Save Our State  

Go Back   Save Our State > General Forum (non official Save Our State business) > General Discussion

General Discussion Topics of a general nature not relative to any other specific section here

WELCOME BACK!.............NEW EFFORTS AHEAD..........CHECK BACK SOON.........UPDATE YOUR EMAIL FOR NEW NOTIFICATIONS.........
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-05-2011, 01:25 PM
Jeanfromfillmore's Avatar
Jeanfromfillmore Jeanfromfillmore is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,287
Default Going Green, is only the cost of the green in your wallet.

This is something we all should know and it is a perfect example of how we are being manipulated with the so called "go green" crap.


Some of you may not know what Title 24 is.(at the end of this post is a description) Here in California all new construction or major remodel must comply with Title 24. Basically it requires that fluorescent fixtures be used instead of incandescent lamps, in all new construction. With commercial it's watts per sq ft, and with residential it's percentage of hardwired lighting installed in the residence. And as many of you know incandescent lights will not be sold after 2014, so basically everyone will have to replace their light fixtures with fluorescent (with dedicated sockets) once they run out of replacement incandescent lamps as they burn out.

That's where some real big questions arise. Most, if not all, of the fluorescent fixtures are either made in China or not in the USA. Also, the fluorescent lamps are mostly made in China or not in the USA. So, just imagine what swapping out all the fixtures in the state of California, both commercial and residential, will cost our citizens, and all that money will be going out of the country.

But, I must also add that the cost of one fluorescent lamp (not the long tubes, but the globe or compacted style with a dedicated socket) ranges from $5 to $15 each. Even online they land up costing about this when you add in shipping. Now compare that to incandescent which run as cheep as 25 cents each. Another thing I should point out is that our good old incandescent lamps give off a very white light. The fluorescent lamps try to do this, but it costs the customer up to 30% more for that feature. It is called Kalven (k), which is the color of the light given off by the lamp. Fluorescent lamps range between 2,500k to 5,000k, the higher the k the whiter the light and the more you pay.
The CFL (compact fluorescent lamps) with the screw on base are not actual fluorescent lamps, (these were given away free to customers by their electric companies to get people to replace their incandescent lamps). These CFL were put on the market to get the public used to the look of the fluorescent lamps, but actually the light (Lumens=actual amount of light given off) is less per watt than the incandescent and the CFL are actually less efficient, but the public was told they were more efficient. This is a lie, when you compare the Watts (which is the energy used) with the Lumens, which is the actual light given off, the incandescent are more efficient when you compare wattage with lumens. But the public has been lied to and by doing so got the public used to the thought of using fluorescent and that was the goal. One of the obvious manipulations associated with this go green scam.

This is just a taste of what so called "going green" is going to cost each household. You have to wonder if China had a huge hand in forcing this to happen, after all, that's who is prospering the most.

Next time you're at the hardware store or where lighting is sold, look at where the fixtures are manufactured along with the lamps and consider how many will have to be bought in the next few years. Yes, all that money pretty much going to China, and our politicians forced us to do it.

This story below is an example of how our government has wasted tax dollars, just to see them go to China.


Green Jobs Are Not Evergreen Jobs
After receiving at least $43 million in aid from the state of Massachusetts, Evergreen Solar announced last month that it would be closing its manufacturing plant in Devens, Mass., laying off its 800 workers and moving its manufacturing operations to China.
Warning: These are the "green jobs" that President Obama has touted as part of his "winning the future" agenda.
The problem isn't that Obama wants to direct federal dollars toward research for alternative energy. It is in the national interest to have affordable options when oil sources are depleted.
The problem is that Obama thinks that green jobs are the answer to the anemic economy recovery. And he clings to that belief in the face of contrary evidence.
Last May, the president came to solar-panel manufacturer Solyndra in Fremont, Calif., to celebrate a new plant -- creating 3,000 construction jobs and 1,000 permanent workers. President Obama exclaimed, "The true engine of economic growth will always be companies like Solyndra."
Within months, Solyndra, which has yet to turn a profit, announced that it was canceling the expansion. Solyndra, the San Jose Mercury News reported, has shifted more than half of its production to -- you guessed it -- China.
At best, you can describe Obamaland's choice of venue as bad advance work.
Michael El-Hillow, Evergreen Solar's chief executive, explained in a statement the reason for his company's move: "While the United States and other western industrial economies are beneficiaries of rapidly declining installation costs of solar energy, we expect the United States will continue to be at a disadvantage from a manufacturing standpoint."
Evergreen is -- this month anyway -- the third-largest solar panel manufacturer in the United States. The Massachusetts plant opened in 2008 with much fanfare and generous taxpayer assistance. But just one year later, The New York Times reported, company suits were talking to Chinese officials, who could offer cheaper labor -- average monthly wages below $300 as opposed to $5,400 in the Bay State -- sweetheart loans and other incentives.
Harvard economist Edward L. Glaeser saw Evergreen leave Massachusetts and opined in The New York Times that while he believed investing in green technology, "(I)t always was a mistake to think that clean energy was going to be a jobs bonanza."
And: "We shouldn't pretend that cheaper solar energy will end up employing millions of our less-skilled citizens."
This leaves American solons with two choices: Keep feeding the meter -- or cut your losses.
The high cost of subsidizing wind and solar power should seal the deal. According to the California Energy Commission, the cost of photovoltaic solar electricity is about 26 cents per kilowatt hour, as opposed to 13 cents for electricity powered by natural gas.
With the unemployment rate at 9 percent, Washington should be looking to create jobs that aren't going to run to China. Or, as Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, told The New York Times, "If the president really were serious about job creation, he would be working with us to develop American oil and gas by American workers for American consumers."
American Enterprise Institute senior fellow Steven F. Hayward likes to ask people which state has the lowest unemployment rate. The answer is North Dakota, with an unemployment rate of 3.8 percent. "The reason is they've had a huge oil and gas boom," Hayward explained. They've tripled their oil output.
As the price of oil spills over the $100-per-barrel mark, Washington ought to reconsider the "green jobs" approach. As Hayward noted, "Brown energy creates jobs and prosperity."



CCR, Title 24
California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, also known as the California Building Standards Code, is a compilation of three types of building standards from three different origins:
• Building standards that have been adopted by state agencies without change from building standards contained in national model codes
• Building standards that have been adopted and adapted from the national model code standards to meet California conditions
• Building standards, authorized by the California legislature, that constitute extensive additions not covered by the model codes that have been adopted to address particular California concerns
Notwithstanding, the national model code standards adopted into Title 24 apply to all occupancies in California except for modifications adopted by state agencies and local governing bodies. To learn more go to: About Title 24, a document intended to provide information and training on the application and use of Title 24.
Starting in 1989, the BSC has published triennial editions of Title 24 in their entirety every three years. Title 24 is available for purchase or available to the public at no cost through depository libraries. The following triennial editions have been published in their entirety:

Last edited by Jeanfromfillmore; 02-05-2011 at 02:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-05-2011, 07:50 PM
Jeanfromfillmore's Avatar
Jeanfromfillmore Jeanfromfillmore is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,287
Default

Administration Declines to Cite China for Currency Manipulation
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration on Friday declined to cite China for manipulating its currency to gain trade advantages against the United States.
The Treasury Department noted that China last June said it would begin allowing its currency to rise against the dollar. The agency said the pace of revaluation has been too slow since and more rapid appreciation is needed.
Treasury's finding came in a report it must submit to Congress every six months determining whether other countries are manipulating their currencies. American manufacturers have been pushing for China to be cited. That could result in penalty tariffs being imposed on Chinese imports.
In refusing to cite China, Treasury said Chinese President Hu Jintao had assured President Obama during a visit to Washington last month that China would intensify its efforts to "further enhance exchange rate stability."
Treasury said that the pace of revaluation had accelerated in recent months and the movement was being aided by different rates of inflation in the two countries. The report said that the Chinese currency, the renminbi, had risen in value by 3.7 percent against the dollar since China announced in June that it would resume allowing the currency to appreciate.
But because inflation in China is much higher currently than it is in the United States, the Chinese currency has risen on an inflation-adjusted basis at an annual rate of about 10 percent, Treasury said in its new report.
But Treasury still said that China's currency movement "thus far is insufficient and that more rapid progress is needed. Treasury will continue to closely monitor the pace of appreciation."
Lawmakers on Capitol Hill have been critical of China's currency policies. Last September, the House passed legislation that would give the administration more power to impose economic sanctions on countries deemed to be manipulating their currencies to gain trade advantages.
The Senate did not take up the legislation. But lawmakers critical of China's trade practices have vowed to renew their efforts this year.
"It's plain as the nose on your face that China manipulates its currency," Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said Friday in criticizing the administration's failure to cite China. "It's just as plain that the only way to address this problem is for Congress to act."
Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, said the administration's inaction underscored the need for a tougher approach that would be embodied in bipartisan currency legislation he is sponsoring with Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine.
"American manufacturers and workers struggling to compete against unfairly subsidized imports can't afford to wait any longer for action," Brown said. "Congress must act this year to pass legislation addressing currency manipulation to level the playing field and help get our economy back on track."
American manufacturers contend that China's currency is undervalued by as much as 40 percent against the dollar. That makes Chinese goods cheaper for U.S. consumers and American products more expensive in China.
Critics blame China's currency policies and other trade practices they see as unfair for the loss of millions of U.S. manufacturing jobs.

The U.S. deficit with China, the largest with any country, is on track to set an all-time annual high for 2010. Through November, the deficit with China was running at an annual rate of $275.3 billion, which would exceed the previous record of $268 billion set in 2008.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...#ixzz1D9Ob5Iw8
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-06-2011, 04:37 AM
Rim05 Rim05 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: So CA
Posts: 1,222
Default

Since I have a problem putting a new bulb in the ceiling, I purchased a couple of those very big, coiled bulbs. They were $10 each but the lighting is terrible, it has a yellow kind of cast. Since they are supposed to last a long time is the only reason I purchased them.

Someone is always thinking of ways to make us buy up a lot of stuff and then try to store it.
No matter what we do, we are a failure.
And I really do hate those coiled bulbs.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-06-2011, 11:29 AM
Jeanfromfillmore's Avatar
Jeanfromfillmore Jeanfromfillmore is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,287
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rim05 View Post
Since I have a problem putting a new bulb in the ceiling, I purchased a couple of those very big, coiled bulbs. They were $10 each but the lighting is terrible, it has a yellow kind of cast. Since they are supposed to last a long time is the only reason I purchased them.

Someone is always thinking of ways to make us buy up a lot of stuff and then try to store it.
No matter what we do, we are a failure.
And I really do hate those coiled bulbs.
That is exactly why the government tried to get the public used to the screw in fluorescent, because the light itself if not as white as the incandescent and will take some getting used to. If the lamp you bought or buy today has a screw in base it is not a true fluorescent, but instead it is that half way crap that the government is using to get us used to fluorescent lamp with their ugly color and less actual light. Those screw in are the ones that are not as efficient as the incandescent that we are used to. The true fluorescent lamps have a dedicated socket, and are hard to find when trying to match them up to the fixtures due to all the different fixtures from all those different countries and the lamps themselves being from so many different countries. But this is the nightmare just down the road.

All those new fluorescent lamps (bulbs) are very, very expensive and the light is really crappy. Remember to look for the Kalvin (K) and try to get something between 3,500K and 5,000K, the higher the better because they are white, but the more they will cost. It's hard to find the 5,000K, also known as hospital white, but 4,500k are not too hard to find and they're somewhat like an incandescent.

But also remember, unlike an incandescent which give off just about the same amount of lumens through the life of the lamp, fluorescent lamps don't give of an equal amount through the life of the lamp. If the fluorescent lamp says it will last 10,000 hours, after about 7,000 hours the lumens (actual light given off) will start to diminish. So you actually aren't really getting the hours the package may say. After about 2/3 of the fluorescent lamps life it starts to degrade. Most people have experienced this with the long tube fluorescent lamps, but didn't pay much attention because the lamps were fairly inexpensive. The new styles are not inexpensive, so do your homework before buying, because replacing a whole house or business can cost hundreds of dollars.

The incandescent was invented here in the USA and now the government wants us to get rid of it. Does that surprise anyone?

Last edited by Jeanfromfillmore; 02-06-2011 at 11:32 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-08-2011, 03:43 AM
Rim05 Rim05 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: So CA
Posts: 1,222
Default

I found another article that I had saved from Jan 2011. It is from the LB Press Telegram but I can not find it any way I search the paper. I don't know how to scan it and post it to the forum. There is even a picture of the LED bulb. This may be common knowledge to the guys but it was new to me.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-08-2011, 07:48 AM
Patriotic Army Mom Patriotic Army Mom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 829
Default

I've been green before the term was ever used. In my family we called it being thrifty. Taking care of what we had and saving energy and money for things that we would love to have. This green thing makes me see blue.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-08-2011, 08:08 AM
Jeanfromfillmore's Avatar
Jeanfromfillmore Jeanfromfillmore is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,287
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rim05 View Post
I found another article that I had saved from Jan 2011. It is from the LB Press Telegram but I can not find it any way I search the paper. I don't know how to scan it and post it to the forum. There is even a picture of the LED bulb. This may be common knowledge to the guys but it was new to me.
Rimo, LEDs are Light Emitting Diodes and are extremely energy efficient. Where most people have seen LEDs used for quite some time now is in commercial buildings. They are the EXIT signs at the end of hallways that are used as path finders. They use almost no energy and can last for many years. They've started using LEDs for many other items where a low light can be used. There are so many different types of lighting now available but few give off the white light that the incandescent does, and incandescent lamps aren't hazardous waste that contains mercury like the fluorescent.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-12-2011, 10:58 AM
Jeanfromfillmore's Avatar
Jeanfromfillmore Jeanfromfillmore is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,287
Default

Light Bulb Repeal Bill Stalls in Congress
A bill to repeal the banning of ordinary incandescent light bulbs is bottled up in a congressional committee despite Americans’ apparent distaste for the more expensive bulbs that would replace them.
The 100-watt incandescent bulb is scheduled to be outlawed in January 2012, the 75-watt bulb will disappear in January 2013, and the 60-watt and 40-watt bulbs in January 2014.
The bill banning the bulbs — which use more energy than newer bulbs — was introduced in 2007 by then Rep. Jane Harman, a California Democrat, and Rep. Fred Upton, a Michigan Republican, and signed by President George W. Bush in December 2007.
Upton is now chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and while lobbying Republicans for the post he vowed to repeal the section of the 2007 bill that bans incandescent bulbs.
“We have heard the grass roots loud and clear, and will have a hearing early next Congress,” he said in December. “The last thing we wanted to do was infringe upon personal liberties, and this has been a good lesson that Congress does not always know best.”
In January, Texas Republican Rep. Joe Barton proposed the Better Use of Light Bulb (BULB) act, which would cancel the phase-out of incandescent bulbs. The bill has 62 co-sponsors, 61 of them Republicans, and a companion bill in the Senate has 28 co-sponsors.
But Upton’s committee has not yet held a hearing on the bill, and “House Republican leadership has evinced no interest in bringing the Barton bill to the floor,” Diana Furchtgott-Roth, an adjunct fellow at the Manhattan Institute, writes in RealClearMarkets. “Calls to repeal the incandescent light bulb ban are coming from consumers, who prefer incandescent lamps."
“Chairman Upton,” she adds, “how about voting Mr. Barton’s bill out of committee and sending it to the House floor?”
Once incandescent bulbs vanish, Americans will have to purchase either compact fluorescent bulbs — known as CFLs — halogens, or light-emitting diodes (LEDs).
All three cost significantly more than incandescent bulbs, although they last longer. Many people don’t like the light cast by CFLs — the cheapest of the three — and they must be disposed of at special recycling centers because they contain mercury. They also pose a danger if broken in the home.
Another factor to consider: Incandescent bulbs are made in the United States, while almost all CFLs are made in China, according to Furchtgott-Roth.
She concludes: “Consumers should be free, in my opinion, to choose the light bulbs they prefer. If Congress believes that consumers should conserve energy, it can impose a tax on the model bulbs whose use it would discourage, or on electricity in general.”
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-14-2011, 06:55 PM
ilbegone's Avatar
ilbegone ilbegone is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,068
Default

I believe that most of the "green energy" stuff is one sort of scam or another.

Want "green energy"?

Twenty five years ago wind farms were largely a rich man's write off where the consumers pay the highest avoided cost of building conventional power plants, I don't know how efficient they are now but one thing's sure in my mind; we're paying at least twice as much for electricity as we should otherwise.

A former head of DWP informed the city that the DWP could afford to have either "green power" or to own their offices, but that they couldn't afford to do both.

I understand that European countries who heavily invested in wind farms now view the venture as something like having a week dead chicken wired around the neck.

Wind farms and Solar farms are opposed by "environmental" groups because it takes so much of "nature" to create the farm.

"Environmentalists" also object to transmission power lines being built to channel "green energy" to the metropolis from wherever "green power" is generated. I believe the proposed DWP transmission line Green Path North was scuttled by "environmentalists". Currently it seems like "environmentalists" are making a concerted effort to make SDG&E's Sunrise Powerlink so expensive and so difficult to complete that it will discourage any other like project in the future.

Meanwhile, rooftop generation is so costly for efficiency ratio and comes with so many strings attached that actual payback is far off in the future. The tax breaks are subsidization of high energy costs - redistribution of other's means to support it.

"Environmentalists" may mean well, but they are the sort of people who will bitch about cell phone towers to their congressman via a cell phone. I don't see a one of them calling the power company to remove the electrical service to their own dwellings.
__________________
Freibier gab's gestern

Hay burros en el maiz

RAP IS TO MUSIC WHAT ETCH-A-SKETCH IS TO ART

Don't drink and post.

"A nickel will get you on the subway, but garlic will get you a seat." - Old New York Yiddish Saying

"You can observe a lot just by watching." Yogi Berra

Old journeyman commenting on young apprentices - "Think about it, these are their old days"

SOMETIMES IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

Never, ever, wear a bright colored shirt to a stand up comedy show.

Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-15-2011, 12:41 AM
The Waco Kid's Avatar
The Waco Kid The Waco Kid is offline
Rebel
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 81
Default

Guys,
Lets just get to the bottom line. Yet again this is government getting involved in areas of our lives in a way that is unacceptable. I stocked up on incandescent bulbs years ago when I first heard about this and have enough to last the rest of my life. No way will I every use one of those hazmat bulbs that have mercury. Dangerous, poor lighting and just plain stupid if you will. But that is what the green movement is all about.
__________________
My name is Jim but most folks call me...... Jim.
~The Waco Kid~
Blazing Saddles
circa 1974
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright SaveOurState ©2009 - 2016 All Rights Reserved