They look like crap because your of subjective attachment to incandescents, not because incandescents better approximate the sun. As noted by the other post your experience with 5700K being blue compared to 2500K does not make much sense. Maybe its the other way around.
Yes. This law is analogous to the holocaust. I'm sure Neimoller would be proud.
The government has NO AUTHORITY to dictate what I can buy and use in my own damn house.
For the purposes of our discussion claimed authority is the same as real authority until it is negated by the courts. And uhh based on our 150 of federal creep, I don't really have much faith in your argument. Meanwhile in the real world it is in the national interest that our people understand the value of energy and use our resources wisely.
I think you forgot that the constitution is a meaningless document. The legislation passed. Until the court rules otherwise, it's law of the land. Perhaps you petition the courts and prove me wrong.
No.
Using less coal by enforcing high efficiency bulbs results in less pollution, saves mountain tops, and mitigates global warming.
"Show's of effort" are precisely what is needed. As you point out, there are few technical or even economic impediments to seriously reducing our economic sensitivity to fossil fuels. The major barriers are 1) ignorance 2) selfish gross negligence. Such legislation strikes at the heart of the problem. Note: Please note that I do not endorse this legislation, but I am encouraged by policy makers seeking to eliminate these barriers. I agree with your last paragraph.
That's a rather arrogant way to put it, don't you think?
Yes.
electric heat makes more sense.
No. The dead state varies little on planet earth, hence there is no more sense, speaking thermodynamically.
Did you know that there are a significant number of homes in semi-rural areas that have no natural gas available?
Yes. I thank the EIA@DOE for these numbers. Electricity/natural gas are not the only options. In fact, if we're talking about 60W light bulbs making a significant impact on your space heating loads, there are probably other low-hanging fruit that will dismiss your space heating load entirely.
And frankly, it would be best to do a cost-benefit analysis before retrofitting a heat pump in place of the resistance heaters that are still fairly common. What you also ignore in Marcello's statement is that he proposes a mechanism whereby he would pay for the damage caused by his preferences. Pot, meet kettle.
I ignored it because I don't care. Paying for the environmental consequences of inefficient processes is mutually exclusive of your prior point that more efficient / less polluting may not be cost effective. If CBA suggests he continue to pollute your policy lever is useless.
I'm not set to debate whether some drafty old farmhouse in Northern Georgia will benefit from a more efficient machine. Public policy, the subject of this thread, simply can not be optimized for oddball cases. Its largely irrelevant as well. If you want to buy a light bulb for heating, you will always have that option. But that heating bulb will be an oddball solution for an oddball case. From a national (or global) perspective policy must rely on very basic metrics, such as 2nd law efficiency. My only purpose was the arrogant disclosure that 1st law efficiency metrics are meaningless outside your local system boundary. This truth offers the only path for our collective energy salvation.
The format of our government is beside the point. In fact, your opinion is symptomatic of the system I'm criticizingly. You would so cavalierly allow a capital punishment if the majority of population were against it because said population can air their grievance during the next election? This is preposterous. My questions remain even if the process was slowed by indirect representation.
Upon further reflection you retreat to a lesser claim. That is sufficient for me. I'll trade your reader survey for research by a 3rd warranty firm with results that affect their bottom line.
You're right the danger to soldiers and citizens is easily dismissed, because its fairly obvious those are not real concerns of our foreign policy.
1) Soldiers volunteered. If they don't want to die for shallow and vain reasons they chose the wrong occupation. Shit for a long time we sent them into battle unarmored.. Sounds like a really important resource to me... Meat shields.
2) It overlooks the fact that the primary danger to our soldiers is the occupation of enemy territory. And the primary danger to citizens in occupied territory is from the war we wage. It's a bit hypocritical don't you think then to chide leaked documents for "putting lives at risk"?
It is legal to violate Geneva convention (rendition, various "torture" techniques)?
Is it legal to violate UN charter and spy on diplomats (using techniques that constitute identity fraud in our own country)?
Is it legal to prostitute children in Afghanistan?
Is it legal to cover up civilian casualties of war? Misrepresent civilian deaths? Cover-up friendly fire casualties?
Is it legal to bribe/extort foreign officials?
Is it legal for US companies to perpetrate fraud on developing nations?
Is it legal to bypass UN&US sanctions on "enemy nations"?
Is it legal for the US government to threaten foreign nations wishing to take action against illegal/unethical behavior of US corporations?
Is it legal for the US government to retaliate economically against foreign nations who impose legislation in their countries opposing dangerous or untested products?
Is it legal to test drugs on Nigerian children without their knowledge or consent and blackmail prosecutors suing you for said actions?
You are blithering idiot for choosing willful ignorance in the face of the revelations in these cables. At the absolute bare minimum, there is evidence to support additional investigation to determine what laws were broken.
Your handle succinctly described your position. Simple and unthinking obedience to the state. If 13% of the country thinks Bradley Manning is a hero do we execute him? Is Bradley Manning a traitor who should be executed if 37% of the citizenry support him? If 51% of the people in this country think Bradley Manning is a hero can we execute you as an enemy of our constitutional democracy?
I don't care if he is a emo kid, narcissist, angry teenager, terrorist, or freedom fighter. He exercised his constitutional duty to reveal criminal behavior and expose the duplicitous and potentially illegal actions of the state department, department of justice, department of defense, military leaders, congressional representatives, executive branch, foreign ambassadors, foreign leaders, low-level diplomats, and corporate executives to name a few. That the state is so corrupt that their are no investigations into (documented) war crimes, child prostitution, bribery, extortion, constitutional violations, international treaty violations is totally irrelevant to Bradley Manning. Opponents of Bradley Manning are opponents of the principles of our constitutional democracy.
We will wager whether or not the US will reach 25% net generated electricity from wind and solar. Iowa 1% to 15% in less than a decade! Back to the point, at net present generation we need about 250 GW total. For reference about 230GW are installed globally as of 2010. Further reference, Germany has about 8% wind+solar and has legislated 35% by 2030. They have slightly worse wind resource than US and worse solar resource than any state except Alaska. We are presently at ~27 GW (annualized, nameplate is larger) or slightly over 2%. Thankfully 35 states have legislated about ~14% (~140GW discounting hydro,biomass) into existence between 2013 - 2025. A federal mandate will hasten this, but is unlikely before 2013. Global production of wind is ~40 GW and solar is ~15 GW, increasing by 7-10 GW/yr each. This is looking really good. How would you like to do this? Can we chose an escrow service? You want over/under on the % or the year? email me shuperoy at gmail.com
I deeply regret that most unethical corporate behavior is not illegal, but much of it is. When an executive conceals evidence that their products kill people or sells financial products designed to fail, they are not held criminally liable despite obvious criminal negligence or fraud. Instead, their corporation settles in a civil court for a token penalty and no admission of guilt. This "freedom" as you so aptly describe hardly extends to a negligent nurse or common grifter, who are routinely criminally prosecuted for gross negligence or fraud.
"It's not like corporations have a license to break the law."
Actually they do. Token settlements without the admission of guilt constitute a permission slip from the government to break the law. In situations where corporations are not above the law, they have tremendous resources with which to pervert the legal system. Furthermore, the larger an organization becomes the easier it is to hide attribution of illegal behavior.
As for as penalizing investors and other corporate stakeholders? They are liable up to the value of their investment. I have no qualms about holding a board of pharma executives criminally liable for gross negligence and perjury, if they conceal evidence their products kill people. They should be prosecuted criminally and serve the same jail sentence as a negligent nurse who also lied about her involvement in a patient death. Their corporation should be dissolved, its assets seized. Investors lose their investment. Employees lose their jobs. The cost of corporate malfeasance is VERY steep. Future investors and employees become more scrupulous. The present system which seeks to avoid widespread destruction ( the poor employees! investors, etc) simply fosters increased corruption and eliminates personal liability.
FYI, at "the end of the day" groups of people are not the same as individuals, their psychology and behavior are entirely different, thus they should not be treated as individuals.
Monoculture is not inherently good or bad. It can be leveraged for good and bad. Corporate monoculture is generally bad because corporations are amoral and hence act unethically and illegally. Microsoft's behavior is infamous. I disagree with many choices made at the Googleplex, but to me it doesn't appear they have yet leveraged their monoculture in anyway that rivals Microsoft.
Windows is an inferior product (especially in the past), which has lent significant ammunition to critics of Microsoft. Is there a competing search product that Google stymies using anti competitive practices?
"(and who are oblivious to the fact that solar and wind power are a fucking joke and a pipe-dream that will never replace even a significant fraction of our energy needs)"
I'll take that wager. What would you define as significant, 5%? 10%? 30%? Is nuclear power a joke or pipe dream? What size of industry will no longer be classified as a joke or a pipe dream 10 billion/yr? 100 billion/yr? If 40% of new US generation is wind, how long until it is no longer a fucking joke or pipe dream?
"In the winter the old incandescent lamp has an efficiency nearing 100% because you use its heat too."
Incorrect. You neglect the losses during generation/transit. Using a light bulb for heating (or making the thermodynamic argument for it) is perfect for one thing however: demonstrating clearly that the boundary of thinking of said person is narrow and incompatible with modern society.
I'm not promoting the legislation, but your argument is specious.
"forcing consumers is not a constitutional or even sensible way to achieve energy use goals. "
That certainly remains to be seen.
No bulb technology can reproduce the solar spectrum. I challenge your declaration that an incandescent bulb is a "natural reference." The spectrum argument boils down to a subjective preference.
"She could plug in an electric heater and leave it on all day if she wants, so what's the point of banning the bulbs again???"
How about I just let you cogitate on the absurdity of this statement...
It is not energy efficient for heating. If its fossil fuel powered, you have 70% loss before it reaches your door. It is even more ridiculous if you include the lost opportunity of doing something useful.
That's a pretty expensive way to heat your home. It's also, thermodynamically speaking, possibly the most obtuse end use of electricity that exists. Broadly speaking this obtuse thinking unnecessarily damages society and the environment.
Slashdot Mirror
They look like crap because your of subjective attachment to incandescents, not because incandescents better approximate the sun. As noted by the other post your experience with 5700K being blue compared to 2500K does not make much sense. Maybe its the other way around.
No. I'm talking about matching the solar spectrum to the same quantitative degree of any other technology.
Yes. This law is analogous to the holocaust. I'm sure Neimoller would be proud.
The government has NO AUTHORITY to dictate what I can buy and use in my own damn house.
For the purposes of our discussion claimed authority is the same as real authority until it is negated by the courts. And uhh based on our 150 of federal creep, I don't really have much faith in your argument. Meanwhile in the real world it is in the national interest that our people understand the value of energy and use our resources wisely.
I think you are confused. Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Available_useful_work_(thermodynamics)
I think you forgot that the constitution is a meaningless document. The legislation passed. Until the court rules otherwise, it's law of the land. Perhaps you petition the courts and prove me wrong.
No.
Using less coal by enforcing high efficiency bulbs results in less pollution, saves mountain tops, and mitigates global warming.
"Show's of effort" are precisely what is needed. As you point out, there are few technical or even economic impediments to seriously reducing our economic sensitivity to fossil fuels. The major barriers are 1) ignorance 2) selfish gross negligence. Such legislation strikes at the heart of the problem. Note: Please note that I do not endorse this legislation, but I am encouraged by policy makers seeking to eliminate these barriers. I agree with your last paragraph.
That's a rather arrogant way to put it, don't you think?
Yes.
electric heat makes more sense.
No. The dead state varies little on planet earth, hence there is no more sense, speaking thermodynamically.
Did you know that there are a significant number of homes in semi-rural areas that have no natural gas available?
Yes. I thank the EIA@DOE for these numbers. Electricity/natural gas are not the only options. In fact, if we're talking about 60W light bulbs making a significant impact on your space heating loads, there are probably other low-hanging fruit that will dismiss your space heating load entirely.
And frankly, it would be best to do a cost-benefit analysis before retrofitting a heat pump in place of the resistance heaters that are still fairly common. What you also ignore in Marcello's statement is that he proposes a mechanism whereby he would pay for the damage caused by his preferences. Pot, meet kettle.
I ignored it because I don't care. Paying for the environmental consequences of inefficient processes is mutually exclusive of your prior point that more efficient / less polluting may not be cost effective. If CBA suggests he continue to pollute your policy lever is useless.
I'm not set to debate whether some drafty old farmhouse in Northern Georgia will benefit from a more efficient machine. Public policy, the subject of this thread, simply can not be optimized for oddball cases. Its largely irrelevant as well. If you want to buy a light bulb for heating, you will always have that option. But that heating bulb will be an oddball solution for an oddball case. From a national (or global) perspective policy must rely on very basic metrics, such as 2nd law efficiency. My only purpose was the arrogant disclosure that 1st law efficiency metrics are meaningless outside your local system boundary. This truth offers the only path for our collective energy salvation.
That was not a very classy concession speech, but I'll take it.
The format of our government is beside the point. In fact, your opinion is symptomatic of the system I'm criticizingly. You would so cavalierly allow a capital punishment if the majority of population were against it because said population can air their grievance during the next election? This is preposterous. My questions remain even if the process was slowed by indirect representation.
Upon further reflection you retreat to a lesser claim. That is sufficient for me. I'll trade your reader survey for research by a 3rd warranty firm with results that affect their bottom line.
http://www.squaretrade.com/pages/laptop-reliability-1109/
If I had to quantify your initial claim I would not fall upon 4th place out of 9. Even your retreat tis barely acceptable.
If there were ever an apt mod war, I would say this is it. You essentially have a dispute over the execution or pardon of a US citizen.
You're right the danger to soldiers and citizens is easily dismissed, because its fairly obvious those are not real concerns of our foreign policy.
1) Soldiers volunteered. If they don't want to die for shallow and vain reasons they chose the wrong occupation. Shit for a long time we sent them into battle unarmored.. Sounds like a really important resource to me... Meat shields.
2) It overlooks the fact that the primary danger to our soldiers is the occupation of enemy territory. And the primary danger to citizens in occupied territory is from the war we wage. It's a bit hypocritical don't you think then to chide leaked documents for "putting lives at risk"?
You funny apologist clown.
It is legal to violate Geneva convention (rendition, various "torture" techniques)?
Is it legal to violate UN charter and spy on diplomats (using techniques that constitute identity fraud in our own country)?
Is it legal to prostitute children in Afghanistan?
Is it legal to cover up civilian casualties of war? Misrepresent civilian deaths? Cover-up friendly fire casualties?
Is it legal to bribe/extort foreign officials?
Is it legal for US companies to perpetrate fraud on developing nations?
Is it legal to bypass UN&US sanctions on "enemy nations"?
Is it legal for the US government to threaten foreign nations wishing to take action against illegal/unethical behavior of US corporations?
Is it legal for the US government to retaliate economically against foreign nations who impose legislation in their countries opposing dangerous or untested products?
Is it legal to test drugs on Nigerian children without their knowledge or consent and blackmail prosecutors suing you for said actions?
You are blithering idiot for choosing willful ignorance in the face of the revelations in these cables. At the absolute bare minimum, there is evidence to support additional investigation to determine what laws were broken.
Your handle succinctly described your position. Simple and unthinking obedience to the state. If 13% of the country thinks Bradley Manning is a hero do we execute him? Is Bradley Manning a traitor who should be executed if 37% of the citizenry support him? If 51% of the people in this country think Bradley Manning is a hero can we execute you as an enemy of our constitutional democracy?
I don't care if he is a emo kid, narcissist, angry teenager, terrorist, or freedom fighter. He exercised his constitutional duty to reveal criminal behavior and expose the duplicitous and potentially illegal actions of the state department, department of justice, department of defense, military leaders, congressional representatives, executive branch, foreign ambassadors, foreign leaders, low-level diplomats, and corporate executives to name a few. That the state is so corrupt that their are no investigations into (documented) war crimes, child prostitution, bribery, extortion, constitutional violations, international treaty violations is totally irrelevant to Bradley Manning. Opponents of Bradley Manning are opponents of the principles of our constitutional democracy.
Apple hardware is generally superior to other consumer devices.
Except when its not, as in the case of laptop reliability.
We will wager whether or not the US will reach 25% net generated electricity from wind and solar. Iowa 1% to 15% in less than a decade! Back to the point, at net present generation we need about 250 GW total. For reference about 230GW are installed globally as of 2010. Further reference, Germany has about 8% wind+solar and has legislated 35% by 2030. They have slightly worse wind resource than US and worse solar resource than any state except Alaska. We are presently at ~27 GW (annualized, nameplate is larger) or slightly over 2%. Thankfully 35 states have legislated about ~14% (~140GW discounting hydro,biomass) into existence between 2013 - 2025. A federal mandate will hasten this, but is unlikely before 2013. Global production of wind is ~40 GW and solar is ~15 GW, increasing by 7-10 GW/yr each. This is looking really good. How would you like to do this? Can we chose an escrow service? You want over/under on the % or the year? email me shuperoy at gmail.com
I deeply regret that most unethical corporate behavior is not illegal, but much of it is. When an executive conceals evidence that their products kill people or sells financial products designed to fail, they are not held criminally liable despite obvious criminal negligence or fraud. Instead, their corporation settles in a civil court for a token penalty and no admission of guilt. This "freedom" as you so aptly describe hardly extends to a negligent nurse or common grifter, who are routinely criminally prosecuted for gross negligence or fraud.
"It's not like corporations have a license to break the law."
Actually they do. Token settlements without the admission of guilt constitute a permission slip from the government to break the law. In situations where corporations are not above the law, they have tremendous resources with which to pervert the legal system. Furthermore, the larger an organization becomes the easier it is to hide attribution of illegal behavior.
As for as penalizing investors and other corporate stakeholders? They are liable up to the value of their investment. I have no qualms about holding a board of pharma executives criminally liable for gross negligence and perjury, if they conceal evidence their products kill people. They should be prosecuted criminally and serve the same jail sentence as a negligent nurse who also lied about her involvement in a patient death. Their corporation should be dissolved, its assets seized. Investors lose their investment. Employees lose their jobs. The cost of corporate malfeasance is VERY steep. Future investors and employees become more scrupulous. The present system which seeks to avoid widespread destruction ( the poor employees! investors, etc) simply fosters increased corruption and eliminates personal liability.
FYI, at "the end of the day" groups of people are not the same as individuals, their psychology and behavior are entirely different, thus they should not be treated as individuals.
Monoculture is not inherently good or bad. It can be leveraged for good and bad. Corporate monoculture is generally bad because corporations are amoral and hence act unethically and illegally. Microsoft's behavior is infamous. I disagree with many choices made at the Googleplex, but to me it doesn't appear they have yet leveraged their monoculture in anyway that rivals Microsoft.
Windows is an inferior product (especially in the past), which has lent significant ammunition to critics of Microsoft. Is there a competing search product that Google stymies using anti competitive practices?
I do when their cooperation limits their liability, hence their accountability to illegal or unethical behavior.
"(and who are oblivious to the fact that solar and wind power are a fucking joke and a pipe-dream that will never replace even a significant fraction of our energy needs)"
I'll take that wager. What would you define as significant, 5%? 10%? 30%? Is nuclear power a joke or pipe dream? What size of industry will no longer be classified as a joke or a pipe dream 10 billion/yr? 100 billion/yr? If 40% of new US generation is wind, how long until it is no longer a fucking joke or pipe dream?
Let's do this. I want to take your money.
"In the winter the old incandescent lamp has an efficiency nearing 100% because you use its heat too."
Incorrect. You neglect the losses during generation/transit. Using a light bulb for heating (or making the thermodynamic argument for it) is perfect for one thing however: demonstrating clearly that the boundary of thinking of said person is narrow and incompatible with modern society.
I'm not promoting the legislation, but your argument is specious.
"forcing consumers is not a constitutional or even sensible way to achieve energy use goals. "
That certainly remains to be seen.
No bulb technology can reproduce the solar spectrum. I challenge your declaration that an incandescent bulb is a "natural reference." The spectrum argument boils down to a subjective preference.
"She could plug in an electric heater and leave it on all day if she wants, so what's the point of banning the bulbs again???"
How about I just let you cogitate on the absurdity of this statement...
It is not energy efficient for heating. If its fossil fuel powered, you have 70% loss before it reaches your door. It is even more ridiculous if you include the lost opportunity of doing something useful.
That's a pretty expensive way to heat your home. It's also, thermodynamically speaking, possibly the most obtuse end use of electricity that exists. Broadly speaking this obtuse thinking unnecessarily damages society and the environment.