| Subject: in a word... |
Author:
sci guy
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 15:09:04 01/27/08 Sun
In reply to:
Curmudgeon
's message, "Isn't it more environmentally friendly to go incandescent for its" on 07:50:40 01/25/08 Fri
no
>thermal byproduct, generated in a large and very
>efficient power plant than make up that thermal energy
>by burning oil or natural gas in one's relatively
>inefficient furnace in the basement?
>
>Just wondering.
>
>
>
>
>>gee no wonder i turn on my regular lights in the bath
>>room. thay make it a bit warmer in there.
>>
>>The world has seen that if ever a utopian scheme
>>becomes law, that law achieves the opposite of the
>>intended utopian effect. Call it "Longman's Lemma" if
>>someone else doesn't already claim it. And nowhere can
>>that proverbial truth be observed more laughably than
>>in Congress' compact fluorescent light bulbs.
>>Echoing around my head from some required
>>eco-indoctrinaire experience in my educational past
>>was this unconnected fact: "Some homes in Sweden are
>>heated entirely with incandescent light bulbs." I
>>don't remember where I'd heard this; it was being held
>>up as an example of what errant Americans could do if
>>only we let Bob Villa overwhelm our R-factors and
>>insulate our attics properly. In colonial days, we
>>were to be ashamed of our immorality; today we are
>>supposed to be ashamed of our Owens-Corning.
>>
>>Anyway, that idea wandered through my mind in search
>>of something to connect with.
>>
>>When it found Congress' latest law on eco-madness,
>>click, the light went on.
>>
>>Regular, Thomas Edison-style, incandescent light bulbs
>>throw off a large amount of heat. When you purchase a
>>"100-watt" light bulb, that power rating refers to
>>what the bulb consumes, not so much what it
>>illuminates. Today we are told that a 15- or 20-watt
>>compact-fluorescent will produce as much light as a
>>100-watt incandescent
>>American leftists, intent on hating the chemicals they
>>are made from, work very hard to force other people to
>>reduce the amount of CO2 emitted during existence.
>>Being mostly liberal arts majors, and not engineers,
>>these folks have quickly come to equate energy
>>efficiency with lower CO2 emission. Based on those
>>vague facts, and a strong sense of female social
>>emotion, Congress recently passed a law yanking
>>incandescent lights from production and replacing them
>>all with compact fluorescents. Wisdom has been
>>mandated.
>>
>>The net result, of course, will be more fossil fuels
>>burned and more CO2 released. The lemma says so. And
>>as a conservative, I'm OK with that and think it's
>>funny. But of course, facts shall never intrude on the
>>feelings of idealism possessed by the utopian
>>instigators of these stupefying laws. But I would
>>invite everyone who thinks this Congress is a bunch of
>>loonies to laugh at them with me.
>>
>>Heating a home is far more energy consumptive than
>>cooling it. And, according to National Public Radio,
>>"on average, heating an American home with natural gas
>>produces about 6,400 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2, a
>>major warming gas). Use electricity, and CO2 emissions
>>average about 4,700 pounds." One must recognize that
>>whereas electric heat comes from a mix of nuclear
>>power, coal and other sources, natural gas heating
>>comes exclusively from burning things. So, electric
>>heat, chiefly because nuclear power produces no
>>oxidized carbon, pollutes less.
>>
>>But how many pounds of C02 does it produce for two
>>environmentalists to screw in a light bulb? Well, it's
>>about 17 percent more hot air than if you'd asked two
>>conservatives to do it. See, if we remove a 100-watt
>>incandescent, and replace it with a 20-watt
>>compact-fluorescent, the light in the room may not
>>dim, but the warmth in that room has been cut by about
>>80 watts.
>>
>>Let's consider an American home at 1,700 square feet,
>>using 10 watts per square foot over the course of a
>>year for heating, and lit with 30 incandescent,
>>100-watt light bulbs. In such a normal home, 17
>>percent of the wattage needed for winter heating would
>>be supplied by the electric lights, when the lights
>>were turned on. If you replace those incandescents
>>with compact fluorescents, only 3 percent of the
>>average heat necessary to heat the house would now be
>>available from the light bulbs.
>>
>>The conservation of energy points out that if the
>>thermostat doesn't change its setting, the lost
>>wattage will have to come from your furnace or boiler.
>>That means the 2,400 watts you otherwise would have
>>been buying from the electric company you would now
>>buy from your heating company. The furnace would run
>>more often. Your heating bill would go up.
>>
>>So, a regular natural gas home that would have been
>>getting 83 percent of its heat from gas and 17 percent
>>of its heat from electric light will now fall to 97
>>percent of its heat from gas and 3 percent of its heat
>>from electricity. If NPR's statistics are correct,
>>that means a home using natural gas and incandescents
>>would produce about 1,000 pounds more per year of CO2
>>by switching to compact fluorescent bulbs. Since most
>>American homes are heated with natural gas, which
>>costs less than electricity, it is an economic gain.
>>
>>So, switching to compact fluorescents will save you
>>money, raise the amount of hydrocarbons burned and
>>make a mockery of the latest leftist utopian scheme.
>>Conservatives should do it, and liberals should avoid
>>it. But, of course, if you wanted lighting that
>>lowered the humidity, lowered hydrocarbon pollution
>>and employed green power from wind farms or solar, the
>>Democratic Congress has prevented all that now.
>>
>>As a conservative, I switched to compact fluorescents
>>years ago to make more money and emit more pollution.
>>I would encourage conservatives and liberals
>>everywhere comply with the new law so they can do the
>>same.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 