|
quote:If you want to build "green households", then you should aim for the low-hanging fruit first:  This? This is the low hanging fruit. Buy these. If you do not have 100% compact-fluorescent bulbs, go to Wal-Mart or Home Hardware or wherever you buy poo poo tomorrow and replace all of your bulbs. Yes, they are more expensive up front; they will pay for themselves (and then some) in reduced power consumption and increased lifespan, plus you'll be doing something stupidly easy while eliminating one of the biggest sources for household energy waste. ...If you have the extra money and want to really geek out, order some LED bulbs:  Much more efficient, and they do not contain mercury (...Which reminds me: when your fluorescent bulbs burn-out, find a place that recycles them. Do not toss them in the trash. They contain mercury).
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2012 11:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 05:40 |
|
|
quote:I really want to emphasize the LED bulb love. If you can, get LEDs, the savings are better overall and you don't have to worry about disposal, so they're better in every way except for the slightly higher cost up front (and the difficulty of actually finding them). CFLs are just a transition technology Yeah, LEDs are the better option - I just talk about CFLs first because they are the most widely available alternative to incandescent bulbs for the moment. Are LEDs on any store shelves in America? In Canada they're strictly an 'order online' thing.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2012 23:00
|
|
|
quote:Humans are extremely bad at being efficient, especially with energy, as it requires effort and change, two things that as a species we do really really badly.  Changing your lightbulbs is something that you have 100% control over, and something you can literally do tomorrow while buying more Cheerios. You don't have to lobby a congressman to maybe get something done a few years from now, you don't have to wait for new technology, you don't have to convince your crazy parents or neighbors of anything - you can just choose to go to Wal Mart and do it yourself. If that is not the low-hanging fruit of energy consumption, then no such thing exists. If people don't even want to change their loving lighting, then I'm pretty sure that they aren't going to want to change their entire loving economy & society in order to pave the way for thorium reactors.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2012 10:32
|
|
|
quote:Your post essentially brushed off the necessity for oil; given that global demand is going to climb ~14% over the next 25 years, I would suggest that you've dismissed petroleum far too quickly. While considering this, I would also point out that the IEA's assessment suggests that by the end of their forecast (2035), renewables will approach coal as the largest source of electric power generation. That said, the IEA is STILL predicting a 14% growth in demand for petroleum. Well, we kinda have to curb our petroleum use in order to stay under our carbon budget. That's kinda the whole purpose of the thread - to find alternatives to burning fossil fuels. quote:Including catastrophic accidents, the rate of injury among workers in offshore oil and gas production (1 per 100 full-time workers) is significantly below that of: real estate and leasing (~2.5), all industries (incl. government ~3.5), leisure and hospitality (~3.8), construction (~3.9), food and beverage services (~5), air transportation (~7), justice and public safety (~9), and nursing and residential care (~15). I am glad that you were able to find an unbiased third party to provide references, like the NOIA.  quote:I'm going to remind you that the IEA report that I included in my first post said, "Growth in oil consumption in emerging economies, particularly for transport in China, India and the Middle East, more than outweighs reduced demand in the OECD, pushing oil use steadily higher in the New Policies Scenario. Oil demand reaches 99.7 mb/d in 2035, up from 87.4 mb/d in 2011..." This is despite the IEA forecasting the growth of renewables to ~33% of global energy production. I'm going to remind you that pointing fingers at China or India and saying "LOOK THEY'RE DOING WORSE!" doesn't actually solve any problems. Yes, emerging industrial nations are using a lot of hydrocarbons; if nobody is going to agree to cut emissions because [X] bogeyman won't do it first / is MORE GUILTY / is an otherwise convenient scapegoat, we're going to blow right on past a 2 degree future in short order.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2012 03:18
|
|
|
Doom Rooster posted:"Oh man, 26 new posts in the energy thread today! What cool story/breakthrough happened?!?" Kind of my thoughts too. Then... 'Oh hey look, some of the most GED arguments I've heard in a while,'
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 23:26
|
|
