Gallery of Lights
The Site => General discussion => Topic started by: mercuryvaporrocks on October 22, 2012, 12:36:56 PM
-
I'm tired of these environment groups trying to make us use all LED lighting against our will. LED lighting is only good to a certain extent, it's ideal for traffic signals, emergency vehicles, and signage but they're not meant for street lighting. Consumers should have a right to pick what they want to use for lighting, not big government or special interest groups. It's truly a bad sign when these environmentalist wackos seem to be above the law kind of like going to someone's house and telling them what to do with their property and the politicians who have the ability to stop these groups do nothing because these groups probably pay them off. I wish more people out there would stand up against this nonsense. It's bad enough that mercury vapor ballasts and fixtures are gone and consumers and utility companies now pay too much for alternative replacement fixtures. We should be able to use what we want for lighting.
-
I couldn't agree more! I don't get what their big deal is. It's not like they care about how much we pay on our electric bill. >:( :8) It's certainly not them trying to be "good samaritans" or helping out their fellow man; they couldn't care less about the end user. It's all about talking green to get green if you get what i mean.
-
i agree with you about bush banning mercury vapour fixtures and whatnot back in '05, and obama banning incandescents recently. i think it should be left up to the market to decide— in the case of mercury vapour, it was already working. mercury vapour fixtures had already become rare due to their inefficiency. the small amount of energy used by lighting enthusiasts who continue to use MV fixtures wouldn't amount to anything.
however, i don't see the problem with giving tax breaks and funding for cities that want to convert to more energy efficient lighting— energy is getting more and more expensive all the time, and regardless of whether or not climate change is real, there is evidence of waste all around— for example the colorado river dries up before it hits the ocean these days, rivers and streams are polluted, the rainforests are disappearing, etc. it's a fact that we need to be better stewards of our environment, and i think federal funding for these types of projects is acceptable. however, i don't agree with favouring specific products, such as LED lights, rather than favouring products that meet a certain standard, ie: LED, induction and CMH should all qualify for tax breaks and federal funding.
i do wish that they would come up with some LED lights that have that classic blue-green mercury vapour glow, there's nothing like it— calming, more suited for night time, and even after all these years somehow incredibly futuristic:
(http://www.city-data.com/forum/attachments/atlanta/102190d1350001550-why-atlanta-expressways-so-dark-240549_282069965236609_1044573639_o.jpg)
-
i do like the look of these, however, on the DoE website:
(http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ssl/images/raleys-photov2.jpg)
(http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ssl/images/gateway-msslc_philadelphia.jpg)
these are LEDs. they appear to be a step in the right direction.
-
Well, it's false to say bush and obama banned MV and incandescent...
They simply approved a bill to make lamp standards more strict. Manufacturers could either choose to improve existing technoledgy (incandescents, MV, T12 fluorescent, magnetic fluorescent ballasts), or phase it out in favor of newer technoledgies. The standards for Lumens Per Watt, CRI, ballast losses, and other similar key elements in lamp designs were simply made more strict and the maufacturers simply decided "the hell with the old technoledgy".
The way i see it, the reason for this was that they could make more profit selling newer technoledgy stuff without the common man realizing it. If older lamp prices simply skyrocketed, people would know something's up, but if a new technoledy is introduced at a high price, even if it's as cheap to make as an incandescent, people wouldn't catch on since the price was always high. Plus, if they decide to make "green" technoledgy, they get funding from the government so it's no-brainer to them.
I do like LED for small parking lot's lighting, but it's not controlled enough for streetlighting IMO...
-
This doesn't seem like the United States of America I used to know, does the Constitution mean anything? Obviously consumers have less choices for lighting now.
-
I really hate to say this, but ever notice this country isn't nearly as free as the elementary school social studies textbook claims it to be? I really hate to think that, but it seems like it's becoming the truth...
While I'd like to see LED lighting improved on and appreciate the "eco" movement, it shouldn't be forced upon us either.
-
I agree, energy conserving light sources such as LED and induction should certainly be available. For instance, LEDs work much better in the freezer aisle at the grocerfy store than T12s or T8s and they work better for headlights and tail lights in vehicles over halogen ones since they last longer. They're also great for traffic signals and gas station canopy lighting but some places like for street lighting and especially floodlighting, LEDs are impracticle. Other options such as CMH would be better for street and floodlighting where energy conservation as well as color quality is important. HPS can be used where lowenergy consuption and lower upfront cost most important. LPS can be used where lowest energy consumption is the primary concern.
Not one light souce is more efficient than LPS. That said, not any light souce has worse color rendering, so the lamp may not appear as bright to the human eye, the same applies to HPS. This is where PSMH/CMH comes into play as the most efficient HID source in terms os usable light. HPS, PSMH, and LED have very similar efficencies, so why not pic the one with the better CRI at a lower cost? This is why i prefer PSMH/CMH for all commerical outdoor lighting such as streetlighting, floodlighting, wall packs, highmasts, yardblasters (yeah not commerical but still...), etc.
Just my two cents though hehe...
-
I really hate to say this, but ever notice this country isn't nearly as free as the elementary school social studies textbook claims it to be? I really hate to think that, but it seems like it's becoming the truth...
i hate to break it to you, but america has never been the rose-coloured fantasyland that elementary schoolbooks teach you about. sure, they tell you about the revolution, but they don't tell you about the tar-and-feathering of tories. they tell you about the bill of rights, but they don't tell you about the alien and sedition act. they're happy to tell you about the civil rights movement, but fail to mention that the only reason the movement was necessary is because the democrats allowed the republicans to steal the presidency in 1877 even though they lost the electoral vote, on the contingency that they would no longer enforce the provisions of the 14th and 15th amendments. they love to talk about the 1950s as times of great economic growth, simplicity and family solidarity, but they fail to mention the fact that the top tax bracket was 91% of income, that the federal government funded asbestos research even though they knew it was killing people (it killed my grandfather who worked for the government), and that black people couldn't ride on the front of the bus.
they don't tell you about all the people that have suffered at the hand of, or suffered due to the inaction of the government because it doesn't make for a nice, patriotic story. the theme in the textbooks is that 'everything in american history was done for the right reasons, even though it may not have turned out perfectly, they had the interest of everyone at heart'.
people like glenn beck, for example view this country where somehow everything was perfect in the 'good ole days', and because he's coming from that mindset he thinks we've somehow veered off track. in reality individuals in the last 15 years probably have more opportunity and freedoms than any generation preceding them, i think mainly due to the internet— the internet opens closed doors and makes it impossible to get away with anything these days. while it certainly does seem to make life more complicated on a day-to-day basis, we have an unprecedented level of transparency, not because the government has given us that ability, but because we've taken it for ourselves. i think because of the internet we'll probably be able to hold government officials more accountable than we've ever been able to before, and maybe take back some of those rights that were removed from us, whether decades or centuries ago.
-
The majority of politicians no matter what party they're affiliated with do not care about people anymore. They're only concerned about getting re-elected and having power.