Incandescent Lightbulb "ban" 2014

Re: Incandescent Lightbulb "ban" 2014

Craig Hauber said:
Right now electricity here is cheaper than using propane to heat
Click to expand...
Dunno about up there but the propane biz is super sleazy down here. You have to go out and get quotes from other vendors and threaten to leave your supplier every couple years to get decent prices as they will start to crank up your rates after the first year with them. I've had a couple homes heated with propane - have natural gas here.
 
Re: Incandescent Lightbulb "ban" 2014

John Roberts said:
I am using an in-wall heat pump to heat my main room, which in theory uses only 1/3 the electricity per BTU of heat as the old resistance heat. I don't think heat pumps work as well up in the colder latitudes.
Click to expand...

The models typically sold in Norway (and I would assume northern US including Alaska and also Canada) typically have 2:1 or better efficiency around 0degF and will give equal or better than 1:1 down to their operational limit.

But what happened to solid state heat transfer? Surely they should have that one cracked by now, lazy researchers :roll:.

BTW it is my understanding that PAR lamps are not getting banned yet, not here in Europe anyway.
 
Re: Incandescent Lightbulb "ban" 2014

When dealing with such cold air temps it seems practical to bury some water pipes several feet underground where it is usually a bunch warmer.

JR
 
Re: Incandescent Lightbulb "ban" 2014

John Roberts said:
When dealing with such cold air temps it seems practical to bury some water pipes several feet underground where it is usually a bunch warmer.

JR
Click to expand...

Until you have run it constantly for a couple of years and have permafrost under your house :lol:
 
Re: Incandescent Lightbulb "ban" 2014

Per Søvik said:
Until you have run it constantly for a couple of years and have permafrost under your house :lol:
Click to expand...

Then you need to dig deeper. If you go far enough you get heat from the earth's core. For extra credit why is the core hot? (hint: nuclear reaction).

In practice, investing in more/better insulation is usually cheaper than burying a ground based heat pump system. My neighbor has a nice fish pond that doesn't freeze over so he could drop a heat transfer coil down into it pretty cheaply. While the air doesn't get all that cold here (low 20's so far this year). Because of the moderate climate here, homes are not built with serious insulation. My house didn't even have storm windows or double pane glass.

JR
 
Re: Incandescent Lightbulb "ban" 2014

Max Warasila said:
Radioactive decay coupled with latent energy from formation of the planet… there are many different theories, but those seem to be the two most popular.
Click to expand...

I wondered why geo-thermal energy is considered re-newable? Apparently it's because of the radioactive heating factor. While it seems nuclear energy is consumed in the radioactive decay process.

JR
 
Re: Incandescent Lightbulb "ban" 2014

John Roberts said:
I wondered why geo-thermal energy is considered re-newable? Apparently it's because of the radioactive heating factor. While it seems nuclear energy is consumed in the radioactive decay process.

JR
Click to expand...

Everything is eventually consumed, energy has to come from and go somewhere, as we all know. The cool part comes with the fact that, since it's outputting whether we use it or not, and we can't use it up faster by harnessing it, it's practically "renewable"
 
Re: Incandescent Lightbulb "ban" 2014

Max Warasila said:
Everything is eventually consumed, energy has to come from and go somewhere, as we all know. The cool part comes with the fact that, since it's outputting whether we use it or not, and we can't use it up faster by harnessing it, it's practically "renewable"
Click to expand...

The whole argument about renewable energy plays into the need for politicians to have some scary unfathomably massive problem to protect us from. To keep us dependent on them. We are centuries away from running out of fossil fuel and I suspect solar energy will be far more efficient and cost effective even a mere 100 years from now.

My electric rate just went up 15% to pay for a "clean" coal plant, that is green hole for cost over runs and not even making electricity yet. arghhh.

JR

Ps: Yes the sun will go out at some distant future, but will super nova first. Now that will be global warming to worry about. :-(
 
Re: Incandescent Lightbulb "ban" 2014

John Roberts said:
I wondered why geo-thermal energy is considered re-newable? Apparently it's because of the radioactive heating factor. While it seems nuclear energy is consumed in the radioactive decay process.

JR
Click to expand...

As far as I can tell, there are only three types of energy source that the media recognize: Fossil fuel, Nuclear, and Renewable. In this context, "renewable" simply means "something that doesn't scare us yet".
 
Re: Incandescent Lightbulb "ban" 2014

John Roberts said:
That seems unusual... I have electric resistance heat and it is generally the most expensive. We also just got a 15% electricity rate increase to pay for the new clean coal plant (yes clean coal is an oxymoron).

JR
Click to expand...

<rant>

I've never understood why it is that "clean coal" (really coal with carbon capture and sequestration) is a good thing, while nuclear is a bad thing. When operating within design parameters, both involve no release of nasties into the air, instead capturing the nasties and burying them underground for long term storage. Except one involves burying a relatively stable solid, while the other involves burying a poisonous gas under pressure.

</rant>
 
Re: Incandescent Lightbulb "ban" 2014

Rob Timmerman said:
<rant>

I've never understood why it is that "clean coal" (really coal with carbon capture and sequestration) is a good thing, while nuclear is a bad thing. When operating within design parameters, both involve no release of nasties into the air, instead capturing the nasties and burying them underground for long term storage. Except one involves burying a relatively stable solid, while the other involves burying a poisonous gas under pressure.

</rant>
Click to expand...

<rant restart>

I cannot believe the insanity surrounding nuclear power. Yes, the mess-ups are catastrophic in nature. But if you look at the efficiency and power generation for nuclear power over fossil fuels, solar, and even hydro-electric (my personal favorite), nuclear power yields superior results. Ignorant people scared of what they don't understand… second most powerful force in the world. Stupidity is like nuclear power: incredibly strong, and you don't want any of it getting on you. -Scott Adams

</rant>
 
Re: Incandescent Lightbulb "ban" 2014

We can trace the disaffection with nuclear energy in public sentiment with the massive publicity surrounding the relatively small handful of major nuclear power accidents (TMI, Chernobyl, and now Fukushima). Imagine how unpopular it would be if they publicized the many smaller mistakes/accidents.

If we look at this from an engineering perspective it seems the potential for massive harm surrounding nuclear generation when properly managed is minuscule, while looking at the actual history human's have managed to screw this relatively low systemic risk pooch multiple times.

I am not sure if the right answer is what I think (next generation nuclear power plants shuld be adequately safe), or what the public thinks (nuclear energy is too dangerous for humans to ever safely manage.). It appears Iran thinks it is a reasonable risk...

JR

PS: I find it remarkable the senate leader is refusing to obey the law his body passed legislating that waste storage would be held in Nev. How many decades have they dragged their feet on this little detail?
 
Re: Incandescent Lightbulb "ban" 2014

Whats even better is South Dakota had a Nuke plant, They shut it down and made a Natural Gas plant (seems like we took a few steps backwards) Granted we're probably one of the stupidest place to put a nuclear power plant considering you need water to cool the system (every 10 years we have a drought bad enough where they limit water consumption to ingestion only for a month or so).
 
Re: Incandescent Lightbulb "ban" 2014

Jordan Lahr said:
Whats even better is South Dakota had a Nuke plant, They shut it down and made a Natural Gas plant (seems like we took a few steps backwards) Granted we're probably one of the stupidest place to put a nuclear power plant considering you need water to cool the system (every 10 years we have a drought bad enough where they limit water consumption to ingestion only for a month or so).
Click to expand...

Because you totally don't need water for the Natural Gas system either… :roll:
 
Re: Incandescent Lightbulb "ban" 2014

Max Warasila said:
<rant restart>

I cannot believe the insanity surrounding nuclear power. Yes, the mess-ups are catastrophic in nature. But if you look at the efficiency and power generation for nuclear power over fossil fuels, solar, and even hydro-electric (my personal favorite), nuclear power yields superior results. Ignorant people scared of what they don't understand… second most powerful force in the world. Stupidity is like nuclear power: incredibly strong, and you don't want any of it getting on you. -Scott Adams

</rant>
Click to expand...

Because coal, natural gas, and hydro are all perfectly safe...

(note to the pundits - this wasn't intended to be an exhaustive list; I'm just picking on the most widely used forms of energy for electricity in the US)
(note to the moderators - this is heading towards or past Basement territory)
 
Re: Incandescent Lightbulb "ban" 2014

Max Warasila said:
Radioactive decay coupled with latent energy from formation of the planet… there are many different theories, but those seem to be the two most popular.
Click to expand...

Actually this is a somewhat unanswered question that really surprises me. There are two types of planets, those which have one or more non-geosyncronous sattelites of enough mass to create tidal friction heat of enough magnitude to keep the planet alive, and those planets that don't.
Since this is such an unknown fact even in the scientific community, feel free to call it "Søvik's principle" :razz:
 
Re: Incandescent Lightbulb "ban" 2014

Per Søvik said:
Actually this is a somewhat unanswered question that really surprises me. There are two types of planets, those which have one or more non-geosyncronous sattelites of enough mass to create tidal friction heat of enough magnitude to keep the planet alive, and those planets that don't.
Since this is such an unknown fact even in the scientific community, feel free to call it "Søvik's principle" :razz:
Click to expand...

OK, before we let you name it you must state it clearly. Are you saying tidal friction is solely responsible for core heating? Tidal forces push around a lot of water and probably distorts the shape of the mantle some.

JR
 
Re: Incandescent Lightbulb "ban" 2014

John Roberts said:
OK, before we let you name it you must state it clearly. Are you saying tidal friction is solely responsible for core heating? Tidal forces push around a lot of water and probably distorts the shape of the mantle some.

JR
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say solely, but the tidal forces pulls the mantle and the core into an egg-shape and adds heat that otherwise would not be there. The tidal force of the sun plays a small part as well, but closer bodies present a more uneven gravity field that causes greater distortion and thus more heat. A planet without a satellite will eventually sync its rotational speed to its orbital speed, and thus gradually lose the tidal forces from the body it is orbiting. Since the moon is synced to the earth, the only tidal forces it is exposed to is the forces from the sun, and this is not enough to create any significant core temperature. The satellites orbiting Jupiter are subject to wildly varying forces and thus get a lot of kneading that keeps most of them nice and hot and thus active, as well as providing Jupiter itself with a lot of tidal energy.

To clarify a bit the "keeping the planet alive" bit. A planet in the earth category needs among other things to have a core "dynamo" providing a magnetic field to protect the atmosphere. An important part of the dynamo is provided by another body causing the planet to change its rotational speed over time in order for inertia to cause a angular speed difference between the core and the outer layers. Other mechanisms also power the dynamo in the early part of a planet's life, but a large satellite provide the planet with a longer stable period in which it can sustain life. If Mars had a large moon, it might still be alive. As it is, due to its smaller size and lack of an sizeable satellite, it was doomed to a much shorter lifespan than Earth.

Of course, all these mechanisms are well known and documented, but at least in popular science the requirement for a large moon in the checklist for prime life-supporting planets seem surprisingly absent.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom