pay, and in a way suffer, because of some decisions made by some corporation. The various energy producers decided it was better for their bottom line and their stockholders not to invest in cleaner energy. Their decisions which in no way was I involved are affection millions of citizens who had no say in the matter. The end result is that everyone is paying for bad decisions by a few corporations who have befitted greatly, in effect we are subsidizing their greed.
So how can I cook in my E-Z Bake Oven now? Now you guys should know by now that your government has your better interest in mind when they make all those tough energy decisions. Man that must have been tough working on that bill. All those government big wigs trying to figure out what to do that wouldn't harm their way of life. To hell with your ways of life, it's theirs that is at stake.
sudsmaster
Well-known member
I was just in Costco today. They are selling a 10 pack of 60 watt Feit CFL's for $3.99. That works out to about 40 cents a bulb. I think that's fairly competitive with incandescents.
I've seen those
I've seen those FEIT CFLs at COSTCO. That price is unbelievably low. I wonder about the quality level. Of course, at 40 cents per bulb my expectations would be low. However if they have a 30% OOB failure rate, slow to start or purvey icky light I'd rather spend my money elsewhere.
For that money I might buy and test them myself. I'm intrigued but not yet won over. Hmmm.
I've seen those FEIT CFLs at COSTCO. That price is unbelievably low. I wonder about the quality level. Of course, at 40 cents per bulb my expectations would be low. However if they have a 30% OOB failure rate, slow to start or purvey icky light I'd rather spend my money elsewhere.
For that money I might buy and test them myself. I'm intrigued but not yet won over. Hmmm.
sudsmaster
Well-known member
The 60 watt Feits are ok (they might even be Philips brand; I didn't look closely, the store was packed). Some of them have a purplish glow when first fired up, as they warm up the color gets more soft white. I would estimate perhaps at most a 10% initial failure rate. I haven't had any fail so far in service, but I have "upgraded" most of them to 100 watt Philips bulbs in the past year - more light for not much more electricity.
XYZ I kind of agree with you. I don't think incandescent bulbs will be totally banned because I would think in places like Alaska or Antarctica or Canada the heat would be welcome in a house, also you can make bread rise in an oven by leaving the oven light on without turning the oven on. Actually, all the politicians have banning incandescents on their web sites because they want you to think they really know about saving energy. Except for Dennis Kucinich. He really wants alternative energy but has no plans to ban traditional light bulbs (at least there is no mention of any plan) so vote for Dennis and keep your light bulbs!
http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/Dennis_Kucinich_Energy_+_Oil.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/Dennis_Kucinich_Energy_+_Oil.htm
Similar threads
