Wish
DX  » Community » Forums
«See all threads (in Product Forum)
Product Forum

Lumens Lumens LUMENS!!

  • snailmail Thursday, January 28, 2010 1:00 PM Reply
    You're two dozens certainly won't do any harm, but along with the billions of other houses with two dozens each, considering they waste 90% of the energy put into them...

    And what we hold dear should include the environment I'd say.
    Posts(15) | Reviews | Tip post

  • James_C Thursday, January 28, 2010 1:57 PM Reply
    You don't seem to understand it is up to each person what energy they use, so long as they pay for it. You are wasting energy posting on the internet, as are millions of other people with false arguments about what they pretend to hold dear.

    It is a lie when someone pretends to be green and does the opposite, only picking and choosing to save energy when convenient to them, when they personally don't might the changes they would impose on others.
    Posts(1699) | Reviews | Tip post

  • snailmail Thursday, January 28, 2010 3:05 PM Reply
    I don't think you can judge the greenness of anybody only by if or if not he uses the internet. Also not by what kind of bulb he uses of course. And that's not the point, anyway. I wouldn't want to judge anybody for buying or not buying these LED bulbs, heck, in terms of greenness we probably should avoid Dx alltogether. I was just saying that in my opinion this is a technology that's worth supporting, and for a good reason.

    And no, I don't think it should be up to anybody to waste and pollute as they please, as long as they only pay for it. (I know I'm exaggerating your statement, but thats what it amounts to). The environment can't kick people in the head for what they do to it (well actually it will in the long run...), so there need to be laws to protect it.

    And I'm far from picking and chosing what's convenient to me, I lived in a camping van for three years with virtually no heating at all and juice from a bunch of solar panels, I think those three years reduced my energy footprint enough to allow for some posting on the internet now.

    Posts(15) | Reviews | Tip post

  • James_C Thursday, January 28, 2010 4:58 PM Reply
    I think I am too bored to continue this discussion, so let's leave it at each of us having a different perspective.
    Posts(1699) | Reviews | Tip post

  • TomKecil Tuesday, March 2, 2010 2:42 AM Reply
    Firstly, I'd like to note how refreshing it is to have a debate conducted in such excellent English on a DealExtreme forum!

    Governments only exist because people need to be regulated. Yes, you may have freedoms within that regulation, but if we could be trusted to use unlimited freedom responsibly, anarchy would be the political system of choice, not democracy.

    Society needs to use energy for everything, so energy usage itself is not a bad thing, but where energy is generated in ways that damage the environment, we should use it as efficiently as possible. So, if you're on a network that uses 100% renewable energy, then enjoy your incandescent light globes to your heart's content. It makes sense for governments to ban incandescent light globes if they're responsible for fossil-fueled networks like the one I'm on. My government has done this just like Germany's has. As an aside, there is an aid project in Mexico at the moment replacing incandescent globes with compact florescents; it has been calculated that if this was rolled out across the country, the electricity savings realised by the Mexicans would be many times greater than the total current foreign aid effort to Mexico.

    Anyway, I recently purchased one of these globes to see how it performs. It arrived today and I think it's great. It is a much whiter light than the 50W incandescents and the brightness is sufficient even if it's not as strong as the incandescent. It dims perfectly and looks great. I'm going to order more to replace the rest of my old globes. As for the cost argument, despite my country having some of the cheapest electricity in the world, it will take just 150 hours of operation for each of these globes to pay off the price difference through reduced electricity costs. More importantly though, I will have significantly reduced my carbon footprint.
    Posts(4) | Reviews | Tip post

  • James_C Tuesday, March 2, 2010 3:45 AM Reply

    TomKecil ,


    That is mostly nonsense. Nuclear power.
    Posts(1699) | Reviews | Tip post

  • TomKecil Tuesday, March 2, 2010 5:02 AM Reply
    Yes, Nuclear is a great idea and I have always promoted it. However, if you are on a network that is not supplied by nuclear power or by renewable sources, don't you see some value in trying to reduce your energy consumption and therefore your carbon footprint or is man-made climate change a myth as far as you're concerned?
    Posts(4) | Reviews | Tip post

  • James_C Tuesday, March 2, 2010 1:55 PM Reply
    ^ myth

    Carbon is not a problem, rather the real pollutions like dumping of consumer electronics in the orient, and other wastes in the water table globally are problems.

    Posts(1699) | Reviews | Tip post

    post edited by James_C on 3/2/2010 at 1:57 PM
  • sheepish Top 10 Forum Poster Monday, December 3, 2018 7:31 AM Reply

    Looking back on this thread after about 8.75 years provides an interesting perspective. Some excellent points were made above, and some not so good ones.


    Using a cool white LED bulb as a night light doesn't seem a great idea to me. Blue light at night doesn't help people sleep.


    LED bulbs are now inexpensive enough and perform. well enough that they are a realistic option for room illumination. This is nice for those who did not want to use CFLs because of the roughly 5mg of mercury each contains. I'd like to point out, however, that when coal is burnt to produce electricity it releases mercury into the atmosphere as a pollutant. The amount of power a CFL saves prevents about the same amount of extra mercury being released from coal as the CFL bulb contains. This means that if the power source is coal, even if the CFL is not recycled at the end of its life it's just as bad as incandescent bulbs for putting mercury into the environment, but still saves most of the other pollutants such as sulphur dioxide from the extra coal that has to be burnt to power the incandescent bulb.


    I still think CFLs have an unpleasant tint, though. They tend to make my skin look green. I like LEDs.


    A good government, of course, has the responsibility to stop people harming each other and harming the environment. We're sadly beginning to realise that, but it's too late in some cases - for example fisheries which have completely collapsed. The big question is really how much should the government stop people harming each other and harming the environment.


    That is mostly nonsense.  Nuclear power.


    I don't see why what Tom said was nonsense, but simply saying "Nuclear power" is not making a point or presenting any rational reasons in favour of nuclear power. Nuclear power is merely an option, and is ultimately not a good option in its present form. (nuclear fission) for multiple reasons.


    * Nuclear power is a non-renewable energy source because uranium ore needs to be mined - an unavoidable problem. Economically, the price of ore will increase as it becomes scarcer and harder to extract. Environmentally, because the ore needs to come from somewhere, and the mining screws up the countryside.


    * Nuclear power produces radioactive waste materials which have half lives so long that any containment system we can create will deteriorate long before the radiation levels have dropped a significant amount - an unavoidable problem. This creates huge problem for later generations, just as storage decisions made more than 60 years ago are threatening us and the environment now.


    * We have not made, and possibly cannot make nuclear power reactors safe enough to prevent serious problems resulting from human error and natural disasters - an unavoidable problem, since it has already happened multiple times. When something goes badly wrong at a conventional power station people die. When something goes badly wrong at a nuclear power station there may not be as many people die in the event itself, but the radiation contaminates the land, meaning it can no longer be populated; hundreds of thousands of people have to be relocated. It causes mutations that become a permanent part of the population. These mutations manifest as higher cancer rates, especially of children.


    Nuclear power is a short sighted, selfish, irresponsible way of making electrical power. In the long term it is a very economically and ecologically expensive way to make power, for which we will be paying for many many generations to come.

    Remembering 30 years.
    Posts(24950) | Reviews | Tip post

Page 2 of 2
Go to Page:
«Reply to this thread (in Product Forum)
Product Forum

Reply

Subject:

* 50 characters max

Message:

Please note: HTML codes are not allowed anywhere on this page (otherwise you will see an error).

Please note that DealExtreme Forums are not a sales or product support board. While we do constantly participate in this forum, please contact us via support ticket for a guaranteed fast response. We make every effort to make the quickest replies.

DX Everywhere