100 watt bulbs banned

Home Model Engine Machinist Forum

Help Support Home Model Engine Machinist Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I used to believe that Global Warming was a real threat - then I read Michael Chrichton's "State of Fear" - which prompted me to do my own research - I have subsequently spent 100's of hours reading both pro and con publications and have come to the conclusion that the whole fiasco is the most wanton scientific hysteria in history.

Here are some salient point to consider :-


1) According to the US Department of Energy, Water vapour accounts for 95% of the IR (Infra-Red) absorption "greenhouse effect" of which only 0.001% can be ascribed to the activities of man. (Is anyone seriously suggesting we control water emissions ?)
2) The spectra absorbed by CO2 are fully saturated (this means that all the available energy is already absorbed) - doubling the CO2 level will hardly make any difference.
3) CO2 absorption spectra are only about 8% of the total IR energy spectrum and less than 3% of total solar insolation of which less than 1% is available to CO2 because of redundant overlap with the absorption properties of water vapour.
4) That historically CO2 increases after temperatures increase - it is a result not a cause - this is clear in the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change - under the auspices of the UN) report which disingenuously presents the data in reverse order so that it appears to be causal.
5) Studies written by numerous Emeritus Professors have stated that Planet Earth naturally puts out 196 BILLION tons of CO2 p.a.- human beings are responsible for approx 8 Billion tons.
6) That solar output variations more closely correlate to global and polar air temperature variations than does CO2.
7) CO2 correlates very precicely to sea temperature - CO2 is a result of warming oceans - it is not the cause.
8) The Oceans contain over fifty times (50 x) the CO2 in the atmosphere - the only thing keeping it there is temperature - if the seas warm they liberate vast amounts of CO2
9) The Oceans absorb 95% of the solar radiation that reaches it - Ocean warming is almost entirely a function of solar output.
10) The effects of global warming have been observed by NASA on Mars, Jupiter and elsewhere in our solar system - the only logical cause can be solar output.
11) Sea levels are not rising significantly when measured by the sidereal (astronomical time) rotation of the Earth.
12) Of the two approaches "Theoretical Modeling" and "Observational Science" only the theoretical modeling supports the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. A model unsupported by observation should be discarded.
13) The "Smoking Gun" of the global warming hypothesis is a predicted hot spot in the upper troposphere - has not been found despite intense and ongoing searching.
14) The AGW models also predict Stratospheric cooling - that hasn't been found either.
15) The AGW models require a process known as "radiative forcing" which in turn requires a reduction in outgoing radiation as the Earth's temperature increaces - this is contrary to the laws of physics & thermodynamics and the ERBS (Energy Radiation Budget Experiment) satellite sent up to look for it did not find it.
It did find that normal physics prevail and the radiation increaces with temperature. So the convoluted logic of "radiative forcing" is proven false.
16) That temperatures have fluctuated higher and faster in the past (twice within the last 2000 years alone) than current observed changes.
17) There is no evidence in the historical records to support the assumptions that the current climate is "normal" or that the rates of change are "abnormal".
18) CO2 is a "greenhouse gas" in that it absorbs infra-red. There is however no proof - NONE WHATSOEVER - that this is causing the current warming. This is merely an unproven assertion of the AGW hypothesis.
19) The "Greenhouse Effect" as applied to greenhouses relies on the prevention of convection rather than the "trapping" of Infra Red (IR ) radiation. This IR trapping model is false and originated in some 19th century hypotheses which were debunked over 100 years ago.
The "Greenhouse" is not a good analogue for the way our atmosphere behaves.
20) CO2 has throughout paleological history been higher than present (it has only been this low for the last 650 000 years and briefly again during the Carboniferous period).
21) CO2 is the building block of all life on earth. Photosynthesis stops at 100ppm the current 380ppm could be considered dangerously low for life that evolved in 1000-1200ppm environments.
22) The "Overwhelming Evidence" of warming is based on terrestrial weather stations which have been corrupted by the Urban Heat island Effect (UHI) and distinctly skewed towards the "hot" side by an unintentional bias introduced by station elimination, calibration and relocation.
The trerrestrial data does not correspond to the satellite data which shows only a slight warming trend + 0.1°C by 2000 which has since been lost to a recent cooling trend.
23) CO2 from burning fossil fuels is only 4% of the total CO2 liberated to atmosphere - even the 5% propounded by alarmists is insufficient for us to conclude that we can "Control" climate through the reduction of this one tiny variable. (even if CO2 is responsible for the warming - which it isn't.)
24) From the above - If CO2 is only 5% of the emmissions and can absorb only 3% of solar insolation - then even ignoring the fact that this 3% insolation is already 99.999% absorbed and two thirds of it are taken up by water vapour- these two combine to suggest that mans emmissions count for a maximum variable of only 0.15% (at best - in total - more realistically 0.0000005% allowing for current IR saturation and spectral overlap).
To suggest that we can use this insignificant amount to "control" the climate simply beggars belief.
25) CO2 is not increacing in the atmosphere pro-rata to our emmissions. In fact some 80% of our emmissions "disappear". Something is acting as a sink - evidence suggests that nature responds to more CO2 by using more CO2.
26) The AGW hypothesis is circular reasoning. The hypothesis predicts that the warming is caused by mans emmissions and then cite the warming as "proof". You cannot use the premise of a hypothesis to prove the hypothesis.
By such logic any hypothesis is true.
27) The IPCC's models ignore variation in solar output (insolation), water vapour & cloud cover by treating them as constants which they are not. Statistically this means they have no influence on the model outcome and could effectively be ommitted. Thus the IPCC's models ignore 99.9% of the things that actually drive the climate.
28) Constructing a mathematical climate change model which only has man's inputs as variables will unsurprisingly find that man is the prime mover of climate change. Indeed no other outcome is possible.
29) No credible evidence has yet been found that increaced CO2 is harmful to life - quite the opposite. Alarmist fears of CO2 ocean acidification and the like are simply bad science.
30) There is no "concensus" amongst scientists - this is propaganda intended to stifle debate. Thousands of respected scientists do not agree with AGW.
31) Currently temperatures have been falling (since 1998) whatever evidence there was of warming has been more or less been reversed by what appears to be natural cyclicality in the system. The upslope in temperatures between 1970 - 2000 can be seen as part of the "big picture" but in selectively looking only at this period one can easilly be alarmed.

As I said in a previous post - don't believe me - do your own reasearch - but please check both sides.

Pro-AGW papers and articles are extremely convincing - but if you look up the rebuttal position you will (I belive) find the AGW position is either grossly overexaggerated or completely false.

Ken
 
All these discussions pull some people in one direction and others in another. I drive a Prius not because of the global warming but because, it didn't cost more than any other car of the same size, luxury, equipment but, because it saves more fuel than others of the same class and since fuel isn't free, the more I save, the better. In the case of my earlier car, the savings are 40 to 50% and being the gasoline at 1,54 Euro per litre, that means a lot to me.
The same with light bulbs, appliances, tv's, mobile chargers the lot. If you add all this bits of energy wastage (by keeping them plugged and ready to work) and multiply by a year or 10 years, it adds a lot to your savings and since money isn't cheap these days, it pays to be a little careful.

Nowadays saving the environment, mainly saves you money, at least that's how I see it.
 
Noitoen said:
Nowadays saving the environment, mainly saves you money, at least that's how I see it.

Yes it does. I have solar power and solar hot water systems and my hip pocket is of far greater value to me than some, as I see it, alarmist and yet to be proven theory or my philanthropy to my fellow man.

However IMHO there are a whole lot of people making huge money doing little more than participating in what may well be the biggest confidence trick in history.

Best Regards
Bob
 
Just in case anyone gets the wrong idea about me - I am pro-environment and I do use CFL bulbs in appropriate locations.

Man has a lot to answer for and we all need to play our part.

However...

I am dead set against public policy and taxation based on superstition.

We are facing many problems, CO2 is not one of them ! I fear we have pounced on this as a panacea for all our environmental problems - its not - it is simply serving as a palliative distraction from much more pressing issues.

Ken
 
We are guilty of a crime yet to be determined, we have mounted a defense with global warming as the base. Hmm

Kafka The Trial "Someone must have been telling lies about Joseph K" Silly creatures we be, but what fun would it be should we actually know what we were doing.

Robert
 
Maryak said:
......... IMHO there are a whole lot of people making huge money doing little more than participating in what may well be the biggest confidence trick in history.

The Y2K thing again but this time there isn't an event that defines the end. They can keep this going for as long as they want.

Pete
 
Ah, but you have to remember the Rules For Predicting The Apocalypse-- You must predict it more than 5 years out, but less than ten.

Less than five and they call you on it when it doesn't happen. More than ten and nobody cares. :D

I'm quite certain the climate is changing; after all, I find ancient shark teeth in the creek bed behind my house. I look in there after every rain and have yet to see a shark. Not too surprising since we're 100 miles inland. Did humans cause that? No. Are humans causing the climate to change now? Maybe. Can we tell for sure? No. And, why do we think the climate we have now the perfectest bestest one ever that must be preserved at all costs?

I've got CFLs wherever they make sense. The slow-start is kinda nice when entering the bathroom at night.
 
Before you get too giddy about using CFL's, you might want to check the clean up procedures for when you break one. It just might make you rethink their true value. Mercury contamination in the nursery, kitchen or family areas is not something I'm all that pleased to contemplate.

Steve
 
Good evening or morning depending on were you all are,

In my house, CFLs emit RF radiation that interfer with the HF bands and the radios I use to transmit on the Amatuer radio bands. And the CFLs are a HAZMAT issue when they burn out, they have to be recycled properly. Just can't throw them away in the trash. Lord help you if you should break one. :(

While I haven't used a 100 watt bulb in a long time, but I do keep a stock of 60 watt bulbs.

George

 
Cedge said:
Before you get too giddy about using CFL's, you might want to check the clean up procedures for when you break one. It just might make you rethink their true value. Mercury contamination in the nursery, kitchen or family areas is not something I'm all that pleased to contemplate.

Steve
Yeah, same as those 6' fluorescent tubes in the shop... I put cover tubes on those just in case some bit of metal goes flying. Bare CFL bulbs are a bad idea, especially in places where they're likely to get bonked by something (closets, garages, etc)


 
I use a fair number of CFLs I like the kind with the plastic dome from the safety standpoint but you do not see many of those in stores. I do not mind using them but choices are nice and do not feel it should be shoved on us by the government. If the government was to encourage something it should be wind ,water and solar power. as well as conservation . but lets not create energy police.
Tin
 
Tin Falcon said:
If the government was to encourage something it should be wind ,water and solar power. as well as conservation . but lets not create energy police.
Tin

Now your talking, I like solar but the way the system is I buy from the grid at 9 per kwh and any sell back is at 5per kwh retail wholesale. Not much incentive to bust open my wallet for panels other than curiosity.

Robert
 
If the government was to encourage something it should be wind ,water and solar power. as well as conservation . but lets not create energy police.

A month or so back there was no wind in England, their wind mills stopped turning. No electricity. I guess a large population was quite cold. Any Britt care to confirm this?

Water works but then you have envirowinies that will try to block a dam because of some rare fish.

Solar really works great up here in the North East with our cloudy weather. I'm sure N.J. has the same deal. Plus check out what it takes to make solar cell. And of course it'll be made in China, don't want to pollute the land here right?

I say develop the natural gas, oil, coal and nuclear power that we have. I'm sure we can make it cleaner and safer. Unfortunately all our educated students go back to their countries because of a 6 year visa they have to comply with. Taking their knowledge with them and appling it in their country to sell back to us.

Bernd
 
You would not think of NJ as prime areas for solar development other than demand. But there is a solar farm being built on one of the roads I travel to work. a 100 acre site 20 MW and apparently another 500- 600 acres slated for solar. Another place used to be farm that is a waste disposal company that appears to have a wind survey tower in place. there are a few land based windmills here and talk of a large off shore project going from somewhere of the coast of NC up to off the coast of North Jersey. They say the way the wind tracks it will even out the output. If it is calm on the north end the southern end will produce and visa versa. . Natural gas is being developed some in the Marcela shale deposit in eastern PA but there are issues with that as well like ground water polluted with radioactive material.
Tin
 
Solar is I suppose best left to those with deep pockets (access to public funds) The inverter I bought, Outback FX 2524 runs around $1900us. So at full bore output with 8 hours sun most can get is 20kw day. Thats not gonna happen in real life. At the buy back rate here around 5 cents per kwh a whole buck a day for the good year of 30 days sunshine somewhere round 60 years to cover the outlay for a device with a 20 year life span at best. Not even including the cost of 10,000 watts of solar panels required to feed the beast to capacity. Dont even want to start on the jaw drop when buying large guage wire :) and the thousand other issues when doing a grid interconnect. Good thing I'm a fruitcake

Shoulda bought a mill

Robert
 
Wind and Solar ???

Only if the government subsidises (heavilly) with your tax dollars.

Wind and solar sound environmentally correct but are ecologically invasive requiring 5000 times the area of a coal fired station - which you still have to have in case there is no wind or sun - AND - you have to keep it ticking over on hot standby.

Plus the 200mph blade tip velocities make excellent bird choppers.

Holland has found that when the wind component is more that 3% of the national grid the CO2 savings are in fact negative.

Imagine if the govenment legislated that you HAD to buy and drive an electric/hydrogen powered car - but you also had to buy a gas powered car - AND - you had to leave that idling in case the others aren't available ???

That's about the logic of current energy policy - all of which is based on the superstition that CO2 causes global warming.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/subsidizing_co2.pdf

To illustrate how costly solar power is :- Under Ontario's "Renewable Energy" campaign the feed-in tariff for surplus production of solar power is 71.3c/kWh - for a commodity that retails at 12.0c/kWh - The figure needs to be that high to attract investment in solar power - long term this is economic suicide.

http://www.financialpost.com/Power+failure/3641528/story.html

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/when-it-comes-to-power-in-ontario-were-in-the-dark/article1750752/

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100068571/huhne-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-camerons-lousy-coalition/

Its a joke - and I'm not laughing.

Sorry to be a wet blanket - but read both sides of the arguments.

Ken
 
Ken I said:
Wind and Solar ???


Plus the 200mph blade tip velocities make excellent bird choppers.

Have one of those little AIR403 windmill, other than the dont want to think about bird strikes, when the blades furl in high wind it sounds like a huey coming in, rattles the windows. And its just a little pup

Imagine if the govenment legislated that you HAD to buy and drive an electric/hydrogen powered car - but you also had to buy a gas powered car - AND - you had to leave that idling in case the others aren't available ???

SHH the feds may just tack that on the health care bill

Its a joke - and I'm not laughing.

Just cause we can do a thing doesnt mean we must, but we do anyway, gotta love it

The most productive use for me is when the power goes out, at least the battery bank is charged up, but then to use it requires a separate inverter, so a smaller 1000 watter is hooked up to keep at least the Boob Toob, coffee pot, and a couple lights going.

Robert
 
1.5kW Grid connected solar system

Real Cost including installation - $8000.00

Cost with Government incentive - $3000.00

Solar Generation
Start 15-Feb-11
Date 7-Mar-11
Pvmeter total 166.0 kWh
PVHr total 241.0 hr
kW/Daylight hour 0.689 kW
Emeter total 52.3 kWh
Daily Generation 8.30 kWh
Daily Use 5.69 kWh @ $0.2426/kWh
Daily Sale 2.62 kWh @ $0.5000/kWh
Daily Saving $2.69
Weekly Saving $18.81
Quarterly Saving $241.80
Annual Saving $980.64

These are my results to date at current prices. Prices are forecast to rise by a further 12% from June 30th.

I am still just on the right side (for southern hemisphere) of the equinox so I estimate my winter generation will go down to 6kWh/day. Giving me an annual average around 7.5kWh/day which equates to some $850/year at current prices or a 62% reduction in my electricity costs at current prices.

Even if I had paid full tote odds for my system the pay back period is under 6 years with the average annual increase of 11% over the last 5 years. As it is my pay back to profit is 18 months.

My motivation was purely the personal savings and insulation, (insolation ::), from future price rises.

Best Regards
Bob


 
Maryak said:
1.5kW Grid connected solar system



Daily Use 5.69 kWh @ $0.2426/kWh
Daily Sale 2.62 kWh @ $0.5000/kWh

Best Regards
Bob

Thats incentive! your sell is twice the buy price, not here. The sell is less than the buy so the only good side is that whatever is produced is used by the house so I don't have to buy it. Now that I moved its all now sitting in the garage waiting for me to hook it back up.

Guess the US still needs to walk the talk. Hope thats not 0.2426 coin in US terms. Id be back in the cave with burning animal fat at those rates.

Robert
 
Foozer said:
Guess the US still needs to walk the talk. Hope thats not 0.2426 coin in US terms. Id be back in the cave with burning animal fat at those rates.

Robert

No that's Oz so in US it's $0.245/kWh

Best Regards
Bob
 

Latest posts

Back
Top