joe-daddy wrote:Interesting, just today, I heard an 'expert' assure the audience that man made output accounts for less than 4% of all C02 output, nature being responsible for the rest.
Thats probably a correct figure BUT..
The big difference between the 4% and the 96% is that the 4% comes from manmade or more accurate from carbon that have been deposited in the earth for billions of years.
The 96% have always been recycled in the nature. When a plant grows it breath in CO2 and use the C (carbon) for growth and releases th O2 (oxygen). When the plant eventually dies it will be consumed by different biological processes that creates CO2 again (the 96%). As long as we let thoses processes be undisturbed the CO2 produced will not have an impact on climate because there has always been a balance. But man is disturbing that balance when deforesting big areas, for example the Amazonas ond the slopes of Himalaya.
The 4% coming from fossil carbon (coal and oil) will for ever (or at least for a very very long time) disturb the eco system.
Nils-Olov
Varnet wrote:Minor nitpick: studies estimate that annual man-made CO2 output overwhelms annual volcanic output by a factor of roughly 150 times. snip
Minor nitpick: studies estimate that annual man-made CO2 output overwhelms annual volcanic output by a factor of roughly 150 times. snip
I do recall the green team telling us in 1972 that we had just over 20 more years and we would have depleated every ounce of petroleum on the earth. I heard those reports sitting in line waiting to fill up my tank.
Greenland. . .
Seems to me that the issue is so outrageously hyped by both sides that it is impossible for the fellow in the street to sort fact from fiction.
And Dave, I'm not meaning in any way to offend, but I got to tell you that about every other day or two, some weather person on the radio/tv tells me that something is going to happen and it does not. The weather, inspite of all the applied science still cannot tell us reliably what is going to happen day over day. The five day forecast is at best an approximation from what I see.
So, how about those Rockies?
Better yet, has anyone reserved a Triplex from MTH?
Joe
da_kraut wrote:I wish they would make LED light bulbs. Frank
I wish they would make LED light bulbs.
Frank
Ah, but they do. I don't remember the company name at the moment, but on a recent episode of Mythbusters (in which they test the myth "Is it more efficient to leave the lights on, or turn them off") they obtained and included in the test an LED light bulb. In the on/off cycle test, it proved to be the only one out of 6 types of bulbs that didn't burn out. The other types were: regular incandescent, CFL, metal halide (the "blue" streetlight type, also used in security lights, etc.), regular "tube" flourescent, and a spotlight type (maybe halogen?) bulb. The other test was current draw, and as I recall, the current draw went something like this:
Regular incandescent: 90w
CFL: 10w
Metal Halide: 40w
Tube flourescent: 40w (single tube)
Spotlight (Halogen?): 100w
LED: 1w
Light output was not measured for this test, as it didn't (directly) relate to the myth. I must admit, that LED bulb looked like something from a SCI-FI movie.
I'm in the process of converting my vehicles (cars, trailers) to LEDs. I like both the lower current draw, easing the electrical load on the car, and the nearly forever life expectancy on these. I'll try an LED bulb in the house, if and when I find an affordable source.
Brad
EMD - Every Model Different
ALCO - Always Leaking Coolant and Oil
CSX - Coal Spilling eXperts
da_kraut,
Great name, BTW... The main problem with LEDs right now is that LEDs are unidirectional, almost like a weak laser pointer. LED bulbs have to have little LEDs all over to avoid lighting a room like a stationary disco ball. It's an obstacle, but one that just needs a little more work to overcome. Give it a little time. I'm waiting myself.
You're right about the question of manufacturing... Generally, though, the more of something is made, the less energy per unit it takes to make them, and the cheaper they are to make. Large-scale CFL production is just around the corner as Walmart is trying to push the technology, and even Britain is (I believe) considering banning standard incandescents. I'm not advocating that (I'm an American; I don't like laws telling me what I can't buy -- besides, CFLs are ill-suited for places like bathrooms and closets, as others have noted here, because rapid on-off cycles shorten their lives), but I think it means that they'll be making lots more.
But good point; it takes energy to make things that save energy... At what point do we break even?
Even more important, at what point to we throw up our hands in frustration, go grab a beer, and go run trains? Now!!!
Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.
That's a great question. CFL's do require more energy to manufacture, but this factor is offset over the lifetime of the bulb, which is much longer than an incandescent bulb. As well, CFL's use considerably less energy, further offsetting the manufacturing difference.
edited for clarity
Hello,
I wish they would make LED light bulbs. It can not be that hard considering that a lot of christmas lights have gone the LED route. This I believe is the best way to light our homes and offices due to the fact that there is such a low power consumption for the light produced and also a very very long life span.
It is also interesting that all that we look at is the power consumption when the product is being used. What about the amount of energy required to make the product? I bet that if we factor in the amount of energy and raw materials consumed in making the flourescent bulbs along with the ballasts required to get the bulbs to work then the incandescant fixture looks pretty good. Let us not forget that the little flourescent which we screw into our light sockets all have electronic ballasts as well in the base.
Not trying to start a flame war but just wanting to point out another angle to the energy consumption debate.
"If you need a helping hand, you'll find one at the end of your arm."
Minor nitpick: studies estimate that annual man-made CO2 output overwhelms annual volcanic output by a factor of roughly 150 times. Too, as Dave mentioned, the sulphurous aerosols released in a typical volcanic eruption actually have a cooling effect, overcoming any heating effect from the CO2 released.
Meanwhile, back on topic :)
Has any one experienced problems with the UV output from fluorescent lights fading or damaging plastics or other materials? Or is it neglible enough to be a non-issue?
And for those of you using fluorescent bulbs to light your layout, what type are you using: Warm White, Cool White, Daylight, or something else?
Tattoo,
Thanks for a well-stated, mature rebuttal! If only our politicians could learn to debate like this...
As a forecast modeler (my research uses smaller-scale shorter-range models like the WRF/ARW and NHMASS) I completely understand garbage-in/garbage out. Indeed, one of the biggest problems in any modeling, but especially climate modeling, is that we never have a perfect handle on "initial conditions." It's a big challenge! And sensitivity to initial conditions, a characteristic of all nonlinear systems, is why we can really only forecast general patterns, and not specific weather, more than 10-14 days out. So you have a very valid point.
You must be OK, you're an N scaler!
A very interesting thread. Thanks Dave for starting it. When I was flying out of Ft. Wolters Tex. We had an Air Force weather guy there that gave us great service. After giving us the weather he'd tell us to look out the window to be sure. Great sence of humor.
I read lately that China and India are putting out 40% of the polution from coal mine fires that are going on and not being controled. If that could be changed it would help alot.
A few more thoughts;
1) recycle the plastic styrene sprues, or other plastic waste, in your curb side blue box instead of throughing them out. in the garbage.
2) do not flush your solvents (or gas line deicer, brack fluid, etc) used for stripping paint down the toilet or dump it into the ground. Instead, collect your waste, label it properly, and when neccessary take it to your local recycling/waste centers.
Empty Net
Tattooguy,
I'll try my best not to get too argumentative here... And I do appreciate that you put it politely!
I'm not talking about Mr Gore. You're right; he talks a great talk but leaves a much bigger carbon footprint than you or I. I'm not defending that.
But then, I work for the United States Air Force, the world's largest consumer of oil. Do I feel a bit guilty about that? You bet!
As a meteorologist with a BS in MS in meteorology, and having passed my PhD candidacy exams in meteorology (i.e., I'm more qualified to speak on the issue than Mr Gore), I do want to clarify something that's been a much misunderstood issue.
30 years ago, it's true, folks were worried about global cooling. This phenomenon has since been traced to, among other issues, particulate matter (pollution) in the air acting to reflect sunlight (sulphur dioxide, a product of coal burning, is well known for this property, and is the reason volcanic eruptions have a cooling effect). The Clean Air Act changed that so we have less sulphur in our air. Less sulphur means less acid rain. But more sunlight reaches the surface. There's no free lunch.
The main difference, however, between the 70s and now is the advent of General Circulation Models based on the full set of dynamic equations and parameterized physics which can be used to predict climate. They all have flaws, and none of them agree on the exact outcome of the future. Unfortunately one thing they all agree on is that the future climate they predict looks vastly different (and warmer!) than the current one.
I'm not likely to sway anyone here, and Tattooguy, I'm sure I haven't changed your mind. But I do hope I've convinced you that we in the atmospheric sciences are not just winging it, and neither are we a bunch of non-thinking lemmings that have to sing the company song.
I used to be a big-time skeptic. I laughed at Mr Gore's first book, Earth in the Balance. But the evidence became overwhelming to me to the point that I was unable to remain in denial. Gosh, I hope we're all 100% wrong about this!
Anyway, I'm just doing my best to make sure my trains have less impact. I personally feel like "better safe than sorry."
One company manufactures at least some of their bulbs in the US. Feit Electric has a manufacturing facility in Pico Rivera, CA and another in China. I use their daylight bulbs in the layout room and am replacing the rest of the bulbs with cfl's as they burn out.
Tom
Life is simple - eat, drink, play with trains!
Go Big Red!
PA&ERR "If you think you are doing something stupid, you're probably right!"
Nice job Dave!
1 - CFLs - Lke many of you, yes, I am a fan of CFL's more for heat management, but with 35 bulbs over my layout, I'd rather not be using a couple of KW per hour when I have the lights on!
2 - Foam - Interesting how no one has mentioned foam, which is manufactured from petroleum and not a renewable resource. I suppose the only acceptable use of foam for modelers would be if the foam is recycled.
3 - CRT monitors - It seems many of us have computers in our train rooms. Replacing the CRT with an LCD monitor reduces electrical demand and is therefore green.
4 - Enamel - Use of enamel instead of acrylic paint would also fall into the category of being less abusive to the environment.
5 - LED's instead of incandescents for layout lighting reduces current demand while improving reliability.
6 - Smoke - I suppose buying locomotives with smoke generators are contributing to the brown cloud and affect global warming. (I wonder, how many billion HO locomotives with smoke would it take to equal mount St. Helens?)
7 - Move to N Scale - We all know how much more efficient N scale locomotives are and the smaller layouts would use less support materials and power.
Interesting Dave.
Our current house (built 9 years ago) uses can lights everywhere....in our kitchen, we have 6 can lights alone. They were equipped with 75W Halogen flood bulbs. When they were on, you could stand under them and get a sunburn on your head.....I replaced them with CFL flood bulbs that look just like regular flood bulbs, yet they only consume 16W of energy and produce more lumens than the halogen bulbs.
Every ceiling fan in the house has received CFLs as well as the breakfast tabel light.....over 35 bulbs to date. I have already seen a drop in our electrical bill, plus the A/C doesn't run as much thanks to the reduced heat load from the lights. Not to mention the dose of freon to bring it up to spec helping reduce the cycle time....every little bit helps.
Don Z.
Research; it's not just for geeks.
rayw46 wrote: I'm not familiar with the terminology, but I assume by, CFL, you mean the fluorescent bulbs that screw into a regular incandescent socket. It's my understanding that these bulbs contain mercury, recognized worldwide as a serious environmental health hazard. And if I'm not mistaken, the EPA has banned the manufacture of these bulbs within the U.S. for that very reason. Theoretically, if you were to break one of these bulbs, you are required to call a hazardous materials cleanup company to decontaminate the area. That doesn't sound very enviornmentally, or economically friendly, but that's just me. Of course, this all depends on whether or not I am mistaken, which is something that has happened a few times; well maybe more than a few. Ray
I'm not familiar with the terminology, but I assume by, CFL, you mean the fluorescent bulbs that screw into a regular incandescent socket. It's my understanding that these bulbs contain mercury, recognized worldwide as a serious environmental health hazard. And if I'm not mistaken, the EPA has banned the manufacture of these bulbs within the U.S. for that very reason. Theoretically, if you were to break one of these bulbs, you are required to call a hazardous materials cleanup company to decontaminate the area. That doesn't sound very enviornmentally, or economically friendly, but that's just me. Of course, this all depends on whether or not I am mistaken, which is something that has happened a few times; well maybe more than a few.
Ray
Compact Fluorescent Lights (CFL) do, in fact, contain trace amounts of mercury. Yes, if you break one, you should probably call someone in to clean it up, just as you should if you broke a good old-fashioned mercury thermometer. I checked my CFLs, and they appear all to be made in China. Then again, so is everything else these days. I don't know whether the EPA has banned manufacturing in the US; in fact the EPA has recently been very vocal in advocating CFL usage.
From Wikipedia (I know, I know... not the most reliable source...):
CFLs, like all fluorescent lamps (e.g., long tubular lamps common in offices and kitchens), contain small amounts of mercury[32][33] and it is a concern for landfills and waste incinerators where the mercury from lamps may be released and contribute to air and water pollution. In the USA, lighting manufacturer members of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) have made a voluntary commitment to cap the amount of mercury used in CFLs:
Under the voluntary commitment, effective April 15, 2007, NEMA members will cap the total mercury content in CFLs of less than 25 watts at 5 milligrams (mg) per unit. The total mercury content of CFLs that use 25 to 40 watts of electricity will be capped at 6 mg per unit.[34]
Coal power plants are "the largest uncontrolled industrial source of mercury emissions in Canada".[35] According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), (when coal power is used) the mercury released from powering an incandescent lamp for five years exceeds the total of (a) the mercury released by powering a comparably luminous CFL for the same period and (b) the mercury contained in the lamp.[36] It should be noted, however that the "EPA is implementing policies to reduce airborne mercury emissions. Under regulations issued in 2005, coal-fired power plants will need to reduce their emissions by 70 percent by 2018."[37].
Some manufacturers such as Philips and GE make very low-mercury content CFLs.[38] In 2007, Philips claimed its Master TL-D Alto range to have the lowest mercury content of any CFL on the market, at 2mg.[39]
Safe disposal requires storing the bulbs unbroken until they can be processed. Consumers should seek advice from local authorities. Usually, one can either:
The United States Environmental Protection Agency publishes guidelines on how to clean up after CFL tube ('bulb') breakage [40] and recommends that, in the absence of local guideline, CFLs be double-bagged in plastic bags before disposal.
The first step of processing CFLs involves crushing the bulbs in a machine that uses negative pressure ventilation and a mercury-absorbing filter or cold trap to contain and treat the contaminated gases. Many municipalities are purchasing such machines. The crushed glass and metal is stored in drums, ready for shipping to recycling factories.
rayw46 wrote: I'm not familiar with the terminology, but I assume by, CFL, you mean the fluorescent bulbs that screw into a regular incandescent socket. It's my understanding that these bulbs contain mercury, recognized worldwide as a serious environmental health hazard.
I'm not familiar with the terminology, but I assume by, CFL, you mean the fluorescent bulbs that screw into a regular incandescent socket. It's my understanding that these bulbs contain mercury, recognized worldwide as a serious environmental health hazard.
Substantially wrong. The amount of mercury is very small, There are urban legends about calling hazmat teams to clean up broken CFLs, but that's related to a couple of cases (maybe one) early on when people didn't understand the fact that the risk is minimal.
http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/cfl.asp
rayw46 wrote: And if I'm not mistaken, the EPA has banned the manufacture of these bulbs within the U.S. for that very reason.
You're totally mistaken. Their website is out of date, since there are other manufacturers of CFLs in the US today, but this company is proud to claim their CFLs are made in America.
http://www.lightsofamerica.com/usmade.htm
rayw46 wrote: Theoretically, if you were to break one of these bulbs, you are required to call a hazardous materials cleanup company to decontaminate the area. That doesn't sound very enviornmentally, or economically friendly, but that's just me.
Completely wrong, see snopes listing above. Do you also believe that there are alligators in the sewers below NYC?
rayw46 wrote: Of course, this all depends on whether or not I am mistaken, which is something that has happened a few times; well maybe more than a few.
Including this time.
Dave Vollmer wrote: MAbruce wrote: Dave Vollmer wrote: 2. Layout lighting. I use fluorescent lighting, but that's really not as eco-sound as it could be.... Why not? Standard fluorescent lighting is more efficient than incandescent lighting to be sure, but still uses more power and gives off more heat (wasted energy) than CFL or LED.BTW, I'm very, very happy about how civil this has been! I don't mean to sound "preachy." I do try to do my best (I drive a Prius and use almost exclusively CFL lighting), but I'm hardly doing enough myself.Energy is an issue I'm very "aware" of, having served in the Middle East. Any way you cut it, many of the same steps leading scientists say we need to take to mitigate climate problems (again, you may not agree on this point) are the also ones we need for energy independence (and hence, national security). Even we model railroaders can take part.I'm all for a Nobel Prize in Model Railroading. Heck, if guys like Kim Jong Il and Achma-dina-what's-his-name (Iranian beard guy) had trains to play with, maybe they wouln't be playing with nukes!
MAbruce wrote: Dave Vollmer wrote: 2. Layout lighting. I use fluorescent lighting, but that's really not as eco-sound as it could be.... Why not?
Dave Vollmer wrote: 2. Layout lighting. I use fluorescent lighting, but that's really not as eco-sound as it could be....
2. Layout lighting. I use fluorescent lighting, but that's really not as eco-sound as it could be....
Why not?
Standard fluorescent lighting is more efficient than incandescent lighting to be sure, but still uses more power and gives off more heat (wasted energy) than CFL or LED.
BTW, I'm very, very happy about how civil this has been! I don't mean to sound "preachy." I do try to do my best (I drive a Prius and use almost exclusively CFL lighting), but I'm hardly doing enough myself.
Energy is an issue I'm very "aware" of, having served in the Middle East. Any way you cut it, many of the same steps leading scientists say we need to take to mitigate climate problems (again, you may not agree on this point) are the also ones we need for energy independence (and hence, national security). Even we model railroaders can take part.
I'm all for a Nobel Prize in Model Railroading. Heck, if guys like Kim Jong Il and Achma-dina-what's-his-name (Iranian beard guy) had trains to play with, maybe they wouln't be playing with nukes!
I was unable to find any hard numbers comparing CFL's and standard fluorescent lighting - most comparisions are between incandescent lights and CFL. HOWEVER, I did find information that CFL's will lose 20-25% of their lighting power by mid life - so to maintain a given light level over a period of time, you will need more wattage with CFL's that with fluorescent. Also if CFLs are turned on and off for short periods of time it can reduce their life span by up to 80% - so you don't want to put them in closets or places where you only need light for a couple of minutes.
Also, heat generation by light bulbs is not always a bad thing. Air that is heated by a light bulb doesn't need to be heated by a furnace. (No, I'm not suggesting that you pull out your furnace and heat the house with your layout lighting. I'm just pointing out that so-called waste heat is not always wasted.)
George
"And the sons of Pullman porters and the sons of engineers ride their father's magic carpet made of steel..."
Dave Vollmer wrote: MAbruce wrote: Dave Vollmer wrote: 2. Layout lighting. I use fluorescent lighting, but that's really not as eco-sound as it could be.... Why not? Standard fluorescent lighting is more efficient than incandescent lighting to be sure, but still uses more power and gives off more heat (wasted energy) than CFL or LED.
OK, I see what you mean now. 40W per tube vs. 20W (max) CFL. However, I've always wondered how many CFL's it would take to match the output of a standard duel 40W tube fixture?
The other efficient lighting method I've heard of is fiber optic lighting. One lighting source gets transmitted throughout a fiber optic network (dozens of strands, each ending in an outlet). Not sure how effective it has been to date.
BTW, I'm very, very happy about how civil this has been!
So far, so good. But the weekend is coming...
This space reserved for SpaceMouse's future presidential candidacy advertisements
Dave, they don't give a Nobel Prize for Model Railroading, but if they did how much would a million dollars be in N scale?
Dave,
Very good post, I enjoyed reading it very much. You've made some seriously good points and I will do my best to conserve energy from now on. I will also start to look for eco-friendly products when/where ever I can.
BTW, please tell Al Gore that he owes me $750 for that 30lb. cylinder of R-12 refridgerant that I got for him last week on the black market. Don't ask me what he needs it for.
Ted M.
got trains?™
See my photos at: http://tedmarshall.rrpicturearchives.net/
Yeah, I'm sorry folks, but that stuck in my gullet when I heard about it, too. Sheesh.
I'm afraid my layout is a real barn fire when I am working on it or playing with it. I have no fewer than 10 mini-halogens in track lighting, 50 watts each. Compared to my lighting, my motive power requirements are small change.
Still, the missus and I are stingy on power. We could do even better, such as unplugging little safety lights in dark places, but safety comes first...everywhere. Besides, they're light sensing and turn off when the ambient light reaches a threshold. As for TV's and other constantly drawing devices, if I have to I'll do it. When I have to, I'll know it. Right now, I am not convinced of the whole cause and effect thing with global warming. Temporal proximity does not mean correlation
simon1966 wrote:If you carry on like this Dave you will have a Nobel prize before you know it!! Not for anything to do with the environment, but for begging pitifully to avoid a flame war. A peace prize at the very least I would say.
And, unlike Al Gore, Dave would actually deserve it!
I use CFL's in most places, with a few exceptions.
The bathroom, they don't appear to last due to the very high humidity and high number of on/off cycles.
The garage I'm usualy in and out in which case they don't reach full brightness or are not on long enough to save much if anything. If I' know I'm going to be in there for 5+ min, I turn the CFL overhead on, but again that's rarely the case.
The dining room - the light fixture is dimable, with a bunch of the small bulbs.
The kids bed room - when it needed on, it's needed at full brightness from the moment it's turned on , besides they have broken the incandecent bulb in their room 3 times with just playing around - need I say more?
Extra bedroom down stairs - excet when the inlaws stay for a visit ( once every 3-4 yrs ), it's just just not used, and in the 9 yrs we have been in this house, it hasn't needed to be replaced yet.
Other than that;
When I know that I'm not going to use the computer for more than an hour, I put it in stand by mode.
Meals/cooking habits in summer and winter change to avoid having to cool or heat the house more than nessary. In the winter more baking is done and what heat leaves the oven helps warm the house. While we will make use of a electric roaster of crock pot outside on the deck to cook things in the summer.
We live in a dry climate and vent the electric dryer into the house in the winter, this adds moisture to the air, and what heat leaves the drier also warms the house after it's used to dry the laundry, and keeps the furnace from working as much. In the summer we dry with little to no heat ( if it's a rainy day we will use the lowest heat setting ).
We make use of the clocks that are on Radio's, TV's and VCR/DVD's - so while they stay plugged in, we don't have the need to also have a seperate clock plugged in, in the same room.
The furnace room has vents, near the floor and near the celing, so that even after the furnace shuts off, the residual heat escapes into the used parts of the house.
All the heat vents in the unused rooms in the basement are closed so that heat is directed into the parts of the house that see use.