# 2050 Challenge: How to Power the World on Renewable Energy



## EVDL Archive (Jul 26, 2007)

Panel of energy experts meet in Chicago to discuss opportunities and challenges of a world where energy demand has doubled.

More...


----------



## infantry11b (Feb 6, 2010)

never going to happen!
we will always have to use things up.
oil has a lot more uses than gas.
right now going electric is ok but until we can get cheap off the grid electric power to change them - they are not going to be anything but something we do because we want to.
you do realize that oil is needed to make solar panels, your computer, your bike, the roads, everything. we need it.
but as long as the government is not involved - i say good luck to you.


----------



## Woodsmith (Jun 5, 2008)

'Energy demands double by 2050' 

That is the crux of the matter. We should resolve the demand issue and reduce demand significantly year on year. That will allow the demand eventually to meet the possible outputs of non fossil energy generation. Reducing the amount of people is a good start begining with those who have the largest demand on energy and resources.
Not saying bump them off but more not having 8 kids where each has a PC, a laptop, a car, a truck, wide screen tv and all replaced for new each year just cos the folks have a high income.

Aboriginies hardly use any energy or resources. More with their ethics would be ok.

We should still be mining oil though, not for wasteful burning but for the chemical products that are essential. Even then the mining should be at a low level with the recovery of raw materials taking precident.


----------



## infantry11b (Feb 6, 2010)

reduce demand? did you actually write "reduce demand?"
and who gets to tell people they have exceeded their allotment? who gets to set an allotment?
do we get a government telling us what our "fair share" is?
that is not freedom!
we need to use more energy - unless you are going to tell those of us with energy to start rationing - we need more energy to let those less developed have more.
i am a fan of bringing others to the higher standard NOT REDUCING THE STANDARDS to the lowest common denominator.
sorry to tell you this but we are going to use the earths assets, just like every other animal on the planet.
like solar - it will take hundreds of sq miles of solar panels to actually make a difference. you want to live under a large black square with no sun? probably not, and neither do the animals and plant life that lived there until someone but a shade up.
and rivers provide hydro electric but then people scream that a fish cant get up stream.
in california we have the delta smelt a nothing fish the size of my little finger that does nothing for us, and to keep this water rat alive we have thousands of acres of the best farm land in the world turning into a desert and hundreds of thousands of people out of work. not to mention the food the world is not getting.
dont get me wrong, i like free energy, but its not really free. it costs thousands for solar panels - no i am not in favor of killing the solar panel business and putting thousands out of work - but there is a cost. there is energy storage issues too. batteries are dirty filthy things to make. and there is not always sun and the wind is not always blowing. and using bio fuels is a choice between food and energy - i prefer to feed people.
part of the solution may have to do with smaller power plants, but i dont have the answer, except to say one solution does not fit all, and mandatory rationing is against my feelings about freedom.
but i would love more answers. i like nuke energy and before you tell me the waste - i think shooting it into the sun - a large nuke waste plant if there ever was one - is the answer.
i would like to see clean coal, natural gas, as well as solar and wind.


----------



## IamIan (Mar 29, 2009)

infantry11b said:


> you do realize that oil is needed to make solar panels, your computer, your bike, the roads, everything. we need it.


not quiet... we use some oil for other things ... which is not the same as oil is needed for those things ... there is a difference.

Oil is just a Hydrocarbon ... We have had the technology to make it synthetically for a long time... we don't at this time due to the economics cost in $ and energy to do so... it isn't that oil is needed... it is cost effective... and convenient ... which is different.



infantry11b said:


> reduce demand? did you actually write "reduce demand?" and who gets to tell people they have exceeded their allotment? who gets to set an allotment? do we get a government telling us what our "fair share" is? that is not freedom!


Welcome to a Free Market... where the other person selling it has the freedom to charge anything he likes... and your only option is to pay what he charges or don't buy it.

Being wasteful is a luxury ... and your income always restricts how much luxury you can afford... it cost less to use less... doesn't matter what it is TVs, Cars, Oil, Food, electricity, etc.



infantry11b said:


> i am a fan of bringing others to the higher standard NOT REDUCING THE STANDARDS to the lowest common denominator.


If you are actually for the improved standard than you are by default also for reducing energy usage, and waste ... welcome to the camp 

One main reason the transistor was a success was because it reduced waste... less wasted energy being converted to heat... less cooling needed... less space and weight... etc...

Each improvement in computer processing power and cost is related to improvements in reduced waste... removing waste heat ... less waste in production... etc.

Solar cells have come down in price $ per watt to produce because the process is more efficient and wastes less.

Oil rigs use less energy for daily operations ... refineries are more efficient and waste less energy.

If you want a higher standard ... by default you also join the less waste & less energy camp to... congratulations


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

infantry11b said:


> reduce demand? did you actually write "reduce demand?"
> and who gets to tell people they have exceeded their allotment? who gets to set an allotment?
> do we get a government telling us what our "fair share" is?
> that is not freedom!
> ...


Yep. If they are going to start rationing anything, it should be people in general and politicians in particular.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

I don't think we are talking about reducing "Benefit" just increasing efficiency so we get more bang for our buck

The Germans and the like have a good (better?) lifestyle with about half the energy usage

There is a lot of waste in our lifestyles and often we can't buy the most efficient appliances because "there is no demand'

Here in NZ we waste a ton of energy in our houses because we don't insulate enough


----------



## infantry11b (Feb 6, 2010)

i dont know how much time you have spent over the pond - or where you went - but there is not one country in the world that can match America for taking care of its people, at least until the dems got control of congress.
no country, and i mean country and not some pimple on the butt of some other real country, with a population over 50 million, does it better than we do.
i will be the first to agree that our debt is currently 12.5 TRILLION - but when the dems got control of the congress in 2007 it was only 8 trillion. debt will effect our standard of living. the more we borrow the more we will have to tax and the more the gov takes in taxes the fewer dollars there are to spur development by private people.
the people on this board are doing individually what government and business cant do, and they do it without costing anyone anything.
whenever people say we use too much energy they are in fact saying we are using something that belongs to someone else - and that is just crap.
so if you think we are, as a country using too much energy, i ask you - WHAT DID YOU GIVE UP?
that bike you might ride is built in a factory that uses oil and power to form it. those tires came from oil and that chain needs oil. the road you are on is made with oil by machines that run on oil, worked by people who need oil to run their homes, take their kids to school, get clothes, and buy food. so what are you going to tell them they dont have to have?
because when you start making that decision for others, THEY GET TO MAKE IT FOR YOU!
i would like to see a cheap solar panel so that everyone in the world - every home, every village, every small cluster of people, can have them to get FREE energy. but i also want large industrial power plants to run factories and spur on progress.
take africia as an example. its a pit. the poorest people in America would be considered rich by their standards. why do you think that is? after all we give billion and billions to africia. do you think it has anything to do with the leaders in africia using the bucks for their personal pleasure, private jets, private armies, homes in london and paris, los angeles, and quebec and not one penny for real industrial development or real education. of course it does. and the people in those countries make a choice, they chose to be lead by dictators instead of leading themselves out of poverty.
so i agree that we can help by using less gas, but are we really using less when we plug into the grid to drive our EV? and do we count the energy to make all those dirty batteries?
so lets not say we use too much energy - we use what we can afford to use and others can do the same or choose to do something different. iceland can use all that hot water they get, everyone can use what they have, but i still like big oil. the problem with oil is we regulate it too much. no new refining plants in a quarter of a century, just taxes. the same for coal - taxes.
nuke power is clean clean clean - but hanoi jane did a movie called the china syndrome and we are all just so afraid because hollywood says we should be.
enough nukes and we would have lots of clean energy.
but reducing what i use because someone thinks i use too much - not going to happen unless i get to tell them what they can use.


----------



## IamIan (Mar 29, 2009)

infantry11b said:


> so if you think we are, as a country using too much energy, i ask you - WHAT DID YOU GIVE UP?


I gave up wasting some of my resources... I wanted to live better ... and wasting my resources was in the way.

I gave up using an old outdated desk top computer when it broke ... my newer technology , faster current computer uses less than 1/4 the energy that the older slower desk top used to use... more for less is better.

As my old light bulbs burned out I replaced them with newer, more advanced light bulbs that last longer and use less energy... more for less is better.

Instead of being happy with ever increasing heating bills ... I fixed some drafts in old leaky windows and doors ... for a little bit of money I was able to significantly reduce that heating cost... instead of just paying ever increasing energy bills to heat it... more for less is better.

When I moved into an apartment sense it is just me and my wife ... renting a massive 5 bedroom house is just a waste of our money on what would be a much larger monthly rent ... as well as larger monthly utility bills... so Instead we rented 1 and 2 bedroom apartments... so that leaves me with more money to spend on other things ... more is better.

You want a better standard of living ... get more from your hard earned money ... waste less.

That doesn't even touch on the people I have known who sit for an hour or more in a parking lot with the car engine running because they didn't want to go into the heated or Air-Conditioned store while someone else was shopping ... or the several people I have known who don't want to put in a block heater , or clean out the garage that they already own , but instead will use a remote starter to run their car for 1 hour in the winter to heat it up... lots and lots of people was just wasteful.

But I still think our Free Market will do the work for us ... it is a luxury to be wasteful ... and not everyone can afford to be as wasteful as some people are... Why don't more people own 50+ different cars like J Leno ... because they can't afford it... Why don't more people live in 20+ Bedroom mansions? Because they can't afford it.

Things will just get more and more expensive ... and by default ... just like not owning a mansion ... people will only be able to buy what they can afford... the government doesn't have to do anything... The Free Market will force it to happen.

Now if you don't want a Free-Market... if you prefer a communistic or Socialistic type economic system ... than the government will have to be involved.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Hi Infantry

Have you ever lived in any other country?

I lived in the USA for four years, as a well paid engineer I had a good life

BUT I would hate to be a poor working guy in the USA

In almost every other western country the working man is not just better off but loads better off

Not to mention most countries have democracies that work a little better!


----------



## infantry11b (Feb 6, 2010)

good reply. i did that same thing with computers - now its low energy laptops with standard keyboards and low enerby monitors. my wife did not even notice the difference.

but that lightbulb everyone wants us to use? got to say no there.

a few years back we quit eating tuna for a while - too much mercury in them. guess what is in the new lightbulbs - MERCURY. not much but when you multiply it by billions - well that is a bunch of mercury. mad has a hatter was not just a saying - it was true - hatters used mercury to make the hats. well i dont want billions of these darn poison glass tubes around. the next thing is the government is going to add a "special processing fee" for disposal. they will never actually dispose of them for you but the get the money.

when it costs 40k to make a small home solar - with grid also available - you begin to say - that is too much. 

anyone got any good ideas for cheap solar panels and hook in devices compatable with the grid? lol


----------



## namyzarc (Mar 18, 2008)

Those mercury-laden bulbs that you're talking about may contain mercury, but due to their decreased energy use, they cause less mercury to be produced for the electricity they use throughout their lifetime than a conventional bulb. 
Thus switching to those bulbs results in a net DECREASE in mercury output vs conventional ones.
In addition to that there are two more reasons to use them:
1) the mercury they contain is in solid form, thus less likely to be absorbed into the human body than the air-born mercury put out by most coal & fossil fuel power plants.
2) The newer generation of CFL's contain less mercury than the earlier ones, and manufacturers are already experimenting with CFLs that contain no mercury at all.
3) They save you money.


----------



## infantry11b (Feb 6, 2010)

THEY CONTAIN POISON! THAT IS DEADELY - KILL YOU - POISON.
but before it kills you - you get to have one or more os this:
Common symptoms of mercury poisoning include peripheral neuropathy (presenting as paresthesia or itching, burning or pain), skin discoloration (pink cheeks, fingertips and toes), swelling, and desquamation (shedding of skin).
Because mercury blocks the degradation pathway of catecholamines, epinephrine excess causes profuse sweating, tachycardia (persistently faster-than-normal heart beat), increased salivation, and hypertension (high blood pressure). Mercury is thought to inactivate S-adenosyl-methionine, which is necessary for catecholamine catabolism by catechol-o-methyl transferase.
Affected children may show red cheeks, nose and lips, loss of hair, teeth, and nails, transient rashes, hypotonia (muscle weakness), and increased sensitivity to light. Other symptoms may include kidney disfunction (e.g. Fanconi syndrome) or neuropsychiatric symptoms such as emotional lability, memory impairment, or insomnia.
Thus, the clinical presentation may resemble pheochromocytoma or Kawasaki disease.
An example of desquamation of the hand of a child with severe mercury poisoning acquired by handling elemental mercury is this photograph in Horowitz, _et al._ (2002).

It damages the central nervous system, endocrine system, kidneys, and other organs, and adversely affects the mouth, gums, and teeth. Exposure over long periods of time or heavy exposure to mercury vapor can result in brain damage and ultimately death.

and because of fake science you think putting billions of little mercury bombs in every home and buisiness in the world, not to mention the plants that produce this toxic poison.

its illegal to use mercury in dental fillings anymore.

and you want to save energy by spreading poison to every corner of the world. ok the world is round and does not have any corners.


----------



## namyzarc (Mar 18, 2008)

infantry11b said:


> THEY CONTAIN POISON! THAT IS DEADELY - KILL YOU - POISON.


OMG! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!
First, calm down. The mercury is contained inside the bulb, not flying around your house waiting to be ingested or inhaled. If a bulb breaks, the amount is miniscule and will not cause any of the myriad symptoms you listed. Of course if you break CFL bulbs in your house on a daily basis, you may have to start worrying, but for most normal people, that won't happen. You can also recycle any burnt-out bulbs at your local Ace-hardware or other store that accepts them.

Secondly, if you bothered reading my post, you'd see that you are actually LESSENING the amount of mercury overall by using these bulbs.

Finally, Everything is poisonous in the appropriate quanitity. Even filtered water. Try drinking more than 2 gallons in a sitting. Chances are, you'll die.

Alarmist reactions like that do not help anything. Do your research and realise that there are two sides to every coinand it is up to each individual to do their research and figure out which option is optimal for them. You have every right to continue using the old antiquated type of bulbs, candles or glow-bugs if you so desire, but at least make a choice that is informed.


----------



## infantry11b (Feb 6, 2010)

how many lightbulbs get broken in your house? my kids broke them and so did the grand kids. they all liked the sound they made as they exploded.
the fact is - we went through this back in the 60's with tuna and mercury poison, but you were probably not around then.
and yes - its like lead paint. not every kid will eat it, but it is a recognized problem and we dont use it anymore.
so now the looney left is telling us to use a known deadly poison because of a non existent man made global warming. so in place of a fake danger we are all supposed to forget mercury is a long known poison. and unless you missed it - the first reported case of mercury poison took place a few years back and the doctor in the emergency room did not even recognize the symptoms - the poison not haven been seen for many decades. but it is back.
and again i say, the problem is not one bulb - its billions of them. i have about 35 lightbulbs in my house, not counting drag lights, - how many in your home.
the latest census data [2008] indicates there is about 117.5 million households in the US. so use only 20 bulbs per house - lets forget about algore - he throws the curve off - you have 2,350,000,000 little mercury bombs within 5 years, when it becomes law. that is 2.35 TRILLION bulbs - just in America.
that is a lot of mercury.
not just one bulb - but 2.35 TRILLION - and all of them full of breathable mercury vapor, and all to combat a non existent problem - man made global warming.

want to use less energy - great - i turn off lights all day long - but the government ordering us to buy and use more than TWO TRILLION of them is just nuts.

and so is anyone that want to use these little poison bombs.


----------



## IamIan (Mar 29, 2009)

infantry11b said:


> but that lightbulb everyone wants us to use? got to say no there.
> 
> a few years back we quit eating tuna for a while - too much mercury in them. guess what is in the new lightbulbs - MERCURY.


Poison or not... just like all the poisons coming out a gasoline car's tail pipe ... or the coal power plants smoke stack ... or the waste from the nuclear reactor ... etc... if you are talking about wanting that higher standard of living ... the only poisons that matter are the poisons you absorb ... Those bulbs still give more light for less energy ... you get more light for less money ... you are able to afford a slightly better quality of life, because you are spending less money by using less energy to get the same light.

Now if you just want to pay extra money for something because you don't like the toxicity of the alternative ... that is just more reason to spend the money on energy reducing improvements like insulation ... Renewable energy etc... as long as you are willing to just spend that extra money like you are for not using the more efficient light bulb ... than go ahead... spend all the extra money you want... it is your money ... but you are voluntarily lowering your quality of life in order to pay for those choices.

And .... your thinking is too narrow ... CFL Light bulbs are not the only means of more efficient lighting ... there are several types of lighting even more energy efficient than CFL... if you don't like that one... do something else... or just be happy that you are voluntarily lowering the life style and things you can afford as you voluntarily spend money on something knowing there is a better deal to be had.



infantry11b said:


> when it costs 40k to make a small home solar - with grid also available - you begin to say - that is too much.


The beauty of solar is you don't have to start at $40k ... start at $100 ... add to it over time... it isn't 100% or 0% ... do a little and add on latter.

Of course economies of scale make it cheaper to buy bigger like they do for everything.

Besides weren't you the one who just posted about how you are more than happy to pay extra for something that can be healthier?

Also ... you are again choosing to spend more money to get less ... I would rather spend less to get more... after paying for your energy bill for the next 5 to 10 years ... without RE you will just still have to pay for another 5 to 10 years... than another 5 to 10 years after that... It never pays for itself not to do it.

Keep this in mind... when you think about solar power... what is the % of interest you are currently earning on your investments?

About ~10% APR will pay for the initial investment of principle in about ~7 years.

And you have say $10k to invest ... solar grid tied systems today are averaging to pay back the initial investment of principle in 5 to 10 years, depending on what is built where and such... most professional solar systems come with ~20 Year Warranties.

So if you have a saving account , CD , etc... that will give you ~10% or more interest for the next ~20 years or so ... sure that is a better investment of your money ... go ahead and put your money there ... but given the very very low interest rates being offered... I think you will have a very very hard time matching or beating this rate of return.

So I say ... I want more for less ... I will still need energy ( electricity and heat ) for the next 50+ years ... what method offers me the lower net 50+ year cost of that energy? ... Even if it took the solar energy system ~49 years to pay for itself ... it would still end up being cheaper for me than not doing it at all for 50+ years.


----------



## infantry11b (Feb 6, 2010)

i like making the decisions to do cleaner - the operative word being "I". i dont want the government making the decisions and i sure dont want a decision that increases the junk in the air as a matter of government fiat [and i dont mean a small italian car].

and did you know that lead based paint lasts longer than water base? you can still find the original lead base paint on homes two hundred years old? so how would you like the government to order that your home be painted with lead base paint on the grounds that the energy necessary to repaint would be less because the paint would last longer and you would not need to do it? after all it would use less energy and would wear better.

dont be an idiot - no one can justify putting a few trillions little glass bombs full of mercury vapor into the envioroment. as a matter of fact i bet you never even look at the warning on those little bulbs before you went out and bought as many as you could - ignorance is no excuse. and if you did know it then you should be charged with a crime if you brought those dangerous chemicals into your home and you have little children. the damage to children is worse than adults - mercury is a heavy metal and stays in your system - so the younger they are when they get it the worse it becomes because of accumulation?
and talk about dirty - have you ever seen the process of making mercury or how it destroys the environment? you probably never even thought of it.
there is a reason we dont use it in fillings!
and did you know that we also get mercury from fossil fuels? where is the value in that if you want to limit the use of fossil fuels and buy mercury bombs to di it?
the major sources of mercury are Spain, China, Kyrgyzstan and Algeria. now how does that help here when those countries mine without any environmental controls. 
and isn't it wonderful that the countries that have stockpiles of mercury are now releasing their poison for mandatory use in your home - in easly disposable glass bulbs - in cute little rings that dont have the strength of a bulb.
yes what we all need is little curly cues full of one of the most toxic substances know to man force into our homes.
you want to use them - go for it - but dont expect applause because you chose money, because they last longer, over family safety.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Hi Infantry
The major sources of mercury in america are .... Coal burning power stations!!

Several orders of magnitude more free nasty mercury than those light bulbs


----------



## infantry11b (Feb 6, 2010)

so your solution is adding a few TRILLION more mercury vapor bombs in our homes by government fiat.

and the biggest source of dirty coal usage CHINA AND INDIA AND AFRICIA! so exactly how does putting a few TRILLION mercury bombs into our homes fix that? i dont remember their governments mandating that their people use these stupid mercury bombs in those homes.

the mercury bombs you are so fond of cost more, provide less light, so you actually might have to use more of them at a time to get the same level of brightness in your home - try reading by one - and if they cost more you have to devote more of your income to them and less to something else - like food - shelter, or clothing, but something will get the short end of the stick. remember these are mandated use items. or you will have to work more to have what you have now and then pay 8.00 or more for a bulb. and they will break too - so the initial investment will be ever increasing.

as for coal, most of the people on this board want an electric car and go home and charge it on the grid - so you are also saying they contribute to the hight mercury level by getting power off a grid that already polutes.

do you ever actually think about what you write before you hit the post button? try thinking a problem through. see what the consequences actually are to government mandates of forcing mercury bombs into the home of everyone. make them avialable if you want, use them if you want, but dont force others to use them, especially if you did not bother to even begin to read the lable and did not know they were toxic and now that you did learn you have this childish need to justify your dangerous conduct.

tell your wives - honey did you know that these bulbs contain the toxic chemical mercury in its most dangerous form - A VAPOR! watch how fast the little woman ORDERS AND DEMANDS that they be removed from your childs room.

and those trillions of bulbs will have to be disposed of so even if they last 10 times as long as a standard bulb you will still need to be replace those 2.5 TRILLION bulbs at least every full year of operation. so do you actually think that everyone is going to take their little mercury bomb to a special mercury reclamation plant to dump them? they aer going into the trash, which is probably where you dump yours, or maybe you put it into the glass recycling bin, where they will be ground up for glass use, and the mercury vapor, in consentrated for, will be released into the air.

now admit it - you just toss yours into the glass recycling! how many millions of little mercury vapor bombs have already been put into the air, to add to that nasty coal that is made without American environmental controls.

THINK A PROBLEM THROUGH before you come up with a childish non solution that makes you feel good but actually causes more harm.


----------



## namyzarc (Mar 18, 2008)

infantry11b said:


> so your solution is adding a few TRILLION more mercury vapor bombs in our homes by government fiat.
> 
> and the biggest source of dirty coal usage CHINA AND INDIA AND AFRICIA! so exactly how does putting a few TRILLION mercury bombs into our homes fix that? i dont remember their governments mandating that their people use these stupid mercury bombs in those homes..


Adding a few trillion CFLs will REDUCE - read that word again - REDUCE - the total amount of mercury humans as a whole absorb.
China, India and Africa (do you mean some countries in Africa or the entire African continent here?) produce MUCH LESS pollution per person than the US. Not that that should have any bearing on this discussion one way or the other.



infantry11b said:


> the mercury bombs you are so fond of cost more, provide less light, so you actually might have to use more of them at a time to get the same level of brightness in your home - try reading by one - and if they cost more you have to devote more of your income to them and less to something else - like food - shelter, or clothing, but something will get the short end of the stick. remember these are mandated use items. or you will have to work more to have what you have now and then pay 8.00 or more for a bulb. and they will break too - so the initial investment will be ever increasing.


I have had about 20 of them in my home since 2004. Exactly 4 have burned out.



infantry11b said:


> as for coal, most of the people on this board want an electric car and go home and charge it on the grid - so you are also saying they contribute to the hight mercury level by getting power off a grid that already polutes.


Electeric cars are mostly charged during night-time when the grid has excess capacity that goes otherwise wasted (ever wonder why electricity is cheaper at night?).
Also that 50% of electricty that is beeing produced by coal can be reduced with a government that doesn't cater to them. Some signs of progress in the area of electricity production are already there. In fact electricity CAN be produced mostly pollution free even if it is currently NOT.



infantry11b said:


> do you ever actually think about what you write before you hit the post button? try thinking a problem through. see what the consequences actually are to government mandates of forcing mercury bombs into the home of everyone. make them avialable if you want, use them if you want, but dont force others to use them, especially if you did not bother to even begin to read the lable and did not know they were toxic and now that you did learn you have this childish need to justify your dangerous conduct.
> 
> tell your wives - honey did you know that these bulbs contain the toxic chemical mercury in its most dangerous form - A VAPOR! watch how fast the little woman ORDERS AND DEMANDS that they be removed from your childs room.


Uhhhh.... Alrigthly then... Nice arguements there.



infantry11b said:


> and those trillions of bulbs will have to be disposed of so even if they last 10 times as long as a standard bulb you will still need to be replace those 2.5 TRILLION bulbs at least every full year of operation. so do you actually think that everyone is going to take their little mercury bomb to a special mercury reclamation plant to dump them? they aer going into the trash, which is probably where you dump yours, or maybe you put it into the glass recycling bin, where they will be ground up for glass use, and the mercury vapor, in consentrated for, will be released into the air.
> 
> now admit it - you just toss yours into the glass recycling! how many millions of little mercury vapor bombs have already been put into the air, to add to that nasty coal that is made without American environmental controls.


I don't put mine in the trash or in the glass recycling. I stop by the ace hardware store on my way home from work and give it to them. They collect them and then ship them to a processing facility where they are disposed of in a safe manner. No I'm not there to see how they are actually disposed of.

If you kids/grandkids break the bulbs, then spank them. Slap them across the face with your slipper, use your belt or whatever other form of punishment you prefer but for the rest of us that don't leave kids to their own devices, it's a non-issue. 
Again, a broken bulb does NOT release all the mercury it contians in the form of vapor - only about 17-40% of it, wihc is already a small amount to begin with.
And once more, I'll hope you'll take a moment to read this the 2nd time around because the first time you clearly ignored it:
NEWER bulbs have much less mercury the the 1st generation, which was already a small amount.



infantry11b said:


> THINK A PROBLEM THROUGH before you come up with a childish non solution that makes you feel good but actually causes more harm.


It seems you're the one that needs to think things through a little more. if you had bothered to educate yourself about the NET mercury available in the atmosphere with and without CFL's, you'd see that not researching what tyour talking about before posting things in all CAPS makes you seem like a child.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Hi Infantry
You are full of it!


----------



## infantry11b (Feb 6, 2010)

i will hit a few of your statements.
if there is already too much mercury in the air how is mandating even more doing us any good?
and if you have changed 4 of your mercury bombs in 6 years, multiply that by 117.5 million homes per 2008 census estimates. using you as a standard that means we will have to dispose of 470,000,000 bulbs - that is about half a trillion, every 6 years. now how is that good for us?
and how did you dispose of yours? did you take it to a recycling plant where the mercury was removed in a special piece of equipment that captures all of the gas - or did you just put it into the glass recycling without knowing it was a deadly heavy metal poison? or did you - - - break them? oh you went to ace hardware - i would almost bet you had no clue that they contained mercury before you found out here. in other words, i just dont believe you.

there is no good reason to add more poison into the environment and even less reason to force it into our homes by making us only use them.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Guys, personal attacks are not how we like to have discussions like this on the forum. Nothing wrong with some heated disagreement but please tone it down a little with name calling and personal barbs.


----------



## IamIan (Mar 29, 2009)

infantry11b said:


> so your solution is adding a few TRILLION more mercury vapor bombs in our homes by government fiat.


I'll post it again sense you seemed to have missed it the first time.



IamIan said:


> And .... your thinking is too narrow ... CFL Light bulbs are not the only means of more efficient lighting ... there are several types of lighting even more energy efficient than CFL... if you don't like that one... do something else...


The point is ... the conventional filament light bulb is a waste of resources ... including your own money... using it reduces how many luxuries you can otherwise afford... Using it lowers your standard of living... even if only by a little bit.

CFL is not the daemon you want it to be... and even if it was ... just use any number of the other lighting efficiency improvements that are not CFL.

If you feel religious about the need for everyone to use filament based light bulbs... than fine... reduce your waste in other ways... unless you like wasting your money. 

Personally I like getting more stuff ( Heat, Light, Miles, Etc ) for less Money, Pollution, etc...



infantry11b said:


> i am a fan of bringing others to the higher standard NOT REDUCING THE STANDARDS to the lowest common denominator.


Which is more important to you? ... higher standard of living ? ... or the filament based light bulb? ... because they are not the same thing ... the filament based light bulb wastes more resources to do the same task ... before you jump on CFL again ... there are other lighting efficiency improvements that are not CFL.

So ... obviously you don't use CFL ... what lighting efficiency improvements have you done?

------------

Efficiency Example Free Market , no government involvement needed ...

In 1995 I bought for just under $1,000 a new computer with a incredible Pentium I at 75 Mhz processor 16 MB of RAM and a 1.2 GB Hard Drive that consumed ~300 Watts all the time.

Last year 2009 ... I spent $300 ... for a new computer that has a ~1,600 Mhz processor 1,024 MB of RAM, 145 GB Hard Drive, and consumes less than 30 Watts at most.

So yes... It reduces resources... this new computer cost less resources to make... it cost less of my resources to buy ... it uses less of my resources to operate... and it gives me more at the same time.

It is improvements like this that allow the life style benefits of such a device to be more affordable to more people ... and use less resources per user at the same time.

In short... It's pretty simple.

I prefer to get more for less.


----------



## infantry11b (Feb 6, 2010)

how is that man made global warming working for you?

Makin' up data the old hard way
Fudgin' the numbers day by day
Ignoring the snow and the cold in a downward line 
Hide the decline (hide the decline)
Michael Mann thinks he's so smart
Totally invented the hockey stick chart
Ignoring the snow and the cold and a downward line
Hide the decline (hide the decline)
Climate Gate I think you have sealed your fate
I hope you do a lot of time
Cuz what you did was such a crime
Hide the decline (hide the decline)
Hide the decline (hide the decline)
The tree ring data was very thin
You should have chopped more trees instead of hugging them
Ignoring the snow and the cold and a downward line
Hide the decline (hide the decline)
Hide the decline (hide the decline)
Climate Gate I think you have sealed your fate
I hope you do a lot of time
Cuz what you did was such a crime
Hide the decline (hide the decline)
Hide the decline (hide the decline)
Hide the decline (hide the decline)
Hide the decline (hide the decline)


----------



## namyzarc (Mar 18, 2008)

infantry11b said:


> how is that man made global warming working for you?
> 
> Makin' up data the old hard way
> Fudgin' the numbers day by day
> ...


Sounds more like the ramblings of a lunatic rather than a coherent arguement...
If you don't believe anyone, then I think it is pointless to argue any further because you won't take anyone's word for anything, nor will you take the time to research a single incorrect assumption you're making.
Best of luck to you in your ignorance. I hear it's bliss.


----------



## infantry11b (Feb 6, 2010)

Tommy James The *Shondells - draggin the line*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73Vp1EGCYlQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhF6mLT-WQQ

take a listen to some good music where they keep their pants up and you can understand they are speaking english and no cops are getting killed and women are not biaches and hoes.

its what all you new age tree huggers want to be, but you can't. that was my generation and you dont make the age requirements - get your own generation.

and the song i posted had to do with making up fake man made global warming data, throwing your source data out and the hockey stick fake global warming chart that would result in a fake answer no matter data you put into it, even if it was ice age data.

hiding the decline goes to the fact the temps have been declining and global warming nuts have been trying to hide it.

and that energy will all be gone stuff - man made global warming - its bunk too. there is no way that in 200 years we can use up billions of years of the earth turning green into black gold through decomposition.


----------



## Overlander23 (Jun 15, 2009)

I'm still wondering whether Infantry11b grasps namyzarc's argument, that installing CFLs will reduce the amount of mercury in the atmosphere?

namyzarc is saying that, even though you're adding CFLs, which contain mercury, you're ultimately burning less coal which also emits mercury. It just so happens that CFLs burn so much less coal which therefore emits so much less mercury that it more than offsets the amount in the added CFLs.

If you were to keep burning inefficient lights (such as incandescent) than you would effectively be emitting more mercury into the atmosphere than if you had switched to a more energy efficient form of lighting (even though that lighting has an amount of mercury in it.)

Seems pretty clear to me. But so were the original posts.

You can argue the government side of this all you like. That's understandable. But at least understand what the argument on the technical side is.

As an aside, Infantry11b, please don't complain about rising energy prices in the future.


----------



## IamIan (Mar 29, 2009)

Overlander23 said:


> I'm still wondering whether Infantry11b grasps IamIan's argument, that installing CFLs will reduce the amount of mercury in the atmosphere?


While I appreciate it... and it is a good point... it wasn't mine 



namyzarc said:


> Thus switching to those bulbs results in a net DECREASE in mercury output vs conventional ones.


------------------



infantry11b said:


> how is that man made global warming working for you?


This is not the Climate debate thread... please try to stay on topic... if that is what you want to discuss go to that thread.... here's and easy link for you.

The Climate Debate Thread

As far as I am concerned it doesn't matter at all.
It doesn't matter if there is global warming or not... it doesn't matter if it is man made or not.

We all want less pollution ... it is just that simple.

It doesn't matter if we want it to have a clean beach to enjoy free of pollution ... or if we want clean water to drink ... or clean food to to eat... it doesn't matter if we want less pollution because we like to hunt ... it doesn't matter if we want less pollution because we like to go camping ... it doesn't matter if we want less pollution for air to breath in cities or while stuck in traffic or in a tunnel ... It doesn't matter if we want less pollution to save the spotted owl ... or to avoid / slow down global warming ... it doesn't matter if we want less pollution to reduce heat island effects ... It doesn't matter if we want less pollution because we like to garden... or if we like to grill outside.

To me it really doesn't matter... no one I have ever met is in favor of more pollution ... everyone wants less pollution ... it doesn't matter which reasons of the millions of reason that are out there people use to all come to the same conclusion.

So it doesn't matter... we all want less pollution ... so we make efforts to do that... Including using less resources for a modern computer... or less resources for heating my home ... or less resources to have the amount of lighting I want.

I want more for less... I want my more stuff for less of my resources ... less pollution ... and I don't know anybody who disagrees with me.... I don't know anybody who wants to spend more and get less... I don't know anybody who wants more pollution from less stuff.

But that is all I will say on this off topic issue... if you want to debate it go to the appropriate thread.


----------



## namyzarc (Mar 18, 2008)

IamIan said:


> As far as I am concerned it doesn't matter at all.
> It doesn't matter if there is global warming or not... it doesn't matter if it is man made or not.
> 
> We all want less pollution ... it is just that simple.


Exactly how I feel.
One of my main goals in life is to NOT die really soon.
Pollution increases my likelyhood of dying.
CFLs = Less pollution overall. And therefore:
CFLs = less likelyhood of death.
Simple.


----------



## IamIan (Mar 29, 2009)

namyzarc said:


> Exactly how I feel.
> One of my main goals in life is to NOT die really soon.
> Pollution increases my likelyhood of dying.
> CFLs = Less pollution overall. And therefore:
> ...


glad to hear it... 

Sometimes I think people make issues overly complicated ... the world is complicated enough already on its own ... it doesn't need any help.

I personally do like CFLs ... aside from all the normal reasons ... of energy, pollution , etc... The daylight rated CFLs are better quality light than the yellowish low quality filament bulbs ... When I go places now that are still using the lower quality lighting ... it just looks dingy , gloomy, and the closest I get to white is a light yellow... even if there was no energy or $ cost savings I would still want that better quality light.

I also like some of the LED options coming out ... and I also like the better designed modern windows / homes ... a quality designed home should need very few if any artificial lights at all during the day... at the other end where I work is a giant metal box with no windows at all ... there is no night shift... but because there is no natural light they spend a chunk of money every day on artifical lighting during the day .... So to me that building design is just wasteful and primitive / inferior.


----------



## infantry11b (Feb 6, 2010)

maybe you can pass a law that outlaws earthquakes, volcanoes, burping, farting, they all create polution.
and why are all you people so hot to put these mercury vapor filled poison bombs into your homes. i would not usually care but when your brats break one it does not stay in your home it hits the atmosphere.
and your little mercury bombs give bad light.
and the guy who does not want to die - here is a flash for you - YOU ARE GOING TO DIE! get over it.


----------



## Overlander23 (Jun 15, 2009)

This "mercury bomb" thing really seems to concern you. Or does it?

Do you simply not believe that using CFLs can reduce the amount of mercury in the atmosphere because of reduced coal usage, even though a small amount of mercury must be used in the ultimately, cleaner technology? 

Do you believe that the use of nuclear power reduces the amount of total radioactivity emitted into the atmosphere compared with "dirty" coal, even though the process of nuclear power generation requires radioactive material?

Or are you just trying to get the shock-and-awe term "mercury bomb" into the hearts and minds because you just really don't like it when the gov't makes policy?


----------



## infantry11b (Feb 6, 2010)

because i know the effect of mercury poisoning and that as a heavy metal it does not leave your system, or the system of my grandchildren.

the argument against smoking is that even in your own home those next to you smell it. well mercury is a poison that cant be fixed - ever.

trillions of the stupid little poison bombs to save some electricity is absurd. this is worse than nuke power problems. trillions of poison bombs just in America and then add in the rest of the world. you think carbon in the atmosphere is bad wait until its mercury.

ever heard the term mad as a hatter? well they used to use mercury to make hats - and the hatters in fact went mad, became violently ill, and had some pretty horrible deaths. it was the mercury vapor that did that, and you want to legislate that as part of every home?

and the reason for this is what? an un tested theory about man made climate change. we are all supposed to give up oil for a THEORY that is yet unproved by putting poison into every home - and do it by legislating it is the only light you can use.

you think second hand smoke is bad - READ ABOUT MERCURY POISONING AND MERCURY VAPOR. there is not one scientist in the world who thinks mercury vapor is safe - in any form. and you want to put it into pigtail shaped thin glass tubes and put them into my home?

want cheap electricity - use nuke power. in the last 60 years how many people have died from nuke power accidents? yes some died but many more have improved life because of it. France and Japan rely heavly on nuke power.

here is what the say about mercury:

The United States Environmental Protection Agency‎ (EPA) issued recommendations in 2004 regarding exposure to mercury in fish and shellfish. [30] The EPA also developed the "Fish Kids" awareness campaign for children and young adults [31] on account of the greater impact of mercury exposure to that population.

mercury is regulated on the work place, in foods, and in the environment. you think DDt was bad wait until we have hundreds of trillions of little glass tubes full of mercury vapor. 

how about the fact that heavy or prolonged exposure can do irreversible damage, particularly in fetuses, infants, and young children. Young's syndrome is believed to be a long term consequence of early childhood mercury poisoning. that is what we need, more mercury vapor around YOUR PREGNANT WIFE.

http://english.caijing.com.cn/2009-07-27/110214822.html is a good story about the area in china where they mine the poison for your light bulbs, so you can tell youself that you are doing so much good for the environment, when in fact you have decided that YOUR SPENDING LESS IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN YOUR MURDER OF YOUR FELLOW HUMAN BEINGS. WOW sounds like some corporation deciding that profits are better than human safety. welcome to the money over safety capitalist class. remember where you stand next time you criticize some fast food place for using too much salt.

so in addition to mercury as a byproduct of coal fired energy plants - china puts 3 on line every week, YOU WANT TO BOTTLE THE DAMN STUFF AND PUT IT INTO EVERY HOME!

try reading about mercury and tell me its not a poison. the world is going to break them just like every bulb and my grandchildren have to breathe it in, BUT SO WILL YOURS - PAYBACK IS A BITCH.

i will go to jail before i will ever expose my family to that poison, and you should go to jail for exposing the rest of us to it. but i will have to satisfy myself knowing your pregnant wife will be exposed and your children and grandchildren will bear the burden of your putting a few dollars in savings over their safety. like i said - PAYBACK IS A BITCH!


----------



## Overlander23 (Jun 15, 2009)

I completely agree that mercury is bad. No question there. No argument! You seem to be preaching to the choir (all of us) when it comes to mercury. But you seem unwilling to accept, or perhaps understand, what the CFL argument is.

In a world that uses mercury-spewing coal for much of its electricity, I would have thought that you would want to reduce the amount of coal being burned to reduced the amount of mercury, since you're so concerned about it.

Here's another way of looking at it. The coal power plant is a giant mercury-bomb. The more inefficient lighting you use, the larger the bomb becomes. Keep using inefficient lighting sources, such as tungsten incandescent, and the coal-mercury bomb becomes larger than the coal-CFL bomb.

Reduce the amount of coal burning and you reduce the amount of mercury. Use nuclear, use wind, use the sun. I don't care, but it's pretty clear that coal pollutes in bad ways... This has nothing to do with Global Warming and carbon emissions.

I didn't even get into the argument that mercury in coal *is* released into the atmosphere, while mercury in CFLs generally stays in CFLs and can be recycled.

_"there is not one scientist in the world who thinks mercury vapor is safe - in any form. and you want to put it into pigtail shaped thin glass tubes and put them into my home?"_

And yet you seem content to stay with inefficient energy usage and unbottle the mercury (at the power plant). I'll take mercury in the glass tube over the mercury in my seafood and air, thank you very much. At least I'll have some control over it.

And you can say, just use nuclear power, all you like, but it's not a practical short term solution. Conserving energy actually is.


----------



## infantry11b (Feb 6, 2010)

there is no excuse to substitute in home poison bombs as a substitute for anything, especially when i get poisoned by it. its not like you get to say that any broken mercury bombs will stay in your home and not bother us and its a risk you accept. its not. your risk if my risk and i have nothing to do with it. its like me standing next to you and smoking and then i tell you that its my body and i think the risk is acceptable. would you tell me that you did not accept that risk and you are at risk the same as i am, even if i tell you smoking helps me lose weight.
the fact is - THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR POISONING THE WORLD LIKE THIS! 
this is not a byproduct poison - this is a direct poison you want to put into your home.
how would you like it if your neighbor decided that it was worth the risk to use DDT in his yard - would that be acceptable even though you knew that it would get onto your yard.
or maybe use arsenic around his property and you know that it will get into the water table.
well this goes into the air.
it goes into the air when you mfg it - and then it goes into the air during the mfg process in making the bulbs, despite what the government tell us, and when you drop one in shipping, or a case or container full of them, and that risk is not acceptable to anyone with a brain.
if you really wanted clean electricity - like i said - go nuke. we have ships at see that use nuke power and dont have any problems, just pure clean electric energy.

there is no excuse to put pure poison, in nice breakable glass tubes, into every home in America.


----------

