Tag Archives: Compact fluorescent lamp

This Can’t Be A Good Thing

Posted on by

Yesterday The Washington Free Beacon reported that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is spending $300,000 to develop technology that they believe will save energy in office buildings.

The article reports:

The Environmental Protection Agency is spending nearly $300,000 to develop technology that will track the energy and water use of office buildings, with a colored light bulb system that will send “visual messages” to employees when they are using too much.

Lucid Design Group, a California-based software company, received the funding from the agency with the goal to “change the habits” of Americans at work.

First of all, note that the EPA is saying they are tracking the energy use of buildings–not people. That is supposed to make the idea more acceptable. The idea of paying the government to change my habits just does not sit well with me.

The article further reports:

The funding went towards the development of “Building Orbs” to “encourage behavior-based energy conservation in commercial buildings.”

“Building Orbs” are a system of light bulbs that change color when energy use is too high.

“The project team, which includes original members of the Oberlin College P3 (People, Prosperity and the Planet) team, will begin by completing development of and testing novel, low-cost software tools that allows off-the-shelf, multi-colored, internet-connect LEDs such as the Philips Hue and the LIFX to be transformed into ‘Building Orbs,’” according to the grant for the project.

The system will provide “ambient color-based feedback to building occupants,” and use “visual messaging.”

The “Building Orbs” will “tap the demand response potential of behavior-driven electric loads through visual messaging during demand response events,” and try to get office workers to reduce their electricity use through “visual messaging by enabling behavior-based peak demand management.”

The company has now received $395,091 for the technology including the latest $295,507 grant.

Let’s look at this for a minute. How much control does the average office worker have over his individual energy use? The company involved sets the heating or cooling to a temperature that is most acceptable for all employees. Is the machine going to complain about energy use during hot or cold spells? Computers and printers generally have sleep modes that shut down when not in use. Generally, a computer is not using much more energy than a light bulb. Speaking of light bulbs… Do energy saving policies encourage the use of Compact Fluorescent Bulbs (CFL’s)? These bulbs have health risks while in use and when they break.

This expenditure is a colossal waste of taxpayer money. Most companies monitor their energy consumption in order to cut down on overhead. Government intrusion is neither necessary nor welcome in telling offices how to use energy.

 

Why We Can’t Afford A Democrat Congress

Posted on by

The Democrats control the Senate. The Republicans hold a 33 seat majority in the House of Representatives. The Republicans can occasionally pass something or delay something from taking effect, but generally those odds make it very difficult for either party to get much done.

Recently, the Republicans gained a small victory for common sense and against crony capitalism.. On Thursday, Investor’s Business Daily reported that in explaining why he wanted to stop a federal ban on incandescent light bulbs, Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, said, ‘If the new energy-efficient light bulbs save money, and if they’re better for the environment, we should trust our constituents to make the choice on their own to move toward these bulbs. Let the market decide.”

Oddly enough, if the ban had gone into effect, one company that would make a tremendous amount of money selling very expensive light bulbs would be General Electric. I know it is simply an incredible coincidence, but General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt was appointed to lead the President’s new jobs council in January 2011.

In addition to being more expensive, there are some significant problems with the compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs. The Daily Caller posted an artlcle in July 2012 reporting that scientists at the National Science Foundation are warning consumers about the potentially harmful effects energy-saving CFL light bulbs can have on skin. In December 2011 the U.K. Daily Mail posted an article about the fire hazard of a burned out CFL bulb. CFL bulbs also produce a hazardous waste situation when they break.

I think it really is time to celebrate the joys of the incandescent light bulb until some of the bugs get worked out of the alternative.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Messing Up The Environment In Your Home To Save The Environment Outside Your Home

Posted on by

The American Congress has done it again. In an effort to save the environment, they have put American households at risk. Hot Air posted an article yesterday stating that a study done at Long Island‘s Stony Brook has shown that compact fluorescent lights (CFLs) emit high levels of ultra violet radiation. The report states that the bulbs emit rays so strong that they can actually burn skin and skin cells.

The article at Hot Air reports:

“The results were that you could actually initiate cell death,” said Marcia Simon, a Professor of Dermatology.

Exposure to the bulbs could lead to premature aging and skin cancer, according to doctors.

“It can also cause skin cancer in the deadliest form, and that’s melanoma,” said Dr. Rebecca Tung.

The article points out that in every bulb the researchers tested they found that the protective coating around the light creating ‘phosphor’ was cracked, allowing dangerous ultraviolet rays to escape. This sounds like a quality control problem in the manufacturing process as much as anything else.

The radiation problem is in addition to the danger caused by actually breaking a bulb in your home.

The article reminds us:

Actually, they’re not all that eco-friendly, as even the government acknowledges.  The EPA wants to argue that the release of mercury from CFLs in disposal is less than that released from the burning of the amount of coal one saves by using them.  That may well be true overall, but not if one breaks in your house.  At that point, you need to conduct an hours-long cleanup — and even if you want to dispose of an unbroken CFL, it takes special disposal in most jurisdictions due to the eco-unfriendly nature of CFLs.

I am beginning to appreciate the genius of Thomas Edison.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Isn’t Energy Conservation Supposed To Be Safe ?

Posted on by
U.S. Patent by Thomas Edison for an improved e...

Image via Wikipedia

Today’s U.K. Mail posted a story about the fire danger posed by compact fluorescent light bulbs after they have stopped working. It seems as if the electronics in the base of the light bulb will attempt to produce light even after the bulb has burned out.

The article reports:

So far there have been 34 complaints about CFLs emitting smoke or a burning odour and four reports of one actually catching fire.

Jennifer Mieth, Massachusetts’ Department of Fire Services spokesman, told masslive.com: ‘In 2008, the state fire marshal’s office office first alerted the fire chiefs that CFLs could smoke.

‘I’m not aware of any fires that fire departments in the state have responded to that were started by CFLs, but, as a consumer, it’s a good idea to be vigilant.’

In 2009, standards were revised for materials used in the plastic housing of the base of CFLs sold in North America. But millions are still in use that were produced before the change.

CFL bulbs produce a hazardous waste situation when they break, and they have a danger of smoking or catching fire after they burn out. Maybe it’s time to rethink this whole light bulb thing and bring back the incandescent bulb.

 

 

 

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta