DanteEstonia Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muda69 Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 lol, interesting video until the "orange man bad" political rhetoric starts. How about just let the free market decide? And the insinuation that government (aka taxpayers) should buy "poor people" LED bulbs is eye-rolling, but a liberal staple. And CFL's frankly suck. I no longer use them. LED's are still too expensive. So I've stocked up on incandescent bulbs and have a several years supply now. Also for Christmas I received a couple of these: https://www.ucogear.com/candle-lanterns/ The website obviously markets them as primarily an outdoor product but I find they work fine indoors as well. 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Impartial_Observer Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 CFL’s were a train wreck shoved down our throats. I have been switching everything in home and business to LED. The technology is fairly mature at this point, the price continues to fall, it makes fiscal sense. You can’t look at the initial costs, in the long term LED is a better investment. I’ve been using LED for several years and have only replaced on bulb, within days of it being installed, it was obviously a defective bulb. The real issue I had was what the government did to the fluorescent industry, first ramming immature technology of digital ballast down our throats, then essentially banning T12 lamps...... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteEstonia Posted January 4, 2020 Author Share Posted January 4, 2020 3 hours ago, Muda69 said: How about just let the free market decide? Because, as the lightbulb case shows, the “free market” makes really poor long-term decisions. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobref Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 5 hours ago, DanteEstonia said: Because, as the lightbulb case shows, the “free market” makes really poor long-term decisions. Ahhh... paternalism rears it’s ugly head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteEstonia Posted January 4, 2020 Author Share Posted January 4, 2020 1 hour ago, Bobref said: Ahhh... paternalism rears it’s ugly head. A 7% decline in domestic energy consumption warrants paternalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobref Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 30 minutes ago, DanteEstonia said: A 7% decline in domestic energy consumption warrants paternalism. That’s just more paternalism. 😀 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteEstonia Posted January 5, 2020 Author Share Posted January 5, 2020 1 hour ago, Bobref said: That’s just more paternalism. 😀 Full speed ahead, then. Let's shoot for a 14% reduction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Impartial_Observer Posted January 5, 2020 Share Posted January 5, 2020 6 hours ago, Bobref said: That’s just more paternalism. 😀 Typical green gobblygook. Residential lighting accounts for less 6% of our nation’s energy bill. A 7% decrease in lighting costs amounts to about .4% reduction in energy usage. No mention of the increase electric cars are causing power consumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteEstonia Posted January 5, 2020 Author Share Posted January 5, 2020 9 hours ago, Impartial_Observer said: No mention of the increase electric cars are causing power consumption. https://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2020/01/03/bargersville-chief-turns-heads-in-indianas-first-tesla-police-car/2606866001/ FTA: Quote In fuel alone, he said the Tesla costs taxpayers about $300 a month less than a gas-guzzling Charger. The department projected it'll spend $1,728 per year on electricity for the Tesla, compared to $7,125 per year on gas for a Dodge Charger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muda69 Posted January 6, 2020 Share Posted January 6, 2020 How about a 25% reduction in the size and scope of the federal government, across all departments, agencies. bureaus, etc.? That should save some energy consumption right there. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Impartial_Observer Posted January 6, 2020 Share Posted January 6, 2020 5 minutes ago, Muda69 said: How about a 25% reduction in the size and scope of the federal government, across all departments, agencies. bureaus, etc.? That should save some energy consumption right there. Industrial chillers with boilers systems, now you’re in the ball park for reducing energy consumption. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gonzoron Posted January 6, 2020 Share Posted January 6, 2020 9 hours ago, Impartial_Observer said: Industrial chillers with boilers systems, now you’re in the ball park for reducing energy consumption. Coal fired? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Impartial_Observer Posted January 6, 2020 Share Posted January 6, 2020 38 minutes ago, gonzoron said: Coal fired? Depends. The cooling cycle is a lot more electricity dependent than the heating cycle. Nationally according to EIA coal amounts to about 27% or our electricity generation. I would guess that percentage is a lot higher in Indiana. Heat exchangers would run on a variety of fuels which is typically mandated by location. I'm not sure coal is in the equation. Fuel oil, natural gas, and propane I would guess are the major fuels. Of course there are still electrical components. My point being industrial facilities are the largest users of energy across the board. Whether a high rise office building or a manufacturing facility. Individuals switching the light bulbs in their home is akin to pissing in the ocean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts