On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 13:02:25 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
http://xkcd.com/356/
~~ snerk ~~
Here is an example of same, sent by one of my conservative brothers to all
the others, including the liberal in Washington who jumped all over it
before realizing it was a friggin' joke!
************************************************** ****
Tom wrote:
There is a movement (at least up here) to ban incandescent light bulbs and
require people to buy fluorescent ones that use much less energy.
This is ridiculous for many Americans who, for most of the year (fall
through spring and often parts of the summer), experience colder
temperatures outside than what we want the temperature to be inside.
Why does this make this movement ridiculous you ask? Well, incandescent
lights may use more energy, but they simply convert that excess energy
usage into heat which reduces the amount of energy required from my
furnace...net effect? NO net increase in energy consumption and extremely
inexpensive light bulbs.
Besides, fluorescent lights contain mercury, a known carcinogenic and
hazardous waste that should not be disposed of in the garbage.
However, there is a compelling argument that incandescent bulbs should be
banned in those locations the outside temperatures average more than the
inside temperatures.
Where does this apply you ask? Well, basically, the South.
Now that I am a Northeastern Yankee, I am all for banning incandescent
light bulbs in the South....besides, who really gives a **** if they have
mercury problems down there.
Tom
************************************************** ***
Bill's Response:
I seldom use "reply all" but I think it's warranted here. "I'll stop if
you do!" And that's a fact.
Speaking of which.
Nothing worse than an ill-informed jest, I say. The basic of a good jest
is that the jest has to be plausible; otherwise, it's more like meandering
motion (a "random walk" in engineering terms).
You have this report of resistance (forgive the pun) by some to convert
from incandescent lighting to low-energy CFL's (compact fluorescent lamps).
The report appears to claim that the heat from an incandescent bulb, which
every engineer I know refers to as "waste heat" (for good reason, as the
numbers show), is an effective supplement to the heat from the reporter's
furnace. The principles that apply to the effectiveness (engineers might
also refer to this as "lack of effectiveness") of using waste heat from
static electric resistance-type heat sources (including light bulbs,
toaster ovens, waffle irons, and the like) to raise the temperature of
room-size air volumes versus using forced air from virtually any other type
of well-maintained conventional heating device (heat pump, gas- or
oil-fired furnace, wood stove, etc.) are not a raging "hot bed" of
engineering fundamentals controversy, at least in my part of the country.
I would say in any part of Earth, but apparently there's at least one place
where that's not the case. To sum up this somewhat isolated controversy in
general layman's terms: If your home heating expert recommends the first
(as the report does) of the two presented alternatives - incandescent light
bulbs versus furnace - for supplementing your home heating needs, run
(don't walk) to seek a second opinion!
One may ask, "What might be a more effective use of the "waste heat"
produced by incandescent lamps?"
How's this: According to the those silly *******s at the U.S. Department of
Energy, and from other widely available sources (Internet connection would
be handy, but you could also go to the local library in a pinch like if the
lights go off in your home), if every American home replaced just one light
bulb with a qualified CFL, we would save enough energy to light more than 3
million homes for a year, or more than $600 million in annual energy costs,
or preventing greenhouse gases equivalent to the emissions of more than
800,000 cars. I haven't personally verified these ridiculous wild-assed
numbers - probably more lies from those evil climate scientists, although
they appear to be evil engineering estimates to me. But, even in the off
chance that these numbers are remotely accurate, and I for one am sure
they're not, it just might make a sensible, if not compelling, argument
against the continued use of incandescent bulbs. Use in general. But
especially for supplement heating purposes!
Also, contrary to the claim that "banning incandescent light bulbs in the
South" makes sense, more prudent engineers might conclude that when the
energy used for both heating and lighting is considered: 1) the use of
CFL's saves substantial (up to 80% but who really gives a ****) lighting
energy in temperate climates and ventilated buildings; 2) even more energy
than this is saved in hot climates and cooled buildings; and, 3) somewhat
less in cold climates and heated buildings.
But what do those fuel-efficiency-crazed DOE idiots know?
Finally, that (right on!) part about what a pain in the ass it is to
"properly dispose" of CFL's. How ridiculous can it get? I guess the next
thing they'll try to do is get me to stop pouring my used engine oil down
the storm drain, or dumping my unused paint into the creek, and take this
crap to a number of available hazardous waste disposers! Even though my
local garbage company provides this service for free, every 6 months, I'll
bet there are some of those greedy green recycler *******s and even some of
those big hardware stores ****ers that will do it for a little "you know
what." A little m-o-n-e-y, that's what!
How IGNERNT!!!
And then the truck came along.....