Obama said that if we didn't pass the stimulus we would see 8% unemployment

[ttogreh]

If I'm right, and I think I am, you are going to feel very silly in a year or so. If you're right... well, I was meaning to buy a shotgun from Wal-Mart... I should go ahead and do that pretty soon.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

I really hope your right. I don't think you are but I really would prefer you to be right.

[candyman]

Ok I just want a straight answere here. Are you saying that we should completely get rid of coal and oil and other such fuels? Or are you saying that we should put some sort of complementary system in place that will up the power output and won't place all our eggs in one basket?

I REALLY want to know which one because one of those options will only work in fantasy land and the other will work just fine.

Yeah, lots of sun in Arizona and stuff...there is sun everywhere unless I am mistaken. Water power, again that is everywhere as is every single renewable source you speak of. Now, why should GIANT farms be made of these air, water, or [insert something] powered generators be made to fuck up the landscape? Oh great you saved the mountains over here but now you covered Arizona in solar shit and turned some beautiful rolling hills, not as cool as mountains, into a forest of VERY expensive wind power crap.

Why does a coal burning plant give off so much crap? Why can they not clean up the exhaust? Well, just ask an industrial engineer what happens when the plant is called upon to run at full capacity. Then ask the same person what happens when the power from the plant is aided by small complements of renewable power stations at various points.

If Obama or anyone else manages to put the hammer down on these so called "evil" power stations and tries to completely replace them with renewable power stations...umm...we are fucked. Heating, AC, running electric fans...all of the simple shit will turn into something that only King Tut can afford.

I will help the environment to a certain point...but when that point goes even beyond me spending my life savings plus my left nut it is game over!

[Rev.Reverence]

Having seen wind farms first hand in the Cali...I have to stop your rant dead in it's trax Candy...it is a beautiful sight to see them all spinnin'...BUT, I think you just want to argue with someone..SO, carry on.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Having seen wind farms first hand in the Cali...I have to stop your rant dead in it's trax Candy...it is a beautiful sight to see them all spinnin'...BUT, I think you just want to argue with someone..SO, carry on.

See, thats the problem Rev. Not everyone sees the beauty. There are a fair number of people who object to Solar or Wind farms because they are "an eye sore".

A few years ago there was a major push to put a wind farm 25 miles off the coast of Massachusetts. From most shore homes it would have been invisible. Out of shipping lanes and away from migratory bird flights it was an ideal location. It would have generated a large amount of electricity. Ted Kennedy and others like him killed the plan because on certain days, at certain houses... somehow you would have been able to see the Wind Farm... as a smudge on the horizon.

[ttogreh]

Ok I just want a straight answere here. Are you saying that we should completely get rid of coal and oil and other such fuels? Or are you saying that we should put some sort of complementary system in place that will up the power output and won't place all our eggs in one basket?

We can't get off of coal and oil in two years, or even twenty. However, we need to start now to avert a crisis situation for our children and grandchildren. So, a complementary system to start that will displace coal and oil over a long, gradual time period is the most ideal of situations.

I REALLY want to know which one because one of those options will only work in fantasy land and the other will work just fine.

Yeah, lots of sun in Arizona and stuff...there is sun everywhere unless I am mistaken. Water power, again that is everywhere as is every single renewable source you speak of. Now, why should GIANT farms be made of these air, water, or [insert something] powered generators be made to fuck up the landscape?

Have you ever seen mountain top removal mining for coal? Nobody lives in North Dakota, and millions of solar panels on the roofs of America won't mar the landscape. Sure, wind mills are ugly to some people, and they certainly do impact the environment in a manageable way.

You ever smell the air downwind of an oil refinery?

Oh great you saved the mountains over here but now you covered Arizona in solar shit and turned some beautiful rolling hills, not as cool as mountains, into a forest of VERY expensive wind power crap.

I am quite sure the few people of North Dakota will be very appreciative of those expensive wind mills, and I just used the Mojave as a touchstone. 57 million square meters is, oh... let's say fifty seven million dinner tables. That means that 19 million homes would need to have three solar panels on their roofs that get at least three hours of sunlight year round.

That's doable.

Why does a coal burning plant give off so much crap? Why can they not clean up the exhaust? Well, just ask an industrial engineer what happens when the plant is called upon to run at full capacity. Then ask the same person what happens when the power from the plant is aided by small complements of renewable power stations at various points.

If Obama or anyone else manages to put the hammer down on these so called "evil" power stations and tries to completely replace them with renewable power stations...umm...we are fucked. Heating, AC, running electric fans...all of the simple shit will turn into something that only King Tut can afford.

Don't ask me to ask someone else. Cite your sources.

I will help the environment to a certain point...but when that point goes even beyond me spending my life savings plus my left nut it is game over!

There is a right way, and a wrong way to revamp the grid. Your nightmare scenario is what we would call the wrong way.

Edited July 8, 2009 by ttogreh

[candyman]

Having seen wind farms first hand in the Cali...I have to stop your rant dead in it's trax Candy...it is a beautiful sight to see them all spinnin'...BUT, I think you just want to argue with someone..SO, carry on.

No I didn't just want to argue with someone.

Yes I have seen many wind farms in my travels...and even though I find beauty in machines I also see them in nature. People say that if we don't stop with fossil fuels that we will lose the beauty of nature which also means the skyline. Well, while it would be great to get rid of the problems leading to the demise of nature, which is still not proven, the alternatives that are given would lead to a skyline cluttered with the modern machines of man swinging their arms in the sky or keeping the warm glow of the sun off of the land where animals would run.

Seriously, I hear the same activist groups around town say no to an above ground pipeline because it would ruin the beauty of nature and then they turn and demand "green" systems that would cause far more hell as far as nature is concerned.

Sure North Dakota really doesn't have PEOPLE in it...but are we only trying to save people? Birds and other animals use that land and a wind farm would mess up both. How about we put solar panels all over the beaches in Florida and water power generators around the breakers just off the beach...that would harness power.

Now we have to ask what we are replacing coal with. Yes the systems that employ the renewable resources have to come from somewhere and that somewhere creates pollution and industrial waste...it also costs far more than conventional systems.

Production methods for solar panels have come a long way from the bulky and expensive units that we started with. However, the bulky part is the only part that has changed. The expensive part it still there and will be unless we find another way to make solar panels...you know like not getting the expensive materials from war torn countries in Africa. Those wind farms you speak of...one of those bastard will cost a fortune to purchase and maintain. The tolerances inside of those machines is something that you would only otherwise see inside of something NASA builds. After it is build it still has to be maintained...every day...with lots of materials...and that means money. Even if all of the well off private groups went out and spent all their money on these "green" machines they would still come up short...both with money and with power output.

Yes small solar panels on roof tops and on street lamps/signs is a good thing to do...but nobody is going to push that in the mainstream. Small water power generators will also work along with cheaper and FAR more efficient miniatures of wind generators that can be planted near your business or home without looking like ass.

I didn't ask you those questions so that you could answere them...I was giving you a starting point for when you talked to an engineer in person. However, you probably won't ask the people that work on these projects. That is ok, as long as the trend of people telling engineers what is "right" stops soon...kinda like when the Mayor of Milwuakee told the special interest groups to shut their traps and let the city engineers do their jobs.

Oh and yes I have smelled an oil refinery before...but now that they have started algae productions, to the dismay of the government, you can no longer smell them and they have opened up the biodiesel market to more people.

Lastly, as a very avid hunter and camper I would like to say that if I see anyone putting solar or wind farms in or around large partches of nature largely untouched by man...it will be a slow death for you.

[ttogreh]

No I didn't just want to argue with someone.

Yes I have seen many wind farms in my travels...and even though I find beauty in machines I also see them in nature. People say that if we don't stop with fossil fuels that we will lose the beauty of nature which also means the skyline. Well, while it would be great to get rid of the problems leading to the demise of nature, which is still not proven, the alternatives that are given would lead to a skyline cluttered with the modern machines of man swinging their arms in the sky or keeping the warm glow of the sun off of the land where animals would run.

Obviously, turning all of North Dakota into the world's largest wind farm is a bad idea. However, North Dakotan bean farmers would loooove to have a few wind mills on their land. It's essentially free money. Any way, large wind mill installations do indeed impact the environment, but we have to look at the conventional power sources environmental impact and acknowledge that coal is many times worse.

Seriously, I hear the same activist groups around town say no to an above ground pipeline because it would ruin the beauty of nature and then they turn and demand "green" systems that would cause far more hell as far as nature is concerned.

It's all about finding balance. Turning North Dakota into a forest of wind mills doesn't make any practical sense, but exploiting the wind potential of North Dakota in an environmentally sensible way does.

Here, let me crunch some numbers.

Let's say that the average household in the United States consumes 9,200 kilowatt hours a year. That is 767 kilowatt hours a month, or 26 kilowatt hours a day.

We said that there would be three panels on each house, right? Each panel producing 210 watts? we also said that average full sunlight would be three hours a day? That means that each household would be producing 78.75 kilowatt hours a day. That means that each household would be contributing 52 kilowatt hours a day to the grid.

Ok, so let's say that each panel cost 690 dollars, the grid tie inverter cost 2,200 dollars, and the labor was thirty per cent of capital cost. That comes out to $5,530 dollars. We will leave tax out of the calculation.

Let's assume a ten cent per kilowatt reverse charge. We will again leave tax out. That means that a family with panels on their roof will see 156 dollars a month income from their panels.

That means that the panels will pay themselves off in thirty six months, or three years.

Panels are rated for twenty five years.

Sure North Dakota really doesn't have PEOPLE in it...but are we only trying to save people? Birds and other animals use that land and a wind farm would mess up both. How about we put solar panels all over the beaches in Florida and water power generators around the breakers just off the beach...that would harness power.

I honestly believe that the days of huge power installations pumping power into the grid are numbered. Decentralized power schemes will become more and more relevant, especially in the southwest, where power consumption is more intense due to air conditioning. If we assume that solar paneled houses in the southwest are grid-neutral instead of grid-positive, we will still need huge power stations, but they would be smaller and less polluting. Indeed, we could assume that those power stations could be either renewable or nuclear.

Now we have to ask what we are replacing coal with. Yes the systems that employ the renewable resources have to come from somewhere and that somewhere creates pollution and industrial waste...it also costs far more than conventional systems.

While that is true right now, it relies on two concepts: abundance of supply and economies of scale. We have a fuck-ton of coal and we have already built the coal plants. Indeed, a coal plant is pretty much a way to print money nowadays.

We are going to run out of coal, and once the solar panel or wind mill factories are built, that part of the capital cost is no longer relevant. It's like pills. The first viagra tablet cost a billion dollars in research and development, but the billionth pill was pure profit.

Production methods for solar panels have come a long way from the bulky and expensive units that we started with. However, the bulky part is the only part that has changed. The expensive part it still there and will be unless we find another way to make solar panels...you know like not getting the expensive materials from war torn countries in Africa. Those wind farms you speak of...one of those bastard will cost a fortune to purchase and maintain. The tolerances inside of those machines is something that you would only otherwise see inside of something NASA builds. After it is build it still has to be maintained...every day...with lots of materials...and that means money. Even if all of the well off private groups went out and spent all their money on these "green" machines they would still come up short...both with money and with power output.

Ok, cite your sources. What materials are we talking about, and which war torn African countries? What is the math that shows that wind power does not make a profit?

Yes small solar panels on roof tops and on street lamps/signs is a good thing to do...but nobody is going to push that in the mainstream. Small water power generators will also work along with cheaper and FAR more efficient miniatures of wind generators that can be planted near your business or home without looking like ass.

I cannot speak on the aesthetics of solar panels or micro wind generators. However, if you make a claim, you need to back it up with sources. Show the math.

I didn't ask you those questions so that you could answere them...I was giving you a starting point for when you talked to an engineer in person. However, you probably won't ask the people that work on these projects. That is ok, as long as the trend of people telling engineers what is "right" stops soon...kinda like when the Mayor of Milwuakee told the special interest groups to shut their traps and let the city engineers do their jobs.

Please post the information for all of us without access to a friendly neighborhood engineer.

Oh and yes I have smelled an oil refinery before...but now that they have started algae productions, to the dismay of the government, you can no longer smell them and they have opened up the biodiesel market to more people.

Lastly, as a very avid hunter and camper I would like to say that if I see anyone putting solar or wind farms in or around large partches of nature largely untouched by man...it will be a slow death for you.

We only have one shot at making this right.

[candyman]

Obviously, turning all of North Dakota into the world's largest wind farm is a bad idea. However, North Dakotan bean farmers would loooove to have a few wind mills on their land. It's essentially free money. Any way, large wind mill installations do indeed impact the environment, but we have to look at the conventional power sources environmental impact and acknowledge that coal is many times worse.

It's all about finding balance. Turning North Dakota into a forest of wind mills doesn't make any practical sense, but exploiting the wind potential of North Dakota in an environmentally sensible way does.

Here, let me crunch some numbers.

Let's say that the average household in the United States consumes 9,200 kilowatt hours a year. That is 767 kilowatt hours a month, or 26 kilowatt hours a day.

We said that there would be three panels on each house, right? Each panel producing 210 watts? we also said that average full sunlight would be three hours a day? That means that each household would be producing 78.75 kilowatt hours a day. That means that each household would be contributing 52 kilowatt hours a day to the grid.

Ok, so let's say that each panel cost 690 dollars, the grid tie inverter cost 2,200 dollars, and the labor was thirty per cent of capital cost. That comes out to $5,530 dollars. We will leave tax out of the calculation.

Let's assume a ten cent per kilowatt reverse charge. We will again leave tax out. That means that a family with panels on their roof will see 156 dollars a month income from their panels.

That means that the panels will pay themselves off in thirty six months, or three years.

Panels are rated for twenty five years.

I honestly believe that the days of huge power installations pumping power into the grid are numbered. Decentralized power schemes will become more and more relevant, especially in the southwest, where power consumption is more intense due to air conditioning. If we assume that solar paneled houses in the southwest are grid-neutral instead of grid-positive, we will still need huge power stations, but they would be smaller and less polluting. Indeed, we could assume that those power stations could be either renewable or nuclear.

While that is true right now, it relies on two concepts: abundance of supply and economies of scale. We have a fuck-ton of coal and we have already built the coal plants. Indeed, a coal plant is pretty much a way to print money nowadays.

We are going to run out of coal, and once the solar panel or wind mill factories are built, that part of the capital cost is no longer relevant. It's like pills. The first viagra tablet cost a billion dollars in research and development, but the billionth pill was pure profit.

Ok, cite your sources. What materials are we talking about, and which war torn African countries? What is the math that shows that wind power does not make a profit?

I cannot speak on the aesthetics of solar panels or micro wind generators. However, if you make a claim, you need to back it up with sources. Show the math.

Please post the information for all of us without access to a friendly neighborhood engineer.

We only have one shot at making this right.

We do have only one chance at making this right. However, the only thing I see happening is that two sides are jumping up. One side wants everything to stay as it is which cannot be sustained. The other side wants to toss out everything we have for new techonogies. Well, the reality is that there is a balance in the middle where we use both.

If I can find my sources I will post them but I did that report on a school laptop and I have to find the sources all over again or else find my huge binder which might have them. Also, I will see if my godfather can get me that energy report from Milwuakee that he did.

As far as the expensive materials and technologies I was talking about I can pull what I remember off the top of my head. Not all the the materials are expensive of "out of stock"...however, advanced countries that have the resources face huge problems obtaining the raw materials...its the same bull that they have to go through with oil drilling. The materials are there but lobby groups and mining restricions make the resources pretty much useless. However, China and Africa have their own operations to mine these materials or obtain them from salt flats...and that is where it gets nasty. It has basically gotten to the point where small wars are made over these mining sites and the prices for the materials are through the roof.

The machining part is also part of the problem. Many of the parts in these wind power generators have to be dead on when it comes to precision. Now, getting an engine block to be kinda precise costs alot and that is using basic machines. For these wind power parts some of the best equipments in the industry is used and the cost to buy and use the machines is something that gives me chills just to think about. Sure some companies have the money to buy such machines but that is not a very responsible thing to do right now.

Wind power does make a profit but unless our economy jumps way back up it isn't going to do us much good.

There are cheaper technologies out there that work just as well. However, due to government regulation biodiesel will probably never hit the mainstream...neither will methane generators. The government and these so called "green" groups do not seem interested in something that doesn't require lots of money and time.

I am not against making things better...however they are going about it the wrong way...especially in the auto industry.

[ttogreh]

I screwed up my calculation. Three hours of sunlight on three 210 watt solar panels would be 1.89 kilowatts. let's say that we have a total average of seven hours of sunlight, three hours of full sunlight, three hours of half sunlight, and one hour of a quarter sunlight.

Three hours of half sunlight is .945 kilowatts.

One hour of quarter sunlight is .158 kilowatts.

That will give us a total of 2.99 Kilowatts.

So, instead of 26 kilowatts a day, a family would consume 23 kilowatts.

That means at ten cents a kilowatt, instead of paying 78 dollars a month, they would pay 69 dollars a month.

A savings of nine dollars a month. Or 614 months until the panels are paid off. Or 51 years.

Ok, let's double the number of panels, which would be right about six dinner tables of roof. Let's say the average roof is nine dinner tables worth of usable space.

Instead of a 2,200 dollar inverter, because of the increased wattage, we will use a 2,500 dollar inverter. That means that six 690 dollar panels, the 2,500 dollar inverter, and labor at 30 per cent base cost comes out to 8,630 dollars.

So, instead of 78 dollars, a family would pay 60 dollars, a savings of 18 dollars a month.

That's 490 months, or forty years.

Let's max out the space. Nine panels, 2,800 dollar inverter, 30 percent labor comes out to 11,710 dollars.

That comes out to saving 24 dollars a month. It also comes out forty years return on investment.

The only thing that would make solar panels a good investment rather than a fashion statement is a drop in panel cost, and an increase in electricity cost.

Panels are becoming less expensive, and regrettably, grid electricity will more than likely cost more in the future. Any way... I wnated to set the record straight.

[ttogreh]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkFmwRzp1j8

[Confess]

It seems to me I see more of those wind generators standing still or with the blades off for rebuilding than I ever see actually moving. And I see them all over the country like that.

I love the idea of solar power. But I have a hard time even keeping my solar powered watch going for some reason.

All this energy talk makes me wanna get the camaro out and spend a few days in the horrible sun driving around playing the radio too loud and burning a gallon of premium every 9 miles.

Oh wait, I can't afford the gas.

[candyman]

It seems to me I see more of those wind generators standing still or with the blades off for rebuilding than I ever see actually moving. And I see them all over the country like that.

I love the idea of solar power. But I have a hard time even keeping my solar powered watch going for some reason.

All this energy talk makes me wanna get the camaro out and spend a few days in the horrible sun driving around playing the radio too loud and burning a gallon of premium every 9 miles.

Oh wait, I can't afford the gas.

That is the problem with wind generators...well its one of many problems. Just as Denmark and Norway what they think about wind power.

Small solar panels are not nearly as efficient as their larger counterparts. Also, the panels in a watch are not very complicated and don't operate very well.

So, do the extremely easy alcohol conversion on your camaro and make your own gas...or buy something made in Japan so you get power AND efficiency.

[ttogreh]

I must confess that I think I like you, Confess.

Ok, So let's try this again, with a specific state... Hawaii. Hawaii is on the equator, so let's say that there are eight hours of average sunlight... four hours of full, two hours of half, and two hours of quarter strength.

A 210 watt peak solar panel would produce 1.16 kilowatt hours in a day. Any way, three 690 dollar panels, a 2,200 dollar inverter, and 40 per cent of capital cost (ten per cent more because Hawaii is in the middle of the Pacific) comes out to $5,978 dollars U.S.

Hawaiian families consume about 655 kilowatts a month at 24 cents a kilowatt, giving them a monthly bill of 158 dollars a month. That means that a Hawaiian family "buys" a starting solar rig every three years and two months.

Ok, so 655 kilowatts a month is 21.84 kilowatts a day. Subtract 3.48 kilowatts a day from that, and a Hawaiian family will save $25.81 a month. It will take a Hawaiian family 232 months to see a return on their investment, or 19 years and four months. Seeing as panels are rated for 25 years, it is economically feasible for a Hawaiian family to invest in solar energy.

I feel less bummed out now.

[candyman]

Why are we starting at the power source? A better option would be to make adjustments, cheaper ones, at the places where the power is used.

Lighting...lots of people use it and it costs alot. Today there is a mix of conventional bulbs and those curly "efficient" bulbs. Well, the conventional bulbs last longer and use more electricity while the curly ones only last a short while and use a little less energy. Also, those curly bulbs are quite expensive next to conventional bulbs and they also contain MERCURY!

So, what about LED lights? An LED replacement bulb for a conventional 60 watt bulb does cost $40...however it only used 3.2-5 watts and lasts around 50,000 hours depending on usage, placement, color spectrum, degree of angle, and number of LEDs in the fixture. LED technology is tried and true and for some reason is being ignored by the general public even though they can easily see the increase in use when it comes to cars. Then there is the organic LED part where not onlt can an energy efficient light source be made but it will also do away with having to use metals and conventional plastics.

The one problem with LED lighting in the home is this...people. People want the energy crisis to be over but they either don't want to change what they have and want OTHERS to change things...or they are only captivated by big TV commercials, stickers that say the product is "green", government backing, and celebrity backing no matter what the cost of the product is and how well it actually works.

Wind turbines and solar panel really do work on paper...but more and more problems are surfacing as people try to expand these programs past small usage. So, instead of switching to a power source that can be troublesome and may sometimes not provide enough power or not any at all...why not switch to a product that will ALWAYS use power?

Edited July 14, 2009 by candyman

[Confess]

So, what about LED lights? An LED replacement bulb for a conventional 60 watt bulb does cost $40...however it only used 3.2-5 watts and lasts around 10,000 hours depending on usage, placement, color spectrum, degree of angle, and number of LEDs in the fixture. LED technology is tried and true and for some reason is being ignored by the general public even though they can easily see the increase in use when it comes to cars. Then there is the organic LED part where not onlt can an energy efficient light source be made but it will also do away with having to use metals and conventional plastics.

They look really freakin' cool too. Like Optimus Prime with all of those blue leds. OMG sexy. I never really considered using them in the house though. The 'curly' bulbs are all over the place at my house though.

[candyman]

They look really freakin' cool too. Like Optimus Prime with all of those blue leds. OMG sexy. I never really considered using them in the house though. The 'curly' bulbs are all over the place at my house though.

See, what you just said is the reason people don't use them in the house...they consider them a novelty or something that "cool" for special things. That time is over...well, unless the GE lobby sticks around.

[candyman]

Here is a good list of LED advantages:

Led lighting saves electricity.

The lighting efficiency of the new high power led light bulbs is more than eight times that of incandescent lights, and twice as high as compact fluorescent lights. Led bulbs also emit a much higher percentage of light in the desired direction. This makes them even more efficient compared to either incandescent or fluorescent for task lighting, desk lamps, reading lights, spotlights, flood lights, and track lighting.

With colored led lights there is simply no comparison. All of the light output from led bulbs can be a specific color. With other light sources, much of the light produced consists of unwanted colors which are filtered out. This wastes energy. Led lights produce pure color (monochromatic light) which requires no filtering.

Led lights also generate very little unwanted heat. The energy savings may be doubled in air-conditioned environments where each watt of incandescent lighting can add another watt or more to the power needed for air conditioning.

The EPA encourages the use of innovative light source technologies such as led light bulbs.

Led lighting instantly acheives full brightness with no warm up time.

Fluorescent lights are dim when first turned on, and get brighter as they warm up. Depending on the temperature and the age of the lamp, they can take a long time to warm up. If it is cold enough they will not warm up at all. Led lights always start at full brightness.

Led lighting does not contain mercury.

Fluorescent lights contain mercury and must be treated as hazardous waste. Led lighting contains no mercury or other dangerous substances.

Led lighting does not produce any ultraviolet (UV) light.

Led lights emit no damaging ultraviolet light, so they will not cause fading and aging of artwork or other sensitive materials. Fluorescent and halogen lights can cause significant damage over time.

Led lighting saves on bulb replacement.

Led bulbs can operate for 30,000 hours or more. One led lightbulb can easily outlast 30 incandescent bulbs, or 6 compact fluorescents! Led bulbs cost less than the bulbs they replace. Operating 8 hours per day, led light bulbs can last 10 years or more!

Led light bulbs are less sensitive to shock, vibration, and the extreme temperature changes that can quickly ruin fragile incandescent bulbs. And unlike fluorescent bulbs which wear out much faster if they are frequently turned on and off, led bulbs are not affected by frequent on-off switching.

The long life of led light bulbs reduce the time, effort and cost of replacement.

Led lighting increases safety and security.

The high reliability of led lights increases safety and security. There is no waiting for led light bulbs to warm up. Led bulbs light up instantly at full brightness, even in the coldest weather.

Led lights are safer.

Led bulbs operate at much lower temperatures. Halogen and incandescent lights are hot enough to cause fire, and they frequently do.

And finally...…

Led is much easier to spell than either incandescent or fluorescent.

Edited July 14, 2009 by candyman

[ttogreh]

If I remember correctly, lighting is 13 per cent or so of electricity usage. That's 2.84 kilowatts in a day for the Hawaiian family. That's about 360 watts for eight hours, rounding up. That is the equivalent of six sixty watt bulbs.

A sixty watt light bulb produces about 36 lumens. I looked online, and for $10.56 I can get a 36 lumen LED light bar. At 3 Watts.

So, we can cut out 342 watts an hour. Giving us a new lighting consumption total of .144 kilowatts a day. 21.84 - 2.84 + .144 = 19.144 Kilowatts in a day.

That will save the Hawaiian family 80.88 kilowatts a month, saving them $19.41 a month. The LEDs will pay themselves off in a little over three months.

[candyman]

incandecent 60w = 840 lumens

showcase lamp 60T10/64 60w = 710 lumens

cool white fluorescent f40t12/cw 40w = 3,120 lumens

swimming pool R-40 lamp 12v 250w = 4,000 lumens

yellow insect-repellent 40w = 450lumens

60 watts is a measure of the power consumed. The lumen is a measure of the intensity of light emitted.

[ttogreh]

Yeah... 60 watts can be converted into 35 Mlumens. I screwed that one up. I believe a 5 watt led can produce 850 lumens, though...

[the eternal]

<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_economy" target="_blank">467K jobs cut in June; jobless rate at 9.5 percent</a>

WASHINGTON – Employers cut a larger-than-expected 467,000 jobs in June and the unemployment rate climbed to a 26-year high of 9.5 percent. Workers also saw weekly wages fall, suggesting Americans will have little appetite to spend and the economy's road to recovery will be bumpy.

Although I don't always agree with his views, I wish to conteract the -2, I just want to publicly give Gaf a +1 for posting this news article, so we can debate the merits of Obama's economic policy as well as discuss energy efficiency.