Climate Change Thread

[Gilrandir]

And dump-disposed LED have far less impact on soil and water than either CFL or incandescent in any form.

I expect one would need to sustain the claim, especially in the part that lead and arsenic of LEDs harm the environment less than ??? in incandescents.

[Montmorency]

Incandescent bulbs have a lot of glass and metal and stuff and animals cut themselves on it. Or, stepping aside from your level of reasoning: http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2..._lca-pt2_0.pdf

Scroll to the charts and discussion of environmental impacts in Section 7, of filament, CFL, LED 2012, and LED 2017 lamps, across soil, water, and air, from raw materials and manufacturing to disposal and storage.

For the LED lamp in 2017, the profile is similar to that of the 2012 lamp, however the significance of
energy is diminished due to the fact that this lamp is considerably more efficacious. For this reason, the
other impacts are able to gain a slightly higher proportion of the relative impact for each of the fifteen
categories considered. In this analysis, energy in use represents an average of 78.2% of the impact,
followed by raw materials at 19.3% and manufacturing at 2.3%. The transportation and disposal of the
lamp are negligible, at less than 0.2% each.

And for comparisons between lamps: LED simply does better in every category, including hazardous and non-hazardous landfill.

[Gilrandir]

Incandescent bulbs have a lot of glass and metal and stuff and animals cut themselves on it.

Meaning that LEDs don't have any of those?

And for comparisons between lamps: LED simply does better in every category, including hazardous and non-hazardous landfill.

So, you admit it IS hazardous?

Again, a Westerner is applying a grid natural for him unconscious of its inadequacy (or limited adequacy) elswhere.

As far as I know, LEDs give a comparatively narrow ray meant to light a limited area around it. Traditionally, Ukrainian homes have the electricity network oriented towards lighting the whole room with one source of light hanging from the ceiling in the middle of this room. Wall bracket lamps and bedside lamps are used on a limited scale if at all. A room where only such lamps are lit is considered too dark and people are likely to switch on the central light if they stay there. A LED central light will leave most of the room murky. So LEDs may in fact be used only in desk lamps which will not change the overall situation greatly.
Even if the tradition is going to change (which I doubt) should I (and many others) re-design the whole electricity layout to be able to use LEDs and have my place properly lit? And what if in a couple of years they will come up with a new invention which will allow me to rely on central source of light again - should I change the layout back?

Anyway, that is not my message. What I want you to see is: banning one thing which is purportedly bad and not banning other things which are as bad (or even worse) undermines the whole institute of the freedom of choice and individual responsibility which are cornerstones of Western democracy.

[Montmorency]

So, you admit it IS hazardous?

Your potatoes and apples and grains are full of poison. Stop growing them immediately.

whole institute of the freedom of choice

No.

individual responsibility

Opposite.

cornerstones of Western democracy.

Please.

As far as I know, LEDs give a comparatively narrow ray meant to light a limited area around it. Traditionally, Ukrainian homes have the electricity network oriented towards lighting the whole room with one source of light hanging from the ceiling in the middle of this room. Wall bracket lamps and bedside lamps are used on a limited scale if at all. A room where only such lamps are lit is considered too dark and people are likely to switch on the central light if they stay there. A LED central light will leave most of the room murky. So LEDs may in fact be used only in desk lamps which will not change the overall situation greatly.

Do you live in a mansion? If so, get more than one light. If not, get a lamp with luminous properties suitable for the actual space in which it will be installed. There are many to "choose" from. Non-issue.

What I want you to see is: banning one thing which is purportedly bad and not banning other things which are as bad (or even worse)

We have established that available fluorescent and LED lighting is straightforwardly less bad than filament lighting and filament lights.


The only concern I will give you is if dictats are too fickle or rapid to cope with for the citizen. But it's not happening anytime soon. Even in OECD countries, the filament bulb is used as majority in residential buildings (though almost not at all in industrial/commercial buildings by now). Incandescents are actually proportionally less-used in non-OECD countries in "the Global South", if only because kerosene lighting is still so popular. So don't worry about it too much, your children will take care of you.

[Husar]

Come-the-on, a whole paragraph about the spatial difficulties of photon distribution in traditional ukrainian homes regarding the spatial properties and material placement of LED light bulbs when capitalism already has you covered:

http://www.osram.com/osram_com/produ...ic-a/index.jsp

Yes, it's about as glassy as the indandescent, but that was wanted in the first place, no?
Regarding waste and so on, they also last longer than incandescents, that should reduce the glass waste in comparison.

[Gilrandir]

Your potatoes and apples and grains are full of poison. Stop growing them immediately.

MY potatoes and apples and grains are still natural enough (although the situation is changing), so you might be correct speaking of YOURS. And you don't seem inclined to stop growing them. Anyway, call Monasanto for further information.

Please.

This is the level of argument I like.

We have established that available fluorescent and LED lighting is straightforwardly less bad than filament lighting and filament lights.

Beer is straightforwardly less bad than vodka, paper bags are straitforwardly less bad than plastic ones, but somehow the "badder" ones are still not banned. How come and why is it different for LEDs and incandescents? And why CFLs are not banned since they are straightforwardly worse than LEDs?
Banning something in such cases is not a solution, especially in the countries that are all about human rights and freedom.

The only concern I will give you is if dictats are too fickle or rapid to cope with for the citizen. But it's not happening anytime soon. Even in OECD countries, the filament bulb is used as majority in residential buildings (though almost not at all in industrial/commercial buildings by now). Incandescents are actually proportionally less-used in non-OECD countries in "the Global South", if only because kerosene lighting is still so popular. So don't worry about it too much, your children will take care of you.

My concern is not about the speed of implementation, but about the imposition of views WHERE YOU LIVE. And I don't worry at all, WHERE I LIVE incandescents (replaced when needed) will last me my life time.

Come-the-on, a whole paragraph about the spatial difficulties of photon distribution in traditional ukrainian homes regarding the spatial properties and material placement of LED light bulbs when capitalism already has you covered:

http://www.osram.com/osram_com/produ...ic-a/index.jsp

Yes, it's about as glassy as the indandescent, but that was wanted in the first place, no?
Regarding waste and so on, they also last longer than incandescents, that should reduce the glass waste in comparison.

I will make inquiries about it, but not sure it made its way in here. And the price will aslo matter since if something is labeled as "innovation" it is sure to be not cheap.

[Montmorency]

MY potatoes and apples and grains are still natural enough (although the situation is changing), so you might be correct speaking of YOURS. And you don't seem inclined to stop growing them. Anyway, call Monasanto for further information.

Firstly, no, stop being foolish. Secondly, all growing things absorb and concentrate various trace elements such as lead, arsenic, cyanide, etc. from the ground they grow in, without exception. The good thing about toxic materials is that toxicity depends upon quantity and concentration. This is why you don't die at any given moment of the day.

[Husar]

I may need to rethink my stance on renewables, even though I'm not sure whether that is serious or not:

https://scontent.ftxl1-1.fna.fbcdn.n...2f&oe=58A00C30

[Papewaio]

Again, a Westerner is applying a grid natural for him unconscious of its inadequacy (or limited adequacy) elswhere.

As far as I know, LEDs give a comparatively narrow ray meant to light a limited area around it. Traditionally, Ukrainian homes have the electricity network oriented towards lighting the whole room with one source of light hanging from the ceiling in the middle of this room. Wall bracket lamps and bedside lamps are used on a limited scale if at all. A room where only such lamps are lit is considered too dark and people are likely to switch on the central light if they stay there. A LED central light will leave most of the room murky. So LEDs may in fact be used only in desk lamps which will not change the overall situation greatly.
Even if the tradition is going to change (which I doubt) should I (and many others) re-design the whole electricity layout to be able to use LEDs and have my place properly lit? And what if in a couple of years they will come up with a new invention which will allow me to rely on central source of light again - should I change the layout back?

Anyway, that is not my message. What I want you to see is: banning one thing which is purportedly bad and not banning other things which are as bad (or even worse) undermines the whole institute of the freedom of choice and individual responsibility which are cornerstones of Western democracy.

Actually you can get leds that shine like an incandescent or fluorescent light and they will brighten more of the room for less power. The ones that mimic an incandescent light generally have an opaque globe around the led and the whole globe will glow.

The other omnidirectional ones look like little Xmas trees with led filaments in gold strands.

[edyzmedieval]

Leaving this here for someone who has one hour to spare to watch about climate change.

[Gilrandir]

Actually you can get leds that shine like an incandescent or fluorescent light and they will brighten more of the room for less power. The ones that mimic an incandescent light generally have an opaque globe around the led and the whole globe will glow.

The other omnidirectional ones look like little Xmas trees with led filaments in gold strands.

It is the opaque bulb that causes the kind of light I dislike. Besides, we seemed to agree that LEDs are more harmful to the environment than incandescents if not properly disposed of (which is an issue for Ukraine).

[Montmorency]

Besides, we seemed to agree that LEDs are more harmful to the environment than incandescents if not properly disposed of (which is an issue for Ukraine).

No, that was one of the points you erred on. The only real issue with LEDs compared to predecessors, like with all complex electronics, is that they require consumption of more extractable metals in the first place (i.e. metal depletion).

But you can't make circuits, wires, and filaments from wood.

[Gilrandir]

No, that was one of the points you erred on. The only real issue with LEDs compared to predecessors, like with all complex electronics, is that they require consumption of more extractable metals in the first place (i.e. metal depletion).

But you can't make circuits, wires, and filaments from wood.

My mistake. I meant CFCs. Yet it doesn't cancel the unpleasant (for me) hew of light they emit.