If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mother Jones)   Republicans will buy greener light bulbs as long as you don't tell them they are good for the environment   (motherjones.com) divider line 180
    More: Stupid, environments, Wharton School of Business, Energy Star, global warming controversy, Drudge Report  
•       •       •

2122 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Apr 2013 at 8:30 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



180 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-30 10:40:09 AM  
Yeah, duh.  I call it the anti-green movement.  Because the Right hates "hippies"  that farking much.
 
2013-04-30 10:40:41 AM  

Slaves2Darkness: Have you? or are you just repeating information that you read or heard about, assuming that it is the gospel truth.


You're the one who claimed "the cost over the life of the bulb is an order of magnitude cheaper" for incandescents without any citation whatsoever.
 
2013-04-30 10:42:05 AM  

The universe is laughing behind your back: Tomahawk513: Saiga410: Tomahawk513: Saiga410: It is all about the messaging.  If you harp on and on about the green aspects of a product I zone out/stop caring, I dont care. Wax poetically about efficiency gains and a payoff period and I am like an 8 year old that found the lingerie section of the Sears Catalog.

Different strokes for different folks.

There's a difference between apathy toward environmental friendliness, and outright disgust as the article suggests.

See I do not see the disgust.  There is a small subsect that is probably spiteful but I suggest it is more to deal with crowding out the message with information that the consumer does not care about.  If I read the article right the study was based off of package information.  You only get a small window for someone to absorb the information.  If you add something of neutral recognition level to the packaging, people will look at it and shift informational awareness away from the more affective message.

FTA: "Gromet said she never expected the green message to motivate conservatives, but was surprised to find that it could in fact repel them from making a purchase even while they found other aspects, like saving cash on their power bills, attractive. The reason, she thinks, is that given the political polarization of the climate change debate, environmental activism is so frowned upon by those the right that they'll do anything to keep themselves distanced from it."

I'm guessing some of you weren't around during the Carter administration when environmentalism was a topic of endless discussion everywhere. You couldn't get through a day without hearing how environmental disaster was imminent if we didn't cut back on our energy usage. But nobody ever saw the environmental disaster come, and then Reagan was elected, and a lot of people who were coming of age then simply got sick of all the moralization. I'm pretty certain that the endless hammering on environmental concerns then did real damage to the cause in the mainstream.


This is revisionist bullshiat. Carter's conservation was primarily in response to the two oil crises that happened in the 70s, not because of an impening environmental disaster. The environment was a concern but alone the lines of not being wasteful, not impending disaster. Protecting the environment was the third motivating factor in his conservation speech after the idea of having an energy policy and the economy. That speech had no mention of any impending disaster.
 
2013-04-30 10:42:49 AM  
Typically, Mother Jones leaves out the fact that the light bulbs shoved onto the consumer were produced in China and put US workers, i.e, the Wincester, VA GE plant, out of work during a hard recession.
 
2013-04-30 10:43:42 AM  
So when it comes to selling energy efficient light bulbs to conservatives, the approach is similar to getting your dogs to eat broccoli.

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-04-30 10:44:12 AM  

Geotpf: Yeah, but LEDs still usually cost $20 a bulb. CLFs are $2 a bulb. And five years ago they basically weren't available at all commercially, while CFLs were.


From a recent review:

Cree 60W equivalent  Warm White (2700K) LED Light Bulb
I've been writing about the electronic design industry for over 15 years and I've never seen an LED light bulb with a better combination of features than the Cree. At $13, it's dimmable, has high quality color, is long lasting, has a 10 year warranty and makes as much light as a 60-watt incandescent bulb. It's my new favorite LED light bulb.
 
2013-04-30 10:48:15 AM  

my alt's alt's alt: I never liked CFLs because of the mercury content. If you break one, you are supposed to leave the room/building and call hazmat to cut out the carpet/flooring in the area of the break and decontaminate the area.


Please, just stop with this stupid argument already. I don't know whether you're trolling (if so,  congratulations, you got me! Well done, I suppose) or actually believe this, but either way you look like an idiot saying it
 
2013-04-30 10:49:02 AM  

StrikitRich: Typically, Mother Jones leaves out the fact that the light bulbs shoved onto the consumer were produced in China and put US workers, i.e, the Wincester, VA GE plant, out of work during a hard recession.


You're right. Capitalism is bad. The marketplace must be controlled for the good of the people.
 
2013-04-30 10:50:10 AM  

my alt's alt's alt: I never liked CFLs because of the mercury content. If you break one, you are supposed to leave the room/building and call hazmat to cut out the carpet/flooring in the area of the break and decontaminate the area. You are not supposed to throw them in the trash when they stop working due to the deplorably high mercury content. I'm sure most Americans are thoroughly educated on the subject and follow this protocol just fine on their own.

/LED ftw


There is less mercury in a cfl than in a oral thermometer. You do not need a hazmat team to deal with a broken bulb. Bogus talking point that comes up in every o e of these threads remains bogus. To clean up a cfl you basically just need to air out the rooom, sweep carefully and don't use a vacuum, and then out the debris in a sealed bag and dispose of properly.

http://www2.epa.gov/cfl/cleaning-broken-cfl (remove the space fark will probably put in there)
 
2013-04-30 10:51:08 AM  

Fiatlux: I'm a pretty libbing Lib and all but...
I work in the lighting industry, as a designer not an engineer, and I have always felt that the compact fluorescent revolution was a little squirrly. The self evident future of general consumer illumination is LEDs. That future is, by and large, already happening. We could have sensibly transitioned from incandescence to LED based products, but for some reason we inserted this other 10 year or so period of marketing CLF's as the "Green" option. CFL's are much more efficient then incandescence of course, LEDs much more so, and don't involve all that tasty mercury winding up in land fills.
Professional and hobbyist markets will always be served, Film, video. photography, various medical applications, etc, who have need of incandescent sources will be able to get them, but the overwhelming majority of light used by everybody else should have converted to LEDs years ago. Why this is a political issue, I don't understand.

/waits for engineer type to point out the horrors inherent in LED manufacture
/ducks


LED Lighting is becoming the new standard for video as it needs a lot less power and doesn't get nearly as hot as tungsten.  The light temperature is good, and can be adjusted for daylight or tungsten balance as well.  I even use LEDs for photography occasionally.  I started with two LitePanel 1x1s, and as prices have come down, I have a considerable amount of LED lighting and can't even think about the last time I busted out the Lowell DP Kit.  Related to your comment; A couple of months ago, I did a shoot for a new hospital, and the surgical lights were all LED as well.  I was going to write that there will always be a need for big tungsten lights in the film industry, but with the advances in technology with cameras like the Arri Alexa, the low light capability is just so fantastic that I wouldn't be surprised to find them going away soon.
 
2013-04-30 10:57:54 AM  

Thrag: The universe is laughing behind your back: Tomahawk513: Saiga410: Tomahawk513: Saiga410: It is all about the messaging.  If you harp on and on about the green aspects of a product I zone out/stop caring, I dont care. Wax poetically about efficiency gains and a payoff period and I am like an 8 year old that found the lingerie section of the Sears Catalog.

Different strokes for different folks.

There's a difference between apathy toward environmental friendliness, and outright disgust as the article suggests.

See I do not see the disgust.  There is a small subsect that is probably spiteful but I suggest it is more to deal with crowding out the message with information that the consumer does not care about.  If I read the article right the study was based off of package information.  You only get a small window for someone to absorb the information.  If you add something of neutral recognition level to the packaging, people will look at it and shift informational awareness away from the more affective message.

FTA: "Gromet said she never expected the green message to motivate conservatives, but was surprised to find that it could in fact repel them from making a purchase even while they found other aspects, like saving cash on their power bills, attractive. The reason, she thinks, is that given the political polarization of the climate change debate, environmental activism is so frowned upon by those the right that they'll do anything to keep themselves distanced from it."

I'm guessing some of you weren't around during the Carter administration when environmentalism was a topic of endless discussion everywhere. You couldn't get through a day without hearing how environmental disaster was imminent if we didn't cut back on our energy usage. But nobody ever saw the environmental disaster come, and then Reagan was elected, and a lot of people who were coming of age then simply got sick of all the moralization. I'm pretty certain that the endless hammering on environme ...


I wasn't referring to the president specifically, except to note that this was going on *while* he was president.

The environmentalist cause was getting a lot of media play in the late '70s and early '80s, much of which was moralistic in tone (the energy crises of '73 and '79 had a lot to do with this.) I was there. People just get tired of being preached at, and I suspect large parts of a couple generations tuned out the environmental cause because of it.

I'm not one of them. My house was filled with CFLs when I built it five years ago. More than half of them are still in use. Energy savings aside, I appreciate not having to change bulbs all the time or having them generate heat on hot days. I'll probably replace them with LEDs when they die.
 
2013-04-30 10:59:41 AM  
I don't buy products that have offensive commercials, why should conservatives be any different, just because their ideas about what is offensive aren't the same as mine.

/Four 100 watt equivalent sun-spectrum CFLs in a 120-watt fixture rocks.
 
2013-04-30 11:01:28 AM  

Slaves2Darkness: Serious Black: Slaves2Darkness: THX 1138: Slaves2Darkness: While an "energy efficient" bulb costs four or five dollars, dims after two years and burns out in three even though it is "guaranteed" for five.

Is there a reason you wouldn't take the manufacturer up on their guarantee then?  Because if what you say is accurate, you could get free bulbs in perpetuity.

But hey, why do that when you could keep buying and replacing incandescents, right?

Yeah, there is I didn't keep the receipt. No receipt no replacement.
Yes I will keep buying and replacing incandescents, because the cost over the life of the bulb is an order of magnitude cheaper, despite what the propaganda says.

Really? You've studied it out and everything?

Have you? or are you just repeating information that you read or heard about, assuming that it is the gospel truth.


Well, I know how much a 60 watt incandescent light bulb costs (about $1). I know how much a comparable LED light bulb costs (about $13). I  know how much electricity the LED bulb uses compared to the incandescent (about a sixth). I know what the mean time to failure for each of those bulbs is (somewhere around 1,000 for an incandescent, somewhere well north of 10,000 for an LED). That means you'll have to buy at least ten times as many incandescents to cover the lifespan of a single LED bulb. Right there, you're almost entirely making up the higher cost of the LED bulb just in materials. And when you factor in how much electricity costs per kilowatt-hour at my house (just north of 6.4 cents per kWh) and that the LED will use far less electricity than the incandescents, it's pretty clear that the only way I wouldn't save a buttload of money by switching to LED bulbs is if I basically never turned on a light bulb in my entire house.
 
2013-04-30 11:04:58 AM  
Are these the same morons who bought Hummers just to "piss off the greens" only to whine like petulant children when gas prices spiked?
 
2013-04-30 11:07:21 AM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: my alt's alt's alt: I never liked CFLs because of the mercury content. If you break one, you are supposed to leave the room/building and call hazmat to cut out the carpet/flooring in the area of the break and decontaminate the area.

Please, just stop with this stupid argument already. I don't know whether you're trolling (if so,  congratulations, you got me! Well done, I suppose) or actually believe this, but either way you look like an idiot saying it


It's the same person that will proudly proclaim that when they were young and didn't have all that unnecessary regulation they would play with mercury in their hands. You know, the good old days.

www.learnnc.org
 
2013-04-30 11:08:21 AM  

Slaves2Darkness: Also if you break one you are supposed bring in a clean up expert that will charge you anywhere from $5-25 thousand dollars


It's funny that you repeat this stupid falsehood and then try to take others to task for "just repeating information that you read or heard about, assuming that it is the gospel truth. "

As for LED lights and how much more they cost over the lifetime, that's also a crock of shiat.  the simple fact is that at a cost of 11.5 cents per kW,  a 60 watt bulb that gets used an average of 5 hours per day will cost you 12 bucks per year. The equivalent  9.5 watt Cree LED bulb will cost less than two bucks.  So the LED bulb pays for itself in just over one year, and then saves you ten bucks per year after that, with a ten year warranty.

Ten bucks per year per bulb

So you can go on about how cheap your electricity already is is, but all you're really demonstrating is that you either like to pay hundreds of dollars per year more than you have to, or you're willing to do it to spite the dirty farking hippies
 
2013-04-30 11:09:48 AM  
This is unique to modern republicans.  Nothing can't NOT be about politics to the conservative mouth-breathers.  Some times progress is non-partisan.  These guys think that by being inefficient they are "showing them" but in reality they only hurt themselves.  It's like children.  Just idiots.

New light bulb technology is cheaper in the long run and more efficient.  Period.  Get the hell over it.
 
2013-04-30 11:12:31 AM  

Fart_Machine: Are these the same morons who bought Hummers just to "piss off the greens" only to whine like petulant children when gas prices spiked?


Yup, them's the ones
 
2013-04-30 11:14:48 AM  
The thing I love is the conservatives I know getting all concern-troll about the mercury in CFLs as the reason they can't consider switching.

Then, you go into their garages and basements and you've got a half-dozen good old T40 Shop Lights (the long fluorescent tubes).  One older T40 bulb has as much mercury as 100 or more modern CFLs.

When you bring this up, they don't seem to see the issue.
 
2013-04-30 11:24:02 AM  

Lawnchair: When you bring this up, they don't seem to see the issue.


Fartbongo told them to buy CFL's that seems to be the only issue
 
2013-04-30 11:36:02 AM  

StrikitRich: Typically, Mother Jones leaves out the fact that the light bulbs shoved onto the consumer were produced in China and put US workers, i.e, the Wincester, VA GE plant, out of work during a hard recession.


Laissez faire fetishism it what puts US workers out of work, not efficient lightbulbs.
 
2013-04-30 11:40:34 AM  
LED is the way of the future... They may have a high initial cost but the saving in the long run even with that cost is still worth it.  Eventually they will be cheaper to buy anyway.
 
2013-04-30 11:41:20 AM  
well, their messiah, glenn beck, did chop down a tree for arbor day. this is the sort of contrarian, spite-your-face mentality we're talking about.
 
2013-04-30 11:43:56 AM  

StrikitRich: Typically, Mother Jones leaves out the fact that the light bulbs shoved onto the consumer were produced in China and put US workers, i.e, the Wincester, VA GE plant, out of work during a hard recession.


Regarding the Cree light bulbs that several people in this thread are pimping:

The new residential bulbs are being manufacturing in Durham, where Cree employs 2,335 people. About 200 people were hired to manufacture the new bulb, Watson said. "Whenever you're closer to your consumer, the product is better, and ultimately the cost can be more affordable as well," he said.

Got any more talking points you'd like me to demolish?

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/03/05/2727881/cree-unveils-10-led-bu l b-for-consumers.html#storylink=cpy
 
2013-04-30 11:48:23 AM  
This is the first LED bulb I installed at work:
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net

It's the original CREE LR6, 6-inch can light retrofit. I installed this lamp in August of 2008. It so far has only lost 10% of its original lumens (I check it annually with a footcandle meter). Since this is an employee entrance, the light has run continuously, 24/7. That works out to be nearly 44,000 hours of operation to date.

This 12-watt light has the same lumen output of that of a 60-watt incandescent lamp, and nearly identical CRI and color temperature. At the time, it cost a very steep $65 (today, similar CREE models cost $19)

Had I kept using a 60-watt incandescent bulb, I would have had to replace it at least 11 times now, and I would have spent $264 in electricity (@ $0.10 kWh) over the past 5 years of operation

But instead, I spent $65 on the LED lamp and $53 in electricity. And now when I need to replace it, I can buy a similar LED lamp for $19.

You have to be an idiot to buy incandescent bulbs - both 5 years ago and even more so today. Or you simply like throwing money away.
 
2013-04-30 11:50:21 AM  
I've said it once, and I'll say it again.

Cleaner tech will only be used once it's more expensive to use the dirty tech, and it will always be cheaper to use the dirty tech unless you make polluters deal with the cost of their pollution.

I won't hold my breath that Congress will actually do such a thing.

//Will hold my breath going past that coal fired power plant though.
 
2013-04-30 12:01:18 PM  
I currently don't own a house, but I've been planning to have a dome-house with solar panels and a well, with sod laid over the entire structure (it'll look like I'm living in a hill). I tell people this and they laugh... right up until I tell them the projected overall cost and monthly utilities. It really boggles people's mind when they realize that the only reason they're doing things in a certain way is for exterior aesthetics and what the social take on "green homes" are - even if their traditional homes are not as safe and cost a hell of a lot more. This goes doubly so for people who have plenty of land, but build a two-story house, and complain about utility bills. 

These lightbulbs are the same thing - they're more cost-efficient, but people don't want to use them because they've got a prejudice on all things "green." It's silly. 

/not ashamed to admit that I used to think like that
//biology professor corrected me by showing me his solar setup
///in a traditional house, his highest electric bill for a year was $12
 
2013-04-30 12:09:03 PM  
I live in Texas, very republican. Not one person I know uses the dinosaur bulbs.  Republicans value saving money, bottom line.
Now, LED's?  The price is plummeting.  Waiting a couple years after they really took off and cleaned up production wasn't a bad idea.  Those $50 bulbs didn't make sense.
 
2013-04-30 12:10:44 PM  
This is one of my favorite projects for a client, in a before/after photo. Above it the "Before" photo with halogen lamps, the below is the "After" photo with LED lamps. There are the same number of lamps in the two photos, exposure & F-stops are identical (and no post processing) between the two shots.
sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
This was done two years ago for a high-end art client in Maui. There are 120 lamps, which were kept on 24/7 (so passers-by could see artwork through the windows when the place was closed & for security). Maui has an electrical rate of $0.36 a kWh.

Here's the math on how it breaks down:
Halogen: 120 lamps x 100 watts per lamp x 24 hours x 365 days + 5-tons of constant air conditioning = ~$50,000 a year in electricity. Seeing as this is Hana, which the nearest home improvement store is 3 hours away, meant that when it came time to replace the halogen bulbs (which die every 2,000 hours), they'd need to keep about 600 lamps on hand to replace for each year of operation.

I convinced them to spend $16,000 on new, high-end (~94 CRI) LED lighting:
LED: 120 lamps x 16 watts per lamp x 24 hours x 365 days - no air conditioning costs = $6,000 a year.

Over the course of 5 years, they'll save from having to buy 3,000 halogen bulbs and will save $220,000 in electricity cost. Plus they have the added benefit of brighter lights to showcase their product, less damage to the art work from heat, and less wear and tear on their A/C system. As part of my installation, they gave me a complementary stay at the adjoining beach resort for the week.

Sometimes I love my job.
 
2013-04-30 12:11:37 PM  
Conservatives would punch themselves in the nuts if they thought it would somehow win a political sports match.
 
2013-04-30 12:13:18 PM  

The universe is laughing behind your back: I was there. People just get tired of being preached at, and I suspect large parts of a couple generations tuned out the environmental cause because of it.


I was there, too. I'm probably older than you because I remember when Nixon created the EPA, along with a number of other really important environmental initiatives. I don't remember any of the "preaching" you claim was so prevalent.

Certain business interests pushed back against environmental regulation, and politicians they paid for started the now-familiar bullsh*t about how we shouldn't let a bunch of dirty commie hippies preach at us with their liberal elite "science" and kill our jerbs. Of course there were morons who bought that crap, and there still are; the current manifestation of that is man-made global warming denial.

We shouldn't be blaming science for the prejudices of morons and the powerful assholes who manipulate them.
 
2013-04-30 12:23:12 PM  

Chummer45: I think the moral here is that the right has just become a party of trolls.  Liberal folks may sometimes fit the stereotype that they are susceptible to "green" marketing and "organic" bullshiat, even when it ultimately does little to nothing to help the environment (and in some cases is worse).  But at least the intentions are to actually do something good - reduce their environmental impact and reduce the use of pesticides.

Conservatives, on the other hand, are in this reactionary psychology where they'd just as soon throw a newspaper in the garbage rather than recycle it (all things being equal), if for no other reason than recycling is "liberal bullshiat."   What is their underlying goal?  It's just
  childish spite.

So I'm kind of tired of the false equivalence of "liberals and conservatives are equally stupid."   That doesn't really work when one side is literally taking positions and doing things for no admirable or principled reason, and is simply doing it to troll the other side.  If you look at Washington, this is the big problem with the GOP - it is simply obstructionist and has no real goals other than to make the democrats look bad and oppose things (like background checks, efficiency standards) for no reason other than because it's something democrats like.


FTFY.

They aren't trolling. They think their actions and beliefs are the correct ones, and when told frequently and vociferously by the people that they are delusional, wrong and fallacious in their thinking, they pull the older-than-grade-school version of jamming their fingers into their ears and screaming, "LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" Stomping their feet and saying, "No no no no no" to everything coming from the Dems even when it involves something that was the RW's idea in the first place, putting party before country ("my team is better than your team", "my daddy can beat up your daddy"), discarding reasoned, rational discourse in favor of rancor, enmity and venom - These are the acts of children.

They should be treated like obstreperous children as a result - No dessert, no TV, no video games, no computer, no phone. They should be grounded until after the next election cycle ends, not allowed to hang out with other children who make similarly bad choices & made to apologize for their misdeeds, face to face to those they've harmed. And if that doesn't work, send them off to military school - or the military, since they're over 18 (That will really vex 'em - They love the idea of soldiers, but not the idea of being soldiers).
 
2013-04-30 12:26:31 PM  

InteriorDesignNinja: Conservatives would punch themselves in the nuts if they thought it would somehow piss off "the libs" win a political sports match.


FTFY
 
2013-04-30 12:27:38 PM  

cman: Das ist Wahrheit

They wont buy them out of spite. I felt the same way for quite some time. Letting political decisions dictate how you buy crap is something that we Americans excel at.


What changed your mind?  How did saving money win out over spite?
 
2013-04-30 12:37:32 PM  

WI241TH: Alright, I'm starting a company called As God Intended and telling them all my green energy products were biblically inspired, they'll eat it right up.

Remember when God said "let there be light?"  He was telling us to harness the Sun's energy with solar panels.  These Return to Eden light bulbs, that will save you money by using less energy? Just inspired by a simpler time.

/who needs Energy Star certification when we have Jesus Christ Super Star certification?


Might be a good idea except that the number of conservatives are around 35% and shrinking. It's the only market segment that is naturally shrinking.
 
2013-04-30 12:42:47 PM  

hinten: It's the same person that will proudly proclaim that when they were young and didn't have all that unnecessary regulation they would play with mercury in their hands. You know, the good old days.


I did that when I was a kid.  My mother gave it to us to play with.  It was fascinating, and yes, I can count to potato.
 
2013-04-30 12:45:37 PM  

Chummer45: I think the moral here is that the right has just become a party of trolls.  Liberal folks may sometimes fit the stereotype that they are susceptible to "green" marketing and "organic" bullshiat, even when it ultimately does little to nothing to help the environment (and in some cases is worse).  But at least the intentions are to actually do something good - reduce their environmental impact and reduce the use of pesticides.

Conservatives, on the other hand, are in this reactionary psychology where they'd just as soon throw a newspaper in the garbage rather than recycle it (all things being equal), if for no other reason than recycling is "liberal bullshiat."   What is their underlying goal?  It's just childish spite.

So I'm kind of tired of the false equivalence of "liberals and conservatives are equally stupid."   That doesn't really work when one side is literally taking positions and doing things for no admirable or principled reason, and is simply doing it to troll the other side.  If you look at Washington, this is the big problem with the GOP - it is simply obstructionist and has no real goals other than to make the democrats look bad and oppose things (like background checks, efficiency standards) for no reason other than because it's something democrats like.


This^^^
 
2013-04-30 01:05:24 PM  

TheBigJerk: Yeah, duh.  I call it the anti-green movement.  Because the Right hates "hippies"  that farking much.


The environmental movement has suffered from two problems over the years.

1. It came into the mainstream consciousness in the late-60's & early-70's and was embraced by a fair portion of the anti-establshment. This caused the establishment to respond with the tried-and-true, "If they're for it, I'm agin' it." That mentality survives to this day, particularly among the RW, who generally tend to view anything anti-establishment or outside of the "norm" (like education and scientific research - "Ain't no scientists or college graduates in my family, and we've been doing just fine mining coal for generations") as bad, illogical and worthy of disdain.

2. The environmental movement made a severe messaging mistake by positioning ecologically-sound practices and conservation of resources as being matters related to "saving the planet." In doing so, they failed to see that people don't give two shiats about the planet's "health". In truth, the planet will get along just fine, with or without us. If a meteor strike in the Yucatan that (probably) caused a global mass extinction 65 million years ago couldn't wipe out all life on the planet, then pollution and the overharvesting of natural resources - particularly of plant species - won't wipe out all life either. But it will kill most life, including humans. In my opinion, they would have been more effective if they had made the point that "environmentally-friendly" practices are about ensuring the ability of humans to survive for more than a few more generations, not about "saving the planet".
 
2013-04-30 01:30:10 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: Slaves2Darkness: Also if you break one you are supposed bring in a clean up expert that will charge you anywhere from $5-25 thousand dollars

It's funny that you repeat this stupid falsehood and then try to take others to task for "just repeating information that you read or heard about, assuming that it is the gospel truth. "

As for LED lights and how much more they cost over the lifetime, that's also a crock of shiat.  the simple fact is that at a cost of 11.5 cents per kW,  a 60 watt bulb that gets used an average of 5 hours per day will cost you 12 bucks per year. The equivalent  9.5 watt Cree LED bulb will cost less than two bucks.  So the LED bulb pays for itself in just over one year, and then saves you ten bucks per year after that, with a ten year warranty.

Ten bucks per year per bulb

So you can go on about how cheap your electricity already is is, but all you're really demonstrating is that you either like to pay hundreds of dollars per year more than you have to, or you're willing to do it to spite the dirty farking hippies


I haven't tried LEDs yet, but the CFLs never last more then 2-3 years, some a lot less. So, while your calculations might be right based on the rated hours, I seriously doubt they are right when actually used.
 
2013-04-30 01:31:44 PM  

Chummer45: I think the moral here is that the right has just become a party of trolls.


It's not trolling - it's just macho bullshiat that makes them feel good about themselves. It's an over-reaction to hippy environmentalism. I was very susceptible to it when I was a young Republican.
 
2013-04-30 01:32:30 PM  

THX 1138: Slaves2Darkness: Have you? or are you just repeating information that you read or heard about, assuming that it is the gospel truth.

You're the one who claimed "the cost over the life of the bulb is an order of magnitude cheaper" for incandescents without any citation whatsoever.


Based on my observation, which I have cited repeatedly I have to replace CFL bulbs every 2-3 years, that significantly increases the costs of CFLs. I have not tried LEDs yet, maybe they don't lie about how long they last, but based on experience I doubt it.
 
2013-04-30 01:33:25 PM  

MrSteve007: This is one of my favorite projects for a client, in a before/after photo. Above it the "Before" photo with halogen lamps, the below is the "After" photo with LED lamps. There are the same number of lamps in the two photos, exposure & F-stops are identical (and no post processing) between the two shots.
[sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 850x286]
This was done two years ago for a high-end art client in Maui. There are 120 lamps, which were kept on 24/7 (so passers-by could see artwork through the windows when the place was closed & for security). Maui has an electrical rate of $0.36 a kWh.

Here's the math on how it breaks down:
Halogen: 120 lamps x 100 watts per lamp x 24 hours x 365 days + 5-tons of constant air conditioning = ~$50,000 a year in electricity. Seeing as this is Hana, which the nearest home improvement store is 3 hours away, meant that when it came time to replace the halogen bulbs (which die every 2,000 hours), they'd need to keep about 600 lamps on hand to replace for each year of operation.

I convinced them to spend $16,000 on new, high-end (~94 CRI) LED lighting:
LED: 120 lamps x 16 watts per lamp x 24 hours x 365 days - no air conditioning costs = $6,000 a year.

Over the course of 5 years, they'll save from having to buy 3,000 halogen bulbs and will save $220,000 in electricity cost. Plus they have the added benefit of brighter lights to showcase their product, less damage to the art work from heat, and less wear and tear on their A/C system. As part of my installation, they gave me a complementary stay at the adjoining beach resort for the week.

Sometimes I love my job.


I have nothing to add. I just want to say i enjoyed your insight.
 
2013-04-30 01:35:50 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: THX 1138: Slaves2Darkness: Have you? or are you just repeating information that you read or heard about, assuming that it is the gospel truth.

You're the one who claimed "the cost over the life of the bulb is an order of magnitude cheaper" for incandescents without any citation whatsoever.

Based on my observation, which I have cited repeatedly I have to replace CFL bulbs every 2-3 years, that significantly increases the costs of CFLs. I have not tried LEDs yet, maybe they don't lie about how long they last, but based on experience I doubt it.


anecdotal evidence is a kind of evidence.
 
2013-04-30 01:36:53 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: I have not tried LEDs yet, maybe they don't lie about how long they last, but based on experience I doubt it.

 
2013-04-30 01:41:36 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: Those "energy efficient" bulbs are a rip off and no where need as effective as advertised.


Appropos of nothing, the CFL bulb in my basement stairwell has been functioning flawlessly for almost twenty years.  I've taken it with me through three different homes and it has always been employed in high-use areas.  It currently gets turned on and off many times a day.

And, I guess you haven't been to a Home Depot recently:

http://www.homedepot.com/p/Cree-6-Watt-40W-A19-Warm-White-2700K-LED- Li ght-Bulb-1-Pack-BA19-04527OMF-12DE26-1U100/203991778?N=bm79#.UYABVaLFX -Y

But this is the sort of arrogant ignorance we should expect from someone with your handle, right, Slaves2Darkness?

How apt.
 
2013-04-30 01:42:33 PM  
Are all you farkers really arguing about LIGHT with a servant bonded to DARKNESS itself?
 
2013-04-30 01:42:37 PM  

FilmBELOH20: I was going to write that there will always be a need for big tungsten lights in the film industry, but with the advances in technology with cameras like the Arri Alexa, the low light capability is just so fantastic that I wouldn't be surprised to find them going away soon.


25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-04-30 01:44:59 PM  

Deucednuisance: Appropos of nothing, the CFL bulb in my basement stairwell has been functioning flawlessly for almost twenty years.  I've taken it with me through three different homes and it has always been employed in high-use areas.  It currently gets turned on and off many times a day.


About 16 years ago, I bought some CFLs in a close out bin at an ACE hardware.  These were installed in the recessing lighting of vaulted ceiling.  We too those lights when we sold that house 3 years later. I installed them in another tall recessed light fixture.  They are still burning today.
 
2013-04-30 01:53:17 PM  

Wyalt Derp: If it benefits me, I'm all for it. But if it benefits other people too? Forget about it!


It makes perfect sense - if you think of 'life' as a sort of retarded 'zero-sum' game, where any benefit that someone other than you receives constitutes a loss to you.  It's the same idiotic logic that allows somebody to feel like Gay people gaining the right to marry somehow devalues Straight marriage.  As if 'Right to Marry' is a scarce resource up until the gays discover a big deposit of it and the market price for marriages plummet.
 
2013-04-30 02:15:50 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: I'd give LED a try if I could find one for less then $15 dollars a bulb.


Multiple people in this very thread have shown you that these do exist and are plentiful.

Slaves2Darkness: As for the CFL's the new rules on disposal are another strike against them as we are no longer supposed to throw them away, because of the mercury inside them.


It is such a chore to return them to the same place that you bought them and will buy their replacements, isn't it?

Slaves2Darkness: Also if you break one you are supposed bring in a clean up expert that will charge you anywhere from $5-25 thousand dollars.


And this is simply not true.  If you believe it, you are engaging in arrogant ignorance.  That or lying.

Tell us, how do you dispose of fluorescent tubes, which contain far more mercury than a CFL?
 
Displayed 50 of 180 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report