Forums | MacLife

Idiots like Steyr always act like it is an either/or situation. The future will be all about both increasing efficiency and creating now sources of power.
Interesting how someone so strongly in favor of the drug war is worried about his freedom to the bulb of his choice being abridged.

macnuke wrote:

D'Eyncourt wrote:

Steyr AUG wrote:

Lets see, 0 emissions vs however much emissions coal powerplants make.

I guess I should have expected such a stupid reply.

stupid question, stupid answer.
but it's a pretty true answer regardless

'stupid question,' really? Steyr made a claim. I'd like him to back it up with real numbers instead of his simplistic reply.

Oh, right: all the answers are here.

D'Eyncourt wrote:

macnuke wrote:

D'Eyncourt wrote:

I guess I should have expected such a stupid reply.

stupid question, stupid answer.
but it's a pretty true answer regardless

'stupid question,' really? Steyr made a claim. I'd like him to back it up with real numbers instead of his simplistic reply.

Oh, right: all the answers are here.

yes it is..
first link I found favors Steyrs argument.

http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/thyd/ne161/ … urces.html

I generally thought the kind of people who would propose and support a silly law like this would generally not like nuclear power because it can (key word CAN) have some very nasty side effects.........

The enviromentalists need to make up their minds if coal is bad and so is nuclear......

I poke fun but I am being serious too

That leaves.......?????? what exactly the lesser of two bad things, going back to a civilization without out electricity

I am not expert but I do not see  a super efficient super environmentally friendly replacement to either coal or nuclear power that can provide the type of power requirements billions of us humans need......

D'Eyncourt wrote:

Steyr AUG wrote:

D'Eyncourt wrote:

'stupid question,' really? Steyr made a claim. I'd like him to back it up with real numbers instead of his simplistic reply.

Oh, right: all the answers are here.

Why would you need numbers to prove that nuclear powerplants dont have the emmissions that coal power plants do? Its pretty obvious.

You don't even know about the economic effects of using compact fluorescent lights over standard incandescent bulbs, do you? Because this is a simple effect that can be done NOW, as opposed to your pie-in-the-sky transformation to nuclear powerplants.

One is a practical solution to the problem, building nuclear powerplants, the other is a tylenol treating a symptom and does nothing to solve the problem.

errr Pariah.. I am "with it" more than you think.
and yes, conservation is a major part.

but America is still locked ( although less each day ) in the old "disposable society" mode.

btw.. just a side rant......

macnuke as I use it has NO CAPS in it

Steyr AUG wrote:

D'Eyncourt wrote:

Steyr AUG wrote:

Why would you need numbers to prove that nuclear powerplants dont have the emmissions that coal power plants do? Its pretty obvious.

You don't even know about the economic effects of using compact fluorescent lights over standard incandescent bulbs, do you? Because this is a simple effect that can be done NOW, as opposed to your pie-in-the-sky transformation to nuclear powerplants.

One is a practical solution to the problem, building nuclear powerplants, the other is a tylenol treating a symptom and does nothing to solve the problem.

HAH! A "practical" solution? Let's say NIMBY-ism is banished tonight, that the plans to start on a nuclear powerplant are begun tomorrow, and that during construction there will be no action from anti-nuclear protesters: how long before the first megawatt-hour is delivered from that plant? 5 years? 8 years? How much longer will it be when you do add those real-world problems? What you are suggesting is fantasy almost as pure as it can be--you may as well ask Santa to deliver those nuclear powerplants: they'll be built just as fast that way.

And you still do not understand the change that the CFL bulbs can have, do you?

D'Eyncourt wrote:

Steyr AUG wrote:

D'Eyncourt wrote:

You don't even know about the economic effects of using compact fluorescent lights over standard incandescent bulbs, do you? Because this is a simple effect that can be done NOW, as opposed to your pie-in-the-sky transformation to nuclear powerplants.

One is a practical solution to the problem, building nuclear powerplants, the other is a tylenol treating a symptom and does nothing to solve the problem.

HAH! A "practical" solution? Let's say NIMBY-ism is banished tonight, that the plans to start on a nuclear powerplant are begun tomorrow, and that during construction there will be no action from anti-nuclear protesters: how long before the first megawatt-hour is delivered from that plant? 5 years? 8 years? How much longer will it be when you do add those real-world problems? What you are suggesting is fantasy almost as pure as it can be--you may as well ask Santa to deliver those nuclear powerplants: they'll be built just as fast that way.

And you still do not understand the change that the CFL bulbs can have, do you?

Certainly more practical than banning an entire class of light technology.

I for one have CF bulbs in most of the house, except in my bedroom and the porch lighting.  In those, I have 150 watt halogen bulbs.  I must say, I do love me some halogens

robco wrote:

Offer incentives for people to switch, that's fine.  But outlawing incandescents is not the way to go.  This nanny state bullsmurf needs to stop.

The only reason i'm closing this is because i just noticed there's another thread of similar size in Minithink, and since this topic (as a rant) has kind of fizzled out, i'll direct you to the other thread where you can bitch about California politicians. It's understandable how that thread coulda been overlooked. The topic in no way gives any sort of clue as to what the thread is about.

http://www.maclife.com/forums/topic/92794/1

bratboy wrote:

Hmmm...I'm not sure why this was closed but there's another discussion on the subject here.

You jumped the gun a little.