We all seem to be fine with it, considering we keep voting in the Union backed Democrats and the Corporate backed Republicans. We ALLOW them to remain in office, so we have no one to blame but ourselves.
Every eight weeks? Holy crap, CFLs in Europe must suck beyond anything I've ever seen. I started putting in CFLs over ten years ago. I recently made my first recycling visit, and dropped off a grand total of six bulbs (three were specialty bulbs that I ripped out before they failed because they looked terrible). What manufacturers are you buying from? I want to make sure to avoid them like the plague if they happen to be sold over here in the US.
On a side note, if they are falling that fast, why aren't you returning them to the store you bought them from and demanding your money back?
The spirals don't last even half as long as their proponents claim they do, which means you have to buy more than expected, breaking the cost curve
Ah, I love it when people don't even do a little basic math:
Rated lifetime of a CFL vs. Incandescent: 10,000 vs. 1,000 hours
Energy usage of a CFL vs. Incandescent: 25 vs. 100 watts
Cost of a CFL vs. Incandescent: $3.50 vs. 30 cents
Energy costs: assume 10 cents per kwh
Even assuming your 'last half as long' claim, the CFL's total cost over 5,000 hours is $16, while the incandescent is $51.5. How's your cost curve looking now?
Don't forget cleanup costs as the bulbs have toxic mercury in them.
Don't forget cleanup cost for more electricity for your incandescents, as the coal that powers it spews mercury into the air.
...so I have to drive somewhere to dispose of them and I'm pretty sure that this offsets the energy savings I'm making by using these.
Yes, I'm sure 5-10 years of saving 75% of your lighting costs is going to get eaten up by one drive.
My wife is really bugged by what she perceives as flickering...give her headaches..
How does your wife survive going into any office or place of business, since they pretty much all use fluorescent lighting?
I can only get bulbs that output the colour light I want...
When I switched 10 years ago, it took a few tries to get the right light-bulb, and even then it still looked odd at first. After less than a year, I stopped even noticing that I had CFLs through my whole house.
The bulbs in the right colours take forever to warm up. They start off dim and get brighter over about 5 minutes.
Five minutes??? What type of cheap ass bulbs did you buy? Even in cold weather, mine are usually warmed up within 30 seconds.
I'm all for allowing leaded gasonline... as long as you make sure it doesn't end up in MY environment. It's the same reason we ban smoking in buildings; I don't care if you smoke, but I do care if I have to smoke your crap against my will.
I agree. I can't believe how every time a city/state/county has a budget deficit, fines suddenly go up. Huh? If the fines are about making people safe, why didn't you up them before? If you are raising them only to make more money, then clearly the fine no longer fits the crime.
...and actions have even more meaning. If creationist only believe in a creator, why all the attacks against evolution? Because it doesn't square with what the bible says.
...you can't just go making shit up. not even if you're an atheist.
You are absolutely correct. I'll leave the 'making shit up' to the professionals... organized religion.
Not generally, no. Creationist means (to most people) that the bible is the story of how things were made by God. And I don't recall a Big Bang theory or evolution in there anywhere.
...could have used evolution as the means of creating life on Earth, setting first causes into motion (i.e. big bang)...
God could have possibly done that (and it would be hard to determine that one way or the other), but that's not what creationist believe. Otherwise, why would they fight against teaching evolution in schools?
They lose money on that customer on that visit. The hope is that by getting them there, they can turn into a regular, full-price-paying customer for many more visits.
Debt vs. income isn't a very useful indicator of anything. Net worth is probably a better indicator of how well you are doing financially. I have 'debt' (just my mortgage) that is about 150% of my income. By the metric you show, I'm actually worse than average. However, my total assets are about four times my annual salary, i.e., I have way more money than debt.
It's a shame that house won't be worth more at the end of that 30 years. If you are going to factor the time value of money into this equation, you have to do it for the debt AND the asset.
And there is also the fact that I can pay off/refinance that mortgage whenever I feel like, so you can't assume that the 160k mortgage will cost me 320k. It doesn't work that way. Otherwise, you could make up any number for credit card debt, since it can be paid off in just about any time frame that you can imagine.
Last I checked, the blogger didn't convict Moore of anything. He simply stated facts that he could back up with proof. Besides, part of the lawsuit was because Moore was fired. The blogger didn't force Moore's boss to fire him, so why was the blogger sued for this? Shouldn't Moore be suing his boss?
Christ, you are lazy. Fine, I'll do a search on the key words you posted. Oops, it looks like there are no studies listed that support your claims. In fact, the Canadian government supports my position that they use 1/3 less energy and last 10 times longer:
ENERGY STAR qualified CFLs use only about one-third as much electricity as a conventional bulb to produce the same amount of light. Although they cost a bit more, ENERGY STAR qualified CFLs are rated to last up to 10 times longer than incandescent bulbs.
Or were you referring to this unsupported rant from some random guy:
He is so stupid, that he thinks it is bad that CFLs don't waste enough heat:
Because they burn cooler, they cause home heating costs to rise.
...and so stupid that he doesn't even realize that we are exposed to UV rays all day from... Duh dun DUUUN.. THE SUN!
CFLs emit electromagnetic radiation, a type of energy that can make people very sick. Many people have reported skin rashes and irritation due to ultra-violet (UV) radiation.
Yes, they are called sunburns. Quick, everybody inside! The sun is coming out!
And did I mention that he cites ONE source for his claims? It's the infamous "1.8 kwh vs..11 kwh" energy needed for production. But... that same study actually takes into account the lifetime of the two bulb types, and it comes to the opposite conclusion of what he stated:
To produce 10^6 lumen hours, 0.14 CFL, or 1.37 incandescent lamp is necessary. The energy consuption to produce 0.14 DFL is 0.19 kWh and to prodcue 1.37 incandescent lamps 0.21 kWh is needed. In other words the production of CFLs does not require more energy than producing incandescent lamps...
Guess he never go around to reading the whole study.
Have I done enough research for you? I could refute your bullshit all day long if you like.
I tried searching before my previous post. I searched for 'canada cfl study'... and got a bunch of studies related to Canadian football league injuries. I'm not going to spend all day trying to figure out where these 'studies' are located. You took the time to post again to say 'Google it', but couldn't take the time to actually post a link. Since you have refused to tell anyone where these 'studies' are, I'm going to assume that they don't exist, and most of what you said is complete made up crap.
Links are your friends. I figure that people who are smart enough to comment on slashdot know how to link to their sources that they cite.
The full Canadian study included production energy,...[snip]...disposal
energy, particularly reclaiming the mercury.
Then why didn't you post THAT number, instead of the useless 1.7 number?
...but actually use 40 watts and not the 13 watts advertised.
I'm having a hard time buying the idea that a device suddenly draws triple the power of it's original design, and still functions. Who made this claim?
But, maybe the scientists in those two countries don't know what they're talking about. You are free to spend tons of money to come up with your own data.
You have made a couple of posts now about these alleged 'studies' by Canada and New Zealand. Is it really that difficult to give us a link to it?
...and you need about 10 incandescent bulbs for every one CFL bulb, so you really need 1.1kW-h (it's not kw/hour, BTW) of energy for the incandescent. And at 60 watts vs. 15 watts, you will make back that.6 kW-h after less than 15 hours of use. Hell, even if I go by your completely wrong 1.7 vs..11 comparison, it will only take about 40 hours to break even. Any more mathematically challenged bullshit you'd like to throw this way?
Direct electrical heating is one of the worst ways to heat your home. Plus, people also COOL their homes during half the year, so they no longer have to waste power getting rid of the excess heat generated by their old light bulbs.
What are, some kind of moron? The article I am referencing is talking about each household replacing one bulb each. Reading is your friend, try it some time.
Slashdot Mirror
We all seem to be fine with it, considering we keep voting in the Union backed Democrats and the Corporate backed Republicans. We ALLOW them to remain in office, so we have no one to blame but ourselves.
Yes, because unions would NEVER spend their member's dues to influence a politician!!!
Try 1 40 minute drive every 8 weeks.
Every eight weeks? Holy crap, CFLs in Europe must suck beyond anything I've ever seen. I started putting in CFLs over ten years ago. I recently made my first recycling visit, and dropped off a grand total of six bulbs (three were specialty bulbs that I ripped out before they failed because they looked terrible). What manufacturers are you buying from? I want to make sure to avoid them like the plague if they happen to be sold over here in the US.
On a side note, if they are falling that fast, why aren't you returning them to the store you bought them from and demanding your money back?
Dick.
What's with the name calling?
The spirals don't last even half as long as their proponents claim they do, which means you have to buy more than expected, breaking the cost curve
Ah, I love it when people don't even do a little basic math:
Rated lifetime of a CFL vs. Incandescent: 10,000 vs. 1,000 hours
Energy usage of a CFL vs. Incandescent: 25 vs. 100 watts
Cost of a CFL vs. Incandescent: $3.50 vs. 30 cents
Energy costs: assume 10 cents per kwh
Even assuming your 'last half as long' claim, the CFL's total cost over 5,000 hours is $16, while the incandescent is $51.5. How's your cost curve looking now?
Don't forget cleanup costs as the bulbs have toxic mercury in them.
Don't forget cleanup cost for more electricity for your incandescents, as the coal that powers it spews mercury into the air.
...so I have to drive somewhere to dispose of them and I'm pretty sure that this offsets the energy savings I'm making by using these.
Yes, I'm sure 5-10 years of saving 75% of your lighting costs is going to get eaten up by one drive.
My wife is really bugged by what she perceives as flickering...give her headaches..
How does your wife survive going into any office or place of business, since they pretty much all use fluorescent lighting?
I can only get bulbs that output the colour light I want...
When I switched 10 years ago, it took a few tries to get the right light-bulb, and even then it still looked odd at first. After less than a year, I stopped even noticing that I had CFLs through my whole house.
The bulbs in the right colours take forever to warm up. They start off dim and get brighter over about 5 minutes.
Five minutes??? What type of cheap ass bulbs did you buy? Even in cold weather, mine are usually warmed up within 30 seconds.
I'm all for allowing leaded gasonline... as long as you make sure it doesn't end up in MY environment. It's the same reason we ban smoking in buildings; I don't care if you smoke, but I do care if I have to smoke your crap against my will.
...the books on programming where in an adult section , where i wasn't allowed into yet...
What kind of freaky bookstore confuses C++ with porn?
I agree. I can't believe how every time a city/state/county has a budget deficit, fines suddenly go up. Huh? If the fines are about making people safe, why didn't you up them before? If you are raising them only to make more money, then clearly the fine no longer fits the crime.
Words have meanings,...
...and actions have even more meaning. If creationist only believe in a creator, why all the attacks against evolution? Because it doesn't square with what the bible says.
...you can't just go making shit up. not even if you're an atheist.
You are absolutely correct. I'll leave the 'making shit up' to the professionals... organized religion.
Creationist means that they believe in a creator.
Not generally, no. Creationist means (to most people) that the bible is the story of how things were made by God. And I don't recall a Big Bang theory or evolution in there anywhere.
...could have used evolution as the means of creating life on Earth, setting first causes into motion (i.e. big bang) ...
God could have possibly done that (and it would be hard to determine that one way or the other), but that's not what creationist believe. Otherwise, why would they fight against teaching evolution in schools?
...Exactly 10 years later he was nine years old,...
You might want to read that back to yourself.
They lose money on that customer on that visit. The hope is that by getting them there, they can turn into a regular, full-price-paying customer for many more visits.
Debt vs. income isn't a very useful indicator of anything. Net worth is probably a better indicator of how well you are doing financially. I have 'debt' (just my mortgage) that is about 150% of my income. By the metric you show, I'm actually worse than average. However, my total assets are about four times my annual salary, i.e., I have way more money than debt.
It's a shame that house won't be worth more at the end of that 30 years. If you are going to factor the time value of money into this equation, you have to do it for the debt AND the asset.
And there is also the fact that I can pay off/refinance that mortgage whenever I feel like, so you can't assume that the 160k mortgage will cost me 320k. It doesn't work that way. Otherwise, you could make up any number for credit card debt, since it can be paid off in just about any time frame that you can imagine.
Bush:
-War in Iraq/Afganistan
-Huge deficit spending
-Guantanamo bay holding prisoners with no right to a trial
-Increased spying/surveillance/searches of citizens
-Supported tax cuts for the top income brackets
-Bungled response to natural disaster (Katrina)
Obama:
-War in Irag/Afganistan
-Huge(r) deficit spending
-Guantanamo Bay holding prisoners with no right to a trial
-Increased spying/surveillance/searches of citizens
-Supported tax cuts for the top income brackets
-Bungled response to un-natural disaster (Gulf Spill)
Yep, alllllllllll sorts of changiness going on here.
...my wireless router, so bill me for one device.
If you don't think George W. Bush... followed by Barak Obama... is a change, then I don't know what is!
I can't quite tell if you are joking or not.
...but what happened to due process?
Last I checked, the blogger didn't convict Moore of anything. He simply stated facts that he could back up with proof. Besides, part of the lawsuit was because Moore was fired. The blogger didn't force Moore's boss to fire him, so why was the blogger sued for this? Shouldn't Moore be suing his boss?
Christ, you are lazy. Fine, I'll do a search on the key words you posted. Oops, it looks like there are no studies listed that support your claims. In fact, the Canadian government supports my position that they use 1/3 less energy and last 10 times longer:
http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/residential/business/manufacturers/questions-answers.cfm#save-money
ENERGY STAR qualified CFLs use only about one-third as much electricity as a conventional bulb to produce the same amount of light. Although they cost a bit more, ENERGY STAR qualified CFLs are rated to last up to 10 times longer than incandescent bulbs.
Or were you referring to this unsupported rant from some random guy:
http://www.greenmuze.com/blogs/guest-bloggers/1031-the-dark-side-of-cfls.html
He is so stupid, that he thinks it is bad that CFLs don't waste enough heat:
Because they burn cooler, they cause home heating costs to rise.
...and so stupid that he doesn't even realize that we are exposed to UV rays all day from... Duh dun DUUUN.. THE SUN!
CFLs emit electromagnetic radiation, a type of energy that can make people very sick. Many people have reported skin rashes and irritation due to ultra-violet (UV) radiation.
Yes, they are called sunburns. Quick, everybody inside! The sun is coming out!
And did I mention that he cites ONE source for his claims? It's the infamous "1.8 kwh vs. .11 kwh" energy needed for production. But... that same study actually takes into account the lifetime of the two bulb types, and it comes to the opposite conclusion of what he stated:
http://www.iaeel.org/IAEEL/Archive/Right_Light_Proceedings/Proceedings_Body/BOK1/200/1411.PDF
To produce 10^6 lumen hours, 0.14 CFL, or 1.37 incandescent lamp is necessary. The energy consuption to produce 0.14 DFL is 0.19 kWh and to prodcue 1.37 incandescent lamps 0.21 kWh is needed. In other words the production of CFLs does not require more energy than producing incandescent lamps...
Guess he never go around to reading the whole study.
Have I done enough research for you? I could refute your bullshit all day long if you like.
Links are your friends. I figure that people who are smart enough to comment on slashdot know how to link to their sources that they cite.
The full Canadian study included production energy, ...[snip]...disposal
energy, particularly reclaiming the mercury.
Then why didn't you post THAT number, instead of the useless 1.7 number?
...but actually use 40 watts and not the 13 watts advertised.
I'm having a hard time buying the idea that a device suddenly draws triple the power of it's original design, and still functions. Who made this claim?
But, maybe the scientists in those two countries don't know what they're talking about. You are free to spend tons of money to come up with your own data.
You have made a couple of posts now about these alleged 'studies' by Canada and New Zealand. Is it really that difficult to give us a link to it?
...and you need about 10 incandescent bulbs for every one CFL bulb, so you really need 1.1kW-h (it's not kw/hour, BTW) of energy for the incandescent. And at 60 watts vs. 15 watts, you will make back that .6 kW-h after less than 15 hours of use. Hell, even if I go by your completely wrong 1.7 vs. .11 comparison, it will only take about 40 hours to break even. Any more mathematically challenged bullshit you'd like to throw this way?
Direct electrical heating is one of the worst ways to heat your home. Plus, people also COOL their homes during half the year, so they no longer have to waste power getting rid of the excess heat generated by their old light bulbs.
What are, some kind of moron? The article I am referencing is talking about each household replacing one bulb each. Reading is your friend, try it some time.