The crazy state race continues...

Status
Not open for further replies.
SpecialKO

SpecialKO

Tress said:
Rep. King is a member of the Douche Party, which has no official affiliation with the Tea Party.
Click to expand...
Yeah, King is more of a classic neoconservative. Likes big military spending and aggressive foreign policy, likes tax cuts and bailouts for the rich, thought the Patriot Act was the best thing ever, hates the "gay agenda", believes in the Magic Anti-Tiger Stick (scroll down), and was a fervent admirer and proponent of all things IRA for almost three decades until they decided to oppose the invasion of Iraq.
 
sixpackshaker

sixpackshaker

would make it a first-degree felony to photograph a farm without first obtaining written permission from the owner.
Click to expand...
Would it be a crime for me to knock on the door at 6am to ask for a signature, while I'm on my morning bike ride?
 
Espy

Espy

New rule: Unless your political opponent is part of part of the KKK or a terrorist organization or something along those lines calling them an "extremist" makes you have to roll a "stupid political rhetoric" check.
 
DarkAudit

DarkAudit

Espy said:
New rule: Unless your political opponent is part of part of the KKK or a terrorist organization or something along those lines calling them an "extremist" makes you have to roll a "stupid political rhetoric" check.
Click to expand...
So calling Peter King a "terrorist sympathizer" is perfectly fine now. Argue semantics all you want, Congressman, but you've reveled in your support of the IRA for years.
 
Espy

Espy

DarkAudit said:
So calling Peter King a "terrorist sympathizer" is perfectly fine now. Argue semantics all you want, Congressman, but you've reveled in your support of the IRA for years.
Click to expand...
Who and what are you talking about and to? Combined with my post this makes zero sense. Unless I recently got elected to congress and supported the IRA.

Then it would make perfect sense.
 
DarkAudit

DarkAudit

Espy said:
Who and what are you talking about and to? Combined with my post this makes zero sense. Unless I recently got elected to congress and supported the IRA.

Then it would make perfect sense.
Click to expand...
Congressman Peter King (R-NY). The jackass running the anti-Muslim hearings right now. He makes no secret of his support for the IRA, but dismisses accusations that this makes him the "palling around with terrorists" sort.
 
Shakey

Shakey

I am stangely disappointed that Michelle Bachmann hasn't been mentioned yet. It's a scary world when she is no longer setting the bar for crazy.
 
Tress

Tress

My favorite Bachman moment was when she advocated closing down Planned Parenthood because they had a drive-thru for abortions. Nothing gets much crazier than that.
 
Krisken

Krisken

Nevermind most Planned Parenthood offices don't have abortion doctors and offer various protective services for women including pap tests. Walker's moronic bill will be defunding Planned Parenthood as well (even though it costs $2 million to operate and the Federal Government gives the state $9 million, turning into a net LOSS for the state of $7 million).

Utterly dumb.
 
SpecialKO

SpecialKO

Shakey said:
Meh, new flourescents aren't always the answer. Bathrooms and appliances shouldn't have them. They would just lead to increased mercury in landfills. Not all that crazy to me.
Click to expand...
Compared to the mercury released in the air, earth, and water by coal power plants who are powering traditional bulbs with much higher power requirements?
 
Tress

Tress

SpecialKO said:
Compared to the mercury released in the air, earth, and water by coal power plants who are powering traditional bulbs with much higher power requirements?
Click to expand...
Not to mention the rate of replacement for the new CFLs being much, much lower... meaning they don't deposit mercury into landfills as often.
 
IronBrig4

IronBrig4

I had the opportunity to immigrate to New Zealand a couple years ago. I'm thinking I should've taken them up on the offer.
 
@Li3n

@Li3n

Shakey said:
Meh, new flourescents aren't always the answer. Bathrooms and appliances shouldn't have them. They would just lead to increased mercury in landfills. Not all that crazy to me.
Click to expand...
Way i hear it there are still incandescent light bulbs that meet the new consumption criteria, and this law is also to force companies to produce more of those.

As for landfills... learn to recycle people.
 
Shakey

Shakey

SpecialKO said:
Compared to the mercury released in the air, earth, and water by coal power plants who are powering traditional bulbs with much higher power requirements?
Click to expand...
From what I've heard, the life of cfl's are significantly decreased when they are turned on and off frequently, like you do in bathrooms. So yes, it's usually better to use traditional bulbs there.
 
strawman

strawman

LED lighting is getting cheaper, and is as efficient as cfl, as long lasting as cfl, and much more environmentally friendly.

CFLs decrease in life if you buy cheap ones. When manufacturers use good circuit design to drive the cfl, they can be turned on and off frequently without decreasing their life.

Even if you decrease the life of a cheap CFL, it still lasts longer, on average, than an incandescent.
 
Krisken

Krisken

Yeah, Baer, I touched on that a little up in my "Pfft, penny ante" post earlier, but that does a great job in describing just how serious a threat Michigan's law really is. I just cannot understand where our mainstream media is to allow this kind of thing to go unreported. Liberal bias my ass.
 
SpecialKO

SpecialKO

AshburnerX said:
LED lighting is also really, really expensive right now. If it wasn't, I'd go out and buy some right now.
Click to expand...
It's unfortunately true, but if I were building/renovating a place right now, I might consider it worth the expense. It might be 5 times more expensive than a pack of CFLs with the same (totaled) lifetime, but considering it's supposed to be 3 times more efficient (which makes it 10-12 times more efficient than an incandescent bulb), the electricity savings might make up for it completely.
 
MindDetective

MindDetective

SpecialKO said:
It's unfortunately true, but if I were building/renovating a place right now, I might consider it worth the expense. It might be 5 times more expensive than a pack of CFLs with the same (totaled) lifetime, but considering it's supposed to be 3 times more efficient (which makes it 10-12 times more efficient than an incandescent bulb), the electricity savings might make up for it completely.
Click to expand...
It sounds like it isn't there yet, at least as of 1 year ago. http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2009...bs-whats-the-best-deal-now-and-in-the-future/

Comparing CostsThe best way to compare the three types of bulbs is to calculate their costs over 30,000 hours of usage – the lifespan of a single LED bulb.


Standard incandescent bulbs The CFL[sic] used here has a lifetime of 1,300 hours, so we would need 23 bulbs over the period of this study. I was able to purchase a single incandescent of this type for $0.34, so our total cost for bulbs over 30,000 hours would be $7.82.
As it uses 60 watts, over a period of 30,000 hours, an incandescent bulb would use 1,800,000 watt hours, or 1,800 kilowatt hours. At the current approximate price of $0.10 per kilowatt hour, you would have to pay $180.00 to run an incandescent bulb over this period.
Thus, the total cost of a 60 watt incandescent bulb over a 30,000 hour lifespan is $187.82.


CFL bulbs The CFL used here has a lifetime of 8,000 hours, so we would need 3.75 bulbs over the period of this study. I was able to purchase a single CFL for $1.24, so our total cost for bulbs over 30,000 hours would be $4.65.
As it uses 13 watts, over a period of 30,000 hours, a CFL bulb would use 390,000 watt hours, or 390 kilowatt hours. At the current approximate price of $0.10 per kilowatt hour, you would have to pay $39.00 to run a CFL bulb over this period.
Thus, the total cost of a CFL bulb over a 30,000 hour lifespan is $43.65.


LED bulbs The LED bulb used here has a lifetime of 30,000 hours, so we would need only one bulb over the period of this study. Unfortunately, that single bulb has a cost of $119.99.
As it uses 7.5 watts, over a period of 30,000 hours, an LED bulb would use 245,000 watt hours, or 245 kilowatt hours. At the current approximate price of $0.10 per kilowatt hour, you would have to pay $24.50 to run an LED bulb over this period.
Thus, the total cost of an LED bulb over a 30,000 hour lifespan is $144.49.
Click to expand...
 
SpecialKO

SpecialKO

Applying that to MD's other numbers, a CFL is still more cost-effective, but not by a lot (around $10). $10 over 30,000 hours of use seems like an easy price to pay for more eco-friendly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top