I liked “Blade Runner”, but the cities were dark and depressing.

Anyway, everyone wants us to change our household lighting to CFL’s regardless of whether or not the light that they provide is adequate for a given task. As I have posted before, I like halogens for doing exacting work because the light mimics sunlight the best and incandescents for reading because of their softness. CFL’s at my house are reserved for fixtures that see lots of general illumination use (bathrooms, security, etc.). No one seems to want to mention that nearly 100% of office buildings use fluorescents already, and we still have this CO2 scare. Also, no one seems to care about earlier studies regarding potential health hazard of fluorescent lighting:

http://www.holisticmed.com/toxic/fluorescent.html

I believe several such studies were done in the 70′s, but most of the health hazards were discounted due to energy savings. However, it is still interesting that the research ever happened. And even though the mercury content is “minimal”, 5 to 20 milligrams per bulb or tube becomes significant when you start talking about billions of fixtures.

Regarding Hill’s comments on coal gasification, the technology does show some promise but I don’t see where you save on CO2 emissions. The equation (2C* + 2H2O => CH4 + CO2) from the GreenPoint Energy website shows the Step 1 CO2 release. The CH4 is yielded as usable methane (i.e. natural gas), and the CO2 goes where? I think the combustion equation for methane is CH4 + 2O2 (from air) => CO2 + 2H2O, which demonstrates the Step 2 CO2 release. Again, this CO2 goes where? There are also some nitrous oxides emitted since air is around 80% nitrogen, and some trace sulfur oxides. Don’t get me wrong, it is awesome that the gasification process lowers the SOx and NOx originating with the coal significantly, but since all that we are worried about is CO2 where is the benefit?

Think about it.

I liked “Blade Runner”, but the cities were dark and depressing.

Anyway, everyone wants us to change our household lighting to CFL’s regardless of whether or not the light that they provide is adequate for a given task. As I have posted before, I like halogens for doing exacting work because the light mimics sunlight the best and incandescents for reading because of their softness. CFL’s at my house are reserved for fixtures that see lots of general illumination use (bathrooms, security, etc.). No one seems to want to mention that nearly 100% of office buildings use fluorescents already, and we still have this CO2 scare. Also, no one seems to care about earlier studies regarding potential health hazard of fluorescent lighting:

http://www.holisticmed.com/toxic/fluorescent.html

I believe several such studies were done in the 70′s, but most of the health hazards were discounted due to energy savings. However, it is still interesting that the research ever happened. And even though the mercury content is “minimal”, 5 to 20 milligrams per bulb or tube becomes significant when you start talking about billions of fixtures.

Regarding Hill’s comments on coal gasification, the technology does show some promise but I don’t see where you save on CO2 emissions. The equation (2C* + 2H2O => CH4 + CO2) from the GreenPoint Energy website shows the Step 1 CO2 release. The CH4 is yielded as usable methane (i.e. natural gas), and the CO2 goes where? I think the combustion equation for methane is CH4 + 2O2 (from air) => CO2 + 2H2O, which demonstrates the Step 2 CO2 release. Again, this CO2 goes where? There are also some nitrous oxides emitted since air is around 80% nitrogen, and some trace sulfur oxides. Don’t get me wrong, it is awesome that the gasification process lowers the SOx and NOx originating with the coal significantly, but since all that we are worried about is CO2 where is the benefit?

Think about it.