Digital Tools Help Users Save Energy, Study Finds 
Bookmark this page:
 Yahoo!
 Google
 Windows Live
 del.icio.us
 digg
 Netscape
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
Posted by Robert Green on January 13, 2008, 12:03 pm
Please log in for more thread options "Giving people the means to closely monitor and adjust their electricity use lowers their monthly bills and could significantly reduce the need to build new power plants, according to a yearlong government study. The results of the research project by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory of the Energy Department, released Wednesday, suggest that if households have digital tools to set temperature and price preferences, the peak loads on utility grids could be trimmed by up to 15 percent a year." (more at site - registration may be required - if so, just copy a paragraph into Google . . . ) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- Sounds like a better way to do things than adding mercury to the environment in a commodity item sold by the millions (billions?) and trusting *everyone* to recycle religiously. This study correctly points out that "peak loads" are what matter the most. That's not likely the time that CFL bulbs are on line; there's usually plenty of daylight available during peak load hours so the savings gains claimed by CFL use have to be taken with a grain of salt (in a tincture of mercury). I still firmly believe that if the problem is coming OUT of power plant smokestacks, that's where it should be controlled. Schemes that add a known toxin to the environment in incredible numbers should be examined very closely so that we don't create as big a problem as the one we are trying to solve. Automakers knocked the pollutants coming out of cars down to incredibly low levels compared to the 1960 levels once people and the Feds demanded it. The power plant operators have to be brought to the same level of social responsibility even though they'll kick and scream every inch of the way. -- Bobby G. | |||||||||||||
|
Posted by Robert L Bass on January 13, 2008, 1:49 pm
Please log in for more thread options You still miss the point. Regardless what other things people do to reduce electrical demand, using more efficient bulbs -- even those which contain small amounts of mercury -- will reduce mercury and other forms of air pollution by more than the bulbs introduce. It's analogous to taking a short-cut to work every day. If I travel one mile on the interstate vs. 2 miles on city streets, my car will certainly add to the airpollution during that mile. But it will add *less* pollution than if I drove through the city. I have to go to work one way or another so I choose the more efficient route. As pertains to mercury pollution CFL's are more efficient than incandescents because (1) they introduce less mercury into the environment and (2) the mercury is sent to landfills rather than into the atmosphere where it is known to do far more harm. You can thump the mercury drum all day long, Bobby, but you'll still be wrong. Getting Houdton to agree with you won't make you right either. He's an expert on being wrong. > I still firmly believe that if the problem is coming OUT of power
> plant > smokestacks, that's where it should be controlled... That is one of the places where it needs to be addressed. > The power plant operators have to be brought to the same level of
> social responsibility even though they'll kick and scream every > inch of the way. On that we agree. -- Regards, Robert L Bass ==============================>
Bass Home Electronics
4883 Fallcrest Circle Sarasota · Florida · 34233 http://www.bassburglaralarms.com Sales & Tech Support 941-925-8650 Customer Service 941-232-0791 Fax 941-870-3252 ==============================>
| |||||||||||||
|
Posted by John J. Bengii on January 13, 2008, 8:01 pm
Please log in for more thread options So creating more mercury contamination justifies a poor source of
energy? Me thinks we need to improve at both ends. Your mercury saving logic is very short termed thinking. I agree that CFL lamps may be a good thing in the short run but not the best in the long. The creation of electrical energy in an irresponsible (for the era) way, cannot and should not justify a product that can harm our environment. All the best. > "Robert Green" wrote:
>>
>> --- snip --- >> Sounds like a better way to do things than adding mercury to the >> environment in a commodity item sold by the millions (billions?) >> and trusting *everyone* to recycle religiously.... >
> You still miss the point. Regardless what other things people do to > reduce electrical demand, using more efficient bulbs -- even those > which contain small amounts of mercury -- will reduce mercury and > other forms of air pollution by more than the bulbs introduce. > > It's analogous to taking a short-cut to work every day. If I travel > one mile on the interstate vs. 2 miles on city streets, my car will > certainly add to the airpollution during that mile. But it will add > *less* pollution than if I drove through the city. I have to go to > work one way or another so I choose the more efficient route. > > As pertains to mercury pollution CFL's are more efficient than > incandescents because (1) they introduce less mercury into the > environment and (2) the mercury is sent to landfills rather than > into the atmosphere where it is known to do far more harm. > > You can thump the mercury drum all day long, Bobby, but you'll still > be wrong. Getting Houdton to agree with you won't make you right > either. He's an expert on being wrong. > >> I still firmly believe that if the problem is coming OUT of power
>> plant >> smokestacks, that's where it should be controlled... >
> That is one of the places where it needs to be addressed. > >> The power plant operators have to be brought to the same level of
>> social responsibility even though they'll kick and scream every >> inch of the way. >
> On that we agree. > > -- > > Regards, > Robert L Bass > > ==============================> > Bass Home Electronics > 4883 Fallcrest Circle > Sarasota · Florida · 34233 > http://www.bassburglaralarms.com > Sales & Tech Support 941-925-8650 > Customer Service 941-232-0791 > Fax 941-870-3252 > ==============================> | |||||||||||||
|
Posted by Robert Green on January 14, 2008, 6:34 pm
Please log in for more thread options say it is uncertain if we will gain, and it is certain
that we risk, and that the infinite distance between the certainly of what is staked and the uncertainty of what will be gained, equals the finite good which is certainly staked against the uncertain infinite. It is not so, as every player stakes a certainty to gain an uncertainty, and yet he stakes a finite certainty to gain a finite uncertainty, without transgressing against reason. There is not an infinite distance between the certainty staked and the uncertainty of the gain; that is untrue. In truth, there is an infinity between the certainty of gain and the certainty of loss. But the uncertainty of the gain is proportioned to the certainty of the stake according to the proportion of the chances of gain and loss. Hence it comes that, if there are as many risks on one side as on the other, the course is to play even; and then the certainty of the stake is equal to the uncertainty of the gain, so far is it from fact that there is an infinite distance between them. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain. This is demonstrable; and if men are capable of any truths, this is one. "I confess it, I admit it. But, still, is there no means of seeing the faces of the cards?" Yes, Scripture and the rest, etc. "Yes, but I have my hands tied and my mouth closed; | |||||||||||||
|
Posted by John J. Bengii on January 14, 2008, 8:17 pm
Please log in for more thread options show Him, and are a light.
847. One of the anthems for Vespers at Christmas: Exortum est in tenebris lumen rectis corde.[210] 848. If the compassion of God is so great that He instructs us to our benefit, even when He hides Himself, what light ought we not to expect from Him when He reveals Himself? 849. Will Est et non est.211 be received in faith itself as well as in miracles? And if it is inseparable in the others... When Saint Xavier works miracles. Saint Hilary. "Ye wretches, who oblige us to speak of miracles." Unjust judges, make not your own laws on the moment; judge by those which are established, and by yourselves. Vae qui conditis leges iniquas.212 Miracles endless, false. In order to weaken your adversaries, you disarm the whole Church. If they say that our salvation depends upon God, they are "heretics." If they say that they are obedient to the Pope, that is "hypocrisy." If they are ready to subscribe to all the articles, that is not enough. If they say that a man must not be killed for an apple, "they attack the morality of Catholics." If miracles are done among them, it is not a sign of holiness, and is, on the contrary a symptom of heresy. This way in which the Church has existed is that truth has been without dispute, or, if it has been contested, there has been the Pope, or, failing him, there has been the Church. 850. The five propositions condemned, but no miracle; for the truth was not attacked. But the Sorbonne... but the bull... It is impossible that those who love God with all their he | |||||||||||||
> --- snip ---
> Sounds like a better way to do things than adding mercury to the
> environment in a commodity item sold by the millions (billions?)
> and trusting *everyone* to recycle religiously....