backtop


Print 60 comment(s) - last by mindless1.. on Oct 1 at 12:23 PM

California launches the nation's largest energy efficiency plan

The state of California has approved a new energy efficiency plan, providing $3.1 billion for programs from PG&E, Sempra Energy and Edison International.  The state is interested in providing financial benefits for programs designed to persuade home owners to use less energy.

Specifically, the $3.1 billion budget approved by the California Public Utilities Commission will help pave the way to savings of 7,000 gigawatt hours, 150 million metric therms of natural gas, and 1,500 megawatts of electricity.

City, county, and regional agencies will receive up to $265 million when they create energy-efficiency efforts.  Home owners will be able to monitor energy-usage statistics when they log onto the internet, the plan states.

"Capturing the full energy efficiency potential in the state requires more than simply providing rebates to support the installation of the latest and greatest widget," according to Michael Peevey, the state's commission president.

According to the state commission, energy  savings would be the same as three 500 megawatt power plants.  Furthermore, the new state-led programs would create between 15,000 and 18,000 new jobs, while also eliminating almost 3 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions across the state.

"The focus is to shift priorities away from rebates for widgets to sustained energy savings in the built environment," California Public Utilities Commission member Dian Grueneich told the media.  "These numbers are breathtaking in their own right."

Due to the faltering economy, energy conservation and efficiency have been popular among consumers and companies interested in reducing costs.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

3B!?
By vapore0n on 9/25/2009 4:27:32 PM , Rating: 5
I though that state was broke.




RE: 3B!?
By wsko on 9/25/2009 4:32:58 PM , Rating: 3
CA got the $$ from the poor students


RE: 3B!?
By drmo on 9/25/2009 4:38:51 PM , Rating: 2
That's immediately what I thought, but I clicked the link and found out that it is partly paid for by natural gas and electricity bills. I couldn't figure out where all of the money comes from though.


RE: 3B!?
By werfu on 9/25/2009 4:46:46 PM , Rating: 3
Price increase, Carbon tax, your pocket?


RE: 3B!?
By Shig on 9/25/2009 4:45:44 PM , Rating: 3
Seems like a leverage plan to me. Stimulus money -> create jobs, lower energy consumption.

All of the details about how they're actually going to execute those numbers are mysteriously absent. Sounds familiar.


RE: 3B!?
By Spuke on 9/25/2009 6:27:41 PM , Rating: 2
What I think is hilarious is that CA claims they're interested in creating more "green" business but those same "green" businesses are leaving CA as fast as the other one's. CA is number 49 on the business friendly list. Their regulatory agents are like the mafia. Actually, I think the mafia would be friendlier.


RE: 3B!?
By TomZ on 9/25/2009 5:12:21 PM , Rating: 5
They plan to issue $3B in IOUs.


RE: 3B!?
By ChristopherO on 9/26/2009 1:53:04 PM , Rating: 4
Yep, I live here. It's crazy. We could close our deficit by approving off-shore drilling (something like a projected $30B leases). The crazy thing is that the drilling could be on-shore and go out horizontally, or far off-shore (so far the curvature of the earth would obstruct the view) and come in on an angle.

Instead, because of wacky environmentalists, they will tax us even more to force us to use CFL bulbs or some crazy stuff. We already have a 10-11% sales tax (almost everywhere, few places in the high 9s), 11% top income tier bracket (which is hit at 50-60K), and that's on top of whatever you already cough up to the feds. Plus in a relatively cheap part of California I'm paying $3.50 for gas, whereas my family on the other side of the country is closer to $2.50.

So yes, there are a bunch of legislators here in Sacramento who are idiots. Actually, we should encourage all the legislators to run up their credit cards and stop paying their mortgage. Then, we take their houses and cars thus illustrating what they're effectively doing to the rest of us. Worst thing is I can't leave due to a cancer diagnosis. Changing residency voids my health insurance, given that no one in their right mind would insure me, I can't leave and am forced to put up with the idiots in the capitol.


RE: 3B!?
By InsaneScientist on 9/26/2009 3:25:23 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Yep, I live here. It's crazy. We could close our deficit by approving off-shore drilling (something like a projected $30B leases). The crazy thing is that the drilling could be on-shore and go out horizontally, or far off-shore (so far the curvature of the earth would obstruct the view) and come in on an angle.

Instead, because of wacky environmentalists....


The thing that drives me nuts is that offshore drilling would help clean up our waters (I live just north of SF, by the way), not pollute them more.
The oil reservoirs out there are under such intense pressure that they leak... IIRC, roughly the equivalent to the level of a supertanker's worth of oil (directly into the ocean) about every 6-12 months. (someone please correct me if I'm off)

Drilling would relieve that pressure, stop the oil leakage, and help with our energy and fiscal problems... >_<

Idiots.......


"The California Experiment"
By Spacecomber on 9/25/2009 5:30:41 PM , Rating: 4
The Atlantic Monthly has an article on how California is basically driving the alternative energy movement at this time. Of course, if any state has the favorable climate for pulling this off, if would be California, but it will be interesting to see how this succeeds.

As the author of the article describes what that state has been doing, it is to "rely on efficiency first, use regulation to create markets, use markets to create constituencies".

The article is available online, here:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200910/california-e...




RE: "The California Experiment"
By knutjb on 9/26/2009 12:03:33 AM , Rating: 4
Interesting article that manages to omit a few key facts. The industrial base that provided so much of Ca's tax base have been exiting Ca since the seventies and there is VERY LITTLE remaining. Since industrial users consume the largest chunk of energy and their exodus from the state was not taken into account the conclusion of the article is extraordinarily misleading.

The reference to the Arab oil embargo as the start of fuel efficiencystandards is incorrect too. Ca was pushing POLLUTION standards, there weren't any EPA mileage standards as of that time. The idea might have been there but there wasn't an infrastructure to reliably measure it. That is why the Cash for Clunkers omitted cars from before 89(?)even though most surely would have qualified.
PG 2
quote:
he focus on efficiency has produced huge savings: though per kilowatt electricity rates are higher in California than in most other places, consumers pay lower electricity bills because they use so much less power than people elsewhere.
Explain that to my family in SoCal who pay significantly higher electric bills than I do in Idaho. BTW we both use about the same kW hours. I lost interest after reading that.

Efficiency will only get you so far. The population IS growing so more generation WILL be required and Ca is really dumping its pollution and generation problems into the surrounding states who ARE expanding. Just ask Texas and Nevada. Watch to see when Silicon Valley moves out from over taxation like the rest of the industrial employers and there are no more deep pockets to steal from to fund Ca's foolish public policy.

Come on, only Ca has the gumption to be more efficient than the rest of us?. What an insult. I miss the beach but not the INSANE POLITICIANS who ARE destroying the state. Who else would cut the water on America's bread basket. Instead of finding a rational solution they, yet again, go to a radical answer that affects ALL of us, watch your food prices.


RE: "The California Experiment"
By Spuke on 9/26/2009 1:06:12 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Explain that to my family in SoCal who pay significantly higher electric bills than I do in Idaho. BTW we both use about the same kW hours. I lost interest after reading that.
According to the Energy Information Administration, the average electricity usage is 580kW per month at a cost of $14.42 per kW in CA. It surprised me at first but I remembered that a good chunk of CA rarely uses their A/C (or even their heat).

I know that in the winter, early spring and late fall, even though I live in the desert, my usage ranges between 500kW to 600kW per month. This past August was the lowest I've ever paid for electricity because it was really dry and I was able to use the evaporative cooler (swamp cooler...I have a huge unit plumbed into the HVAC ducting) and not the A/C. Usually, my August bill is around $170-$190 (1000+kW). This year it was $114 (800kW).

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/esr/table...


RE: "The California Experiment"
By Reclaimer77 on 9/27/2009 10:40:59 AM , Rating: 1
California has serious energy demands, that aren't being met, that can't simply be addressed by more efficiency.

The author is an idiot. You can pretty much stop reading after you see someone say "use regulation to create markets". In this country the only thing that creates viable thriving markets is the private sector, not some lumbering beurocratic government.


DUMB@SSES!
By sleepeeg3 on 9/26/2009 3:15:31 AM , Rating: 2
Gee, I am glad they cut $9 BILLION from every level of education, raised tuition by 75% and forced college professors to cancel classes and take mandatory furloughs.

FIRE THE DEADBEATS AND QUIT SPENDING MONEY YOU DON'T HAVE ON WASTEFUL PROGRAMS! Deport the illegals in the freaking prison system and get rid of any lazy union workers.

No matter how much you are for saving the environment, "energy efficiency" isn't going to jack! Idiots!




RE: DUMB@SSES!
By chruschef on 9/26/2009 10:42:39 AM , Rating: 1
i actually just registered to post this; i recently moved to TX from CA. the taxes are just that bad.

i agree with you, but there's one simple thing that needs to happen in california.

Break the public work unions. California has been spending billions and billions of dollars every year on union labor forces; the most notorious of the latter being the teacher's union. No one told those teachers to cut back on classes and so forth, it's just how they respond. If you don't believe me, the Teacher's Union of California spent 50$ million dollars, last year alone, in political lobbying and organizing. most "corporate giants" don't even spend that much in Federal Govt. political action committees; this obviously a very broken system. If they complain about their wages or benefits, they should point to the head of their union and ask for the aforementioned 50$ million.

another quick note, the top 1% income earners in California pay 54% of all taxes in California . the top 1% isn't a bunch of morons; they disappeared pretty quickly. the past 2 years also mark the beginning of a negative net migration to California (with over whelming numbers).


RE: DUMB@SSES!
By Jeffk464 on 9/26/2009 12:37:22 PM , Rating: 2
The migration numbers are worse then they look. What happens is you are loosing middle class and higher tax payers and replacing them with immigrants who take lots of tax money in services and pay little or no tax. California went from being about tops in the US for education to competing with states like Mississippi for the bottom rung. Its truly amazing how quickly idiot politicians were able to destroy the state.


RE: DUMB@SSES!
By chruschef on 9/26/2009 1:21:01 PM , Rating: 1
California at the top of the education chart? ... no, no. maybe they spend the most, but California's education system is notoriously one of the worst and the most expensive. The teachers are simply lazy, as a student in HS, in "the second highest rated" public school in California, my AP teachers were just lazy.

The problem comes from the bureaucracy behind the teachers, and the management. The amount of people in management of California's education "management" system is roughly 3/4 of the total amount of teachers.

The other main problem, the Teacher's Union refuses to allow the review of any teacher or staff member. That seems pretty bad but, it actually reaches a number of things. For example, schools don't release any real testing numbers for AP classes or the SAT. Schools are rated solely on the classes that they offer, not the quality of their courses. In the end destroys any real competition in the marketplace of education, and therefore destroys the quality.


RE: DUMB@SSES!
By Jeffk464 on 9/26/2009 12:39:38 PM , Rating: 2
You can't just throw money on education and get results. Education performance is mainly related to the quality of the students and the quality of the teachers.


How this is paid for (the real answer)
By pjkenned on 9/25/2009 8:04:54 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I'm pretty sure this is part of the Demand Response 2009-2011 Decision which had the proposed Decision on or about August 28. There's about a 30 day period for the CPUC to adopt a decision based upon the ALJ's proposed decision, so the timing makes sense. Generally how these programs are funded is that the California IOU's spend $XYZ on demand response programs that tend to operate when the temperatures reach the mid to high 90's. It depends on which IOU because SDG&E, for example, actually has more population in cooler coaster temperature zones than PG&E which has most of the central valley. When the temperature gets hot, in the afternoons, air conditioners are going full blast. This creates the need to use "peak" generation capacity which is, say 10x more expensive than normal generation. Think some company buys a surplus jet engine and it becomes economically viable for say 4-5 hours on 15 or so afternoons a year to burn jet fuel to run the turbine and produce electricity. (Not exactly accurate, but pretty close, and easy to visualize). That marginal generation capacity costs in excess of $1.50/kWh.

So how is this $3.1b paid for? Simple, the IOU's presented plans to reduce the peak demand for that really expensive electricity generation. The CPUC's Division of Ratepayer Advocates, and other ratepayer groups litigate the amount of benefits that the programs are projected to achieve, and then litigate the costs to provide those programs.

Also note in the article that the purpose of this is also to avoid the need to build new power plants. Power plants cost in the hundreds of millions of dollars (and up) range, so not having to build the new power plants, and passing those costs off to ratepayers is another way you save over $3.1b with the programs.

That's how the $3.1b gets paid for if anyone was wondering :)




RE: How this is paid for (the real answer)
By Jeffk464 on 9/26/2009 12:04:06 AM , Rating: 2
**d *****t, what does the CA legislature not understand about being broke. They keep raising taxes and increasing spending while we keep going further and further into deficit spending.


By pjkenned on 9/26/2009 11:24:50 AM , Rating: 2
CA legislature does not touch this. The $3.1b doesn't get paid for out of taxes.

Rather, you receive debits and credits to your electric bill. So you may get a $50/ year extra charge for electricity. If you participate, even a little bit, in the demand response programs, you probably, over a summer/year, get a $60-150 credit back.


State Broke
By Grast on 9/26/2009 1:14:10 PM , Rating: 1
Well Well Well, my state is broke and they are busy spending money on a program which will do NOTHING for the long term energy usage or generation.

Everyone is alway state to use CLF bulbs. This is possibly the dumbest idea yet. CLF contain mercury and require siginificant amounts of energy just to manufacture. The issue at hand is NOT how much energy we use. The question is how much energy can we generate.

The incandecent bulb is not a CRIME. It is cheap to build. Does not contain any hazardous materials. Most importantly, it bio degrade very quickly in any land fill. Basically a incandecent bulb is nothing more than glass, tin, and carbon.

The issue at hand is power generation. We need to build the only type of power generation which does not require fossil fuels. NUCLEAR. We need to build more generation and retrofit the state power distrobution grid.

If we had excess power generation, the price of power would go down and brown outs or rolling outages would be a thing of the past. Plus we would not be put these hazardus things in our houses like CLF bulbs.

The issue is generation NOT how we use the energy.




RE: State Broke
By MadMan007 on 9/26/2009 9:19:40 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, just wow. Lightbulbs biodegrade very quickly? haha. Quite the opposite is true. Glass lasts an exceptionally long time, it has no organic component to decompose.

And yes, more generation would be good but it's quite silly to only look at one side of the equation.


RE: State Broke
By borowki2 on 9/28/2009 6:04:48 AM , Rating: 1
Glass is basically sand, dude.


Wheres the money coming from?
By osalcido on 9/26/2009 8:40:15 PM , Rating: 2
Last I heard California couldn't pay it's employees.




RE: Wheres the money coming from?
By chruschef on 9/26/2009 9:49:42 PM , Rating: 2
they've been issuing IOUs for a while.


the investment is right
By snseattle on 9/29/2009 5:47:19 AM , Rating: 2
Evidently the majority of you have not read the science, are not familiar with the importance of changing demand for electricity, and/or don't understand the value of efficiency. Investing in efficiency returns the best value per dollar for future energy costs. Would you rather see even higher rates on your electric bill? Even using every energy source possible - nuclear, wind, solar, hydro, coal, oil, etc. - there is no way to build our way out of the demand problem. Fixing climate impacts of CO2 may be a substantial byproduct of these investments, but reducing demand is the best way to keep the state's energy infrastructure from imploding in the coming years. No single approach will fix this. Pay now or pay later, dearly.




3 billion?
By vcolon on 9/27/2009 1:59:44 PM , Rating: 1
California can barely pay for toilet paper to wipe its ass. The 3B coming from who? Taxpayers. Most of who don't live in CA.




Good luck, CA...
By quiksilvr on 9/25/09, Rating: -1
RE: Good luck, CA...
By Spuke on 9/25/2009 5:23:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Replace every POS air filter everywhere with this:
Do these work well? I'm interested in buying them.


RE: Good luck, CA...
By quiksilvr on 9/25/2009 8:55:11 PM , Rating: 2
Try them out, you can get a 10 pack from Costco for under 10 bucks.


RE: Good luck, CA...
By mindless1 on 9/26/2009 6:02:47 PM , Rating: 2
They are crap. Not as good at filtering as a pleated fiber-cloth type or a real electrostatic filter.

Even so, they reduce airflow enough that they end up permanently bowed in the direction of airflow.

On the other hand, if you feel like washing them out once a month they will defintely reduce filter costs over the life of the system, so there is that $avings in their favor if you don't mind owning two or an additional fiber filter to install while the washable one is out being washed and air drying.


RE: Good luck, CA...
By Dorkyman on 9/27/2009 3:10:56 PM , Rating: 3
Found an article that says it doesn't make much difference how efficient the filters are unless you run your fan 24/7.

The Canadian article, which appears to be pretty well-written and unbiased, goes on to say that you create a "dust cloud" in the house whereever you go. Better to just stay in bed...

Two ways to reduce particulate matter are to keep pets outside, and remove shoes upon entering.

http://www.homeenergy.org/archive/hem.dis.anl.gov/...


RE: Good luck, CA...
By goku on 9/25/2009 5:37:23 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah but you can have people clean their existing air filter for free and it'd have pretty close to the same effect. (Lots of people have dirty air filters and never clean them)


RE: Good luck, CA...
By sigmatau on 9/25/2009 5:44:31 PM , Rating: 2
1. We need something better. CFLs are extremely dangerous when you break one due to the nice cloud of mercury that you release. I have CFLs but I am looking to replace all of them. And the light is horrible that comes out of them.

2. Not a HEPA filter. That is a big FAIL for me. 91% compared to 99.9% (HEPA) is crazy bad.


RE: Good luck, CA...
By quiksilvr on 9/25/2009 8:54:43 PM , Rating: 2
1) I agree. LEDs are the future, but they are still aren't ready for effective commercial use. CFLs however are a much better alternative to incandescent. And I'm not sure what you mean by the light is "horrible". If you are a fan of white light, Sylvania makes great bulbs. Anything else you can get from COSTCO. 10 pack for 7-8 bucks ain't bad. Also they have been cutting down on the mercury, so if it breaks, you won't be in any immediate danger (unless you inhale it). Just be sure to open the windows and start the AC in that room to flush it out.

2) Can you wash a HEPA filter every month for 10 years? Don't get me wrong, those filters are great, but they aren't long lasting. And 91 vs 98 isn't crazy bad. Its just not as good. I'm pretty sure its better than what most people have in their house.


RE: Good luck, CA...
By Noliving on 9/25/2009 11:34:45 PM , Rating: 2
LED's may not be effective for buisness yet but they are effective for home use.


RE: Good luck, CA...
By Noliving on 9/25/2009 11:35:04 PM , Rating: 2
Why isn't there an edit button?


RE: Good luck, CA...
By Samus on 9/26/2009 5:20:52 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, CFL's have mercury, but they contain far less mercury than that of which is exhausted into the atmosphere in comparison to how much more power an incandecent bulb uses over the CFL's typical lifespan.

And how many CFL's have you actually broken open? When mind break, they typically come loose at the base via wiring, just kind of dangling. They don't actually 'pour' any toxic fumes out...I guess if one were to completely shatter, but just be a little more careful. A normal bulb shattering is just as dangerous! Glass in the feets! ohh noes!


RE: Good luck, CA...
By mindless1 on 9/26/2009 6:07:05 PM , Rating: 2
The typical failure mode is an internal transistor shorting out. Breaking the tube would be a very clumsy thing to do and not particularly hazardous unless you handle the glass with bare hands.

It's the classic argument, which is more dangerous... having mercury in the environment originally and having it get into ground water, or having it mined, trapped inside of glass tubes where it comes in contact with nothing, usually.


RE: Good luck, CA...
By mindless1 on 9/26/2009 6:09:22 PM , Rating: 2
I would tend to disagree, in business use you reduce cost of replacement labor while a homeowner doesn't bill themselves for replacement, and in a business the light is more likely to stay on all the time recouping electrical costs while in an energy conscious home the lights are turned off when nobody is in the room.


RE: Good luck, CA...
By Lord 666 on 9/26/2009 12:33:46 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, putting the A/C on would circulate the mercury more into your HVAC system. Opening windows and leaving area for 15-30 minutes is the best. After that, blot it up with a wet sponge or mop. Depending on the surface it broke on (carpet versus hard) the treatment is different. Carpet would require several treatments.

Vacuuming is the worst thing you can do as it atomizes the mercury. Even using a dust pan and broom is bad as it kicks up the dust.


RE: Good luck, CA...
By mindless1 on 9/26/2009 6:16:26 PM , Rating: 3
LOL @ evacuating the area just because a little bulb broke.

If you think opening the windows or leaving is important you are accepting it must have been atomized, so vacuuming is no different.

You're far more likely to get a larger dose of mercury from simply eating fish, there's little point being paranoid about light bulbs.


RE: Good luck, CA...
By sigmatau on 9/26/2009 1:50:56 AM , Rating: 3
1. Most if not all CFLs light is not soft like incadecent.

2. I'm sorry but 91% is garbage. You can put a towel up and it will do about the same. 98% is not what a HEPA filter cleans.

"HEPA filters, by definition, remove at least 99.97% of airborne particles 0.3 micrometers (┬Ám) in diameter" -source: Wiki

Leaving 9% of particles in the air per pass vs .03% is a crazy huge difference. I think many of the filters existing before HEPA were better than this. You would need to pass the air 4 times on your filter to get the same results as what a HEPA filter does in one pass. Sorry, if a vacuum cleaner can do this, then a air filter must be able to do it.


RE: Good luck, CA...
By quiksilvr on 9/26/2009 4:17:18 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, for 6 months to a year. Then that 99.97% drops. I'd rather get 91% for a decade. And, as I said, compared to what most people have in their AC is no where near as good, I'd say a MERV 8 filter that can be washed and reused over and over for 10 years is pretty damn good.


RE: Good luck, CA...
By Samus on 9/26/2009 4:59:36 PM , Rating: 3
It isn't neccessarily unhealthy to breath 'dust.' Infact, some medical research provides evidence the peanut allergy (and many other allergies) develope during infancy thru early childhood years when living in 'too clean' of an environment.

Which explains why, genetically, farm-cultured civilizations virtually never have allergies or rejection of food.

Breath some dust, just not pollution.


RE: Good luck, CA...
By mindless1 on 9/26/2009 6:19:52 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, no. The 99.97 does not drop, the filter gets ever more clogged and filters even better, BUT it constricts airflow too much beyond a point and is more likely to be deformed away from the duct slot or gaskets so the dirty air simply flows around it rather than through it.

91% for a decade is not good. That's a ton of crap building up in the ductwork and a lot more perpetual dust everywhere in the home. What is needed instead is simply 100% recyclable paper fiber filters, and of course recycling programs that do so.


RE: Good luck, CA...
By tmouse on 9/28/2009 8:16:32 AM , Rating: 4
While you are technically correct, the reality is any gaps formed do in fact drastically decrease the filtration since most of the air will take the route of least resistance.


RE: Good luck, CA...
By mindless1 on 10/1/2009 12:23:03 PM , Rating: 2
Uhh, didn't I mention that?

I wouldn't agree that it's "most" though, when you have a large duct and the gap is a narrow constriction you will still have sufficient negative pressure to pull a lot through the filter.

Take my word for it, I used to be in the HVAC biz to put me through college years ago. Even so, anybody can choose to put some foam weather stripping tape down to seal theirs better if they so desire, but it is not a standard feature on the base units most often installed in homes (yet easily added yourself if you aren't allergic to grabbing a screwdriver and mallet to pull the duct apart, apply it then beat it back together again.


RE: Good luck, CA...
By MicahK on 9/28/2009 2:06:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The amount of mercury in a CFLs glass tubing is minute; each Project Porchlight CFL bulb contains 2.5 mg of mercury, about the size of a period at the end of a sentence. By comparison, watch batteries and four-foot fluorescent tubes contain about 25 mg, older home thermostats contain 500 mg, and older dental fillings contain 100 to 500 mg of mercury.


quote:
You should know that we already live safely with mercury - our hospitals, worksites, schools and daycares are filled with the long fluorescent tubes, which also contain mercury.


quote:
The Canada Labour Code specifies: The Ceiling Exposure Value (CEV), the maximum airborne concentration for mercury, to which a worker can be exposed to at any time is 0.15 mg/m3 To put this value into perspective, a CFL containing 2.5 mg of mercury would have to break in a room smaller than 2.4 m x 2.4 m x 3 m (7.2 x 7.2 x 9 ) to pose a health risk according to the Ceiling Exposure Value specified by the Code. If a bulb were to break in a space such as this, leaving the room and ventilating the area would reduce the mercury concentration to a safe level in about 15 minutes.


Seriously everyone complains about the mercury in CFLs but they are seriously misinformed, or just don't care to know the facts, or just like the fear-mongering.

Maybe you mercury fearing people should worry about the lead toy your child is sucking on, or how bout the sun, its giving you cancer as we speak.

Having said that, I think LED bulbs are the future. We have a couple out at our solar powered cabin as well as some CFLs and I have to say I like the LEDs way more. They have a more natural light, they are bright and consume very little power. There is still some obstacles to overcome before we see LEDs in widespread use, but I have no doubt that they will be the future's lightbulb.


RE: Good luck, CA...
By Spuke on 9/28/2009 4:41:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Seriously everyone complains about the mercury in CFLs but they are seriously misinformed, or just don't care to know the facts, or just like the fear-mongering.
Yeah, because telling people to not worry without providing some facts or info as to why they should not worry will definitely stop people from worrying. You know, even if I had an ego as encompassing as yours, I STILL would require you to back up that statement before I gave it any credence.


RE: Good luck, CA...
By rudolphna on 9/26/2009 11:39:28 AM , Rating: 3
CFLs aren't dangerous. There is a miniscule amount of mercury in them. Our cats just broke two of them right next to me (they were racing across the sofa table and CRASH). And I cleaned it up. Oddly enough, a week later I had to have some bloodwork done and there was no traces of mercury. The amount of mercury in CFLs would only be dangerous to something very very small. Smaller than cats.


RE: Good luck, CA...
By Orpheus333 on 9/27/2009 11:18:34 PM , Rating: 2
Thats whats so great about mercury, you dont find it in blood tests. It accumulates deep in organs and 50 years later you have Alzheimer's and don't know your sons name. You're right, it is a small amount, that your body has no way of excreting so it just hangs out.

Its exactly like asbestos 40 years ago...


RE: Good luck, CA...
By tmouse on 9/28/2009 8:23:58 AM , Rating: 2
Please do some reading before you spew crap into the net. Blood tests most certainly do detect methyl mercury and urine test detect metallic and inorganic forms. Now levels do drop in time but hair tests, which are not routinely done due to their costs and complexity, can detect exposure months later. What fantasy world do you live in where mercury exposure leads to Alzheimers?


RE: Good luck, CA...
By 67STANG on 9/25/2009 5:58:13 PM , Rating: 2
You forgot these: http://www.coolnsave.com/

I live in California and my neighbor bought one-- they work . Shaved $90/mo off their electric bill this summer...


RE: Good luck, CA...
By sigmatau on 9/25/2009 6:09:25 PM , Rating: 2
That's nice and all but it does not work in the South or where it is humid. That type of cooling is only useful for very dry climates. We hover at 90% humidity or higher in many Southern states like NC. Probably worse as you go further South.


RE: Good luck, CA...
By 67STANG on 9/25/2009 7:09:26 PM , Rating: 2
True, but since the article pertains to CA, I thought it would be relevant to mention. It's 19% humidity here today and 97 degrees. Perfect for these things. Of course, most coastal towns in California don't even have air conditioners as the temp is consistently 70 degrees there, year-round.


RE: Good luck, CA...
By MadMan007 on 9/25/2009 7:04:08 PM , Rating: 2
Unintended conequence in water-poor CA I'd think.


RE: Good luck, CA...
By quiksilvr on 9/25/2009 8:59:33 PM , Rating: 2
That's pretty cool! Kinda sucks that it eats up one of your water outlets but it doesn't seem all that difficult to remove.


RE: Good luck, CA...
By log on 9/28/2009 9:48:22 AM , Rating: 2
Incandescents are already being phased out in the EU for the reason they waste too much energy.

100W cannot be produced or imported since earlier this month. The same will happen with 60W until Sep. 2011 and 40W in 2012. They can be sold till stock runs out though.

Australia also imposed a ban on incandescent as well as a few other countries. It will be a matter of time till they became a museum item or specialty equipment. And with time, as with everything they can only get better

I personally don't have a single incandescent at home. I decided to use only energy efficient lighting when moving to a new house. And the light is just fine! True the light wasn't brilliant initially, but the latest ones I bought are near perfect in tone, output and startup time.

Not a lot of ACs in homes around here.


"It looks like the iPhone 4 might be their Vista, and I'm okay with that." -- Microsoft COO Kevin Turner











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki