18 Seconds Can Change The World »
Posted By Scott-O-Rama 1 year, 7 months ago in NewsWhat takes just 18 seconds to do but can help change the world?
Read Full Story at 18seconds.org »
Submitted By:
Scott-O-Rama
Smart, snarky, sarcastic, irreverent, and queer as a $3 dollar bill... Come visit me at my website!
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 48
-
-
-
0%
sotiris-k1 year, 7 months ago
Be SMART
do the MATH !!!!
local market;
1 X brand conventional light bulb 100w =$0.55
1 X brand Spiral Fluorescent Compact 26 Watt = $6.35
Now the important detail here is that the 26W one behaves like the 100W old in terms of luminocity in other words its the same brightness as the 100W one but it demands 75%less power for the same result. So dont see 26W and get scared here. The output is the same. Another serious detail here is duration. The FL one will not last only 750h as the old one claims. How long will it? A lot more maybe over 5 times that maybe over a year with heavy usage. But you wont even have to wait 750h to see the savings; (av. cost in my location $0.12/KWh) So;
old one in 750h :0.55 750*0.12*0.100=0.55 9=9.55
new one in first 750h 6.35 750*.12*0.026=6.35 2.34=8.69
Even if the FL failed after first month (it wont) you would be looking at energy profit.
(continued)
Reply
-
-
0%
IcCaRus1 year, 7 months ago
good for you scott! we are in the process of changing every bulb in the house to CFL... were about 1/2 way there. they are expensive initially, but the savings on our electric bill will more than pay back the investment... not to mention the benefit to the environment, which is even more important! one bad thing is that these bulbs burn sorta yellow, and arent as bright as incandescent. however, because they are much cheaper to burn, you can solve this by going up a notch. for example, if you are replacing a 60W regular bulb, go with a 75W equivalent CFL, replace a 75 with a 100 and so on. even though you are going up a notch, your electric bill will STILL be much lower. plus, these bulbs last anywhere from 4 to 10 times as long as incandescent bulbs. a real win-win...
the cost DOES need to come down, for low income folks, the savings on the electric bill dont matter if you cant afford the bulb in the first place.
great find scott, thanks
Reply-
50%
czyaaloon1 year, 7 months ago
The government should pay to reduce the cost so everyone can benefit. With everyone getting free bulbs everyone would benefit by not using some much energy. Why should the poor be forced to carry the burden of higher costing energy just because they are poor. California should lead the way by starting a program that addresses this. The energy companies should be taxed to provide the funds.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
neuroticus1 year, 7 months ago
These types of websites wouldn't be necessary if power companies and governments charged consumers the real cost of providing power. I mean to say, the short term cost of fuels and distribution...and also the long term costs associated with global warming. If power companies passed this cost on to consumers (instead of just chiding the Hummer driving/ incandescent bulb people for being naughty, and saving the bill for our grandchildren), that would be the best motivation to cut down on carbon emissions.
Reply-
0%
Amazing11 year, 7 months ago
If power companies charged the real cost, the money would go to the CEOs.
Reply -
100%
m-simon1 year, 7 months ago
We could lower the cost of power by a factor of 10X with no greenhouse emissions by building these:
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2006/11/easy-l
Then leaving your lights on wouldn't matter.
Tell your Congress critters.
Reply
-
-
83%
consensusisnotscience1 year, 7 months ago
But did they tell you that these bulbs contain mercury and have to be recycled or thay will pollute the earth? and did they tell you that they can only be returned to official recycling places? and did they tell you that you may have to drive for miles (as many as 100) to find one of these official places? And did they tell you that anyone other than an idiot would realize that you would burn far more fuel recycling these bulbs than they could ever save? Either they are making big bucks off of these things by duping you, or they must think you're an idiot. Well, I guess if you think that changing a light bulb would make one iota of difference in the environment of the whole world, they may have a point...
Reply-
0%
simonsez1 year, 7 months ago
Did they also tell you they are best used where lights are left on for long periods of time, rather than turned on and off. They take more power to start up.
In the summertime, with daylight savings, our lights (one or two at a time) may be on only an hour or so before we are off to bed. Doesn't pay to make this change; and the light they give off is depressing!
Reply-
0%
sotiris-k1 year, 7 months ago
This is not true for the typical bulb (not tubes). In my experience it takes about 1 min to reach max luminocity and its already up to 70% instantly anyway . Nothing like hours . Plus most people leave the lights on for long periods in the place they study, or cook, eat have fun, use computers whatever. If you find the luminocity depressing buy 2 of them and get for 50% of the energy otherwise a lot brighter output close to 200% (maybe 150% according to you still huge>100)
If you use a lamp that diffuses most of the light anyway by your bedside you will find that 26W much more bright than any 75W uncovered old one . Brightness is very important to me too. I will not compromise on brightness (because i read/use pc etc and hate low light) no matter what. Maybe you should try the new ones they are better at this than they used to be 3-5 years ago.
Reply
-
-
0%
sotiris-k1 year, 7 months ago
Why dont you put some numbers to your argument ? While at it dont forget the glass used for the old ones that you have to buy 10 times more frequently . What about this wasted glass then? I want to see details about the mercury argument as well and how you conclude that recycling them will cost more than the saving? Are you kidding me? The single bulb during a 10000h life cycle will save about 750 KWh . This is the total monthly usage of an average home! Are you telling me that to recycle this bulb will use more energy than an entire month's for a 4 person home? Will the recycling procedure involve using a power of 31 KW and last 24 hours per bulb??? As for having to drive far give me a break . Open a box and place all your used FL bulbs there. After 10 years the box will be full and you can take it for recycling LOL. A one time event. I like how easy it is to demolish such simplistic arguments i dont care if you are republican or not or pro big oil or not BE PRO MATH LOGIC!
Reply
-
-
0%
SeriousKiddingdotcom1 year, 7 months ago
Well, that's a pretty good story. I have changed some bulbs out, but not all. No excuse on my part. Well wait: how 'bout "the dog ate my homework?"
Reply -
50%
braveone1 year, 7 months ago
so hey Scott,
you part of the marketing dept or sales???
flourescent lites are efficient, but the production and disposal of the toxic chems and gasses nullifies any environmental greening accolades.
plus the color of the lite is horrid at best.
I'll keep my vacume burners thank you very much
Reply -
0%
Taganan1 year, 7 months ago
Sierra Club attorney David Bookbinder "Anything that people put into the air can be an air pollutant. The question 'Does it do something bad?' is what matters."
Many governments are declaring CO2 to be a pollutant, a greenhouse gas. Do you breathe? Then you are a polluter, because you exhale CO2. Governments tax polluters, so the next tax will be on breathing and those who can't or won't pay the tax will have to be stopped from breathing. That is logic to this kind of environut.
"Why would you regulate as a pollutant an inert gas that is vital to photosynthesis and that people exhale when they breathe? That's not a pollutant." Eron Shosteck employee of Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.
Reply-
0%
Hamlet1 year, 7 months ago
One needs to breathe.
One does not need to add TONS more CO2 to the atmosphere annually. There is a difference between what is needful and what is not.
Perhaps you have taught your children to go easy on the toilet paper, that they don't need to use half a roll every time they go to the bathroom?
Well, it is the same principle- waste not want not. Don't take or use more than you need to, whether it is t.p. or money or oil or washing powder or food.
Any conservative (eg one who conserves resources) should be able to get that one thru the ol' grey matter without fears of seeming to be liberal (eg generous and broad-minded).
Reply-
100%
czyaaloon1 year, 7 months ago
You're right people should be living in areas close to their jobs. Not in the subs, not out in the back country where they burn those massive SUVs to get to and from work. Let'm take the rails. There should be either laws to restrict people to limit their travel or taxes them so harshly they are forced to migrate to the cities. The only ones "living" on the land should be the farmers.
Everyone has to be more efficient before the pollout everything and just tell our kids to clean it up. This is where the gas companies could be expolited to fund public transportation.
Reply
-
-
100%
Taganan1 year, 7 months ago
Sierra Club attorney David Bookbinder "Anything that people put into the air can be an air pollutant. The question 'Does it do something bad?' is what matters."
Many governments are declaring CO2 to be a pollutant, a greenhouse gas. Do you breathe? Then you are a polluter, because you exhale CO2. Governments tax polluters, so the next tax will be on breathing and those who can't or won't pay the tax will have to be stopped from breathing. That is logic to this kind of environut.
"Why would you regulate as a pollutant an inert gas that is vital to photosynthesis and that people exhale when they breathe? That's not a pollutant." Eron Shosteck employee of Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.
Reply -
100%
Taganan1 year, 7 months ago
Sierra Club attorney David Bookbinder "Anything that people put into the air can be an air pollutant. The question 'Does it do something bad?' is what matters."
Many governments are declaring CO2 to be a pollutant, a greenhouse gas. Do you breathe? Then you are a polluter, because you exhale CO2. Governments tax polluters, so the next tax will be on breathing and those who can't or won't pay the tax will have to be stopped from breathing. That is logic to this kind of environut.
"Why would you regulate as a pollutant an inert gas that is vital to photosynthesis and that people exhale when they breathe? That's not a pollutant." Eron Shosteck employee of Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.
Reply -
0%
Taganan1 year, 7 months ago
Sorry about repeats, glitch in system.
The point is that man is contributing about .002% of the rise in atmospheric CO2 per year, the rest all comes from nature and life in general. If all combustion was banned, the Earth would continue to warm, but a lot of people would die from cold and starvation.
For 8000 years the Earth was warmer than today and in the last 1000 years it has cooled a lot and is now warming again. It would seem that it is normal for the Earth to be warmer. The cold period only seems normal because we lived in it. GW or Climate Change happens. Deforestation [not tree farming] increases the effect of man-made CO2 by 20%. Plant trees and other plants. Biofuels recycle the CO2 back through the new fuel crops. Increased CO2 levels increase plant growth, producing more food. Pollution is not good, but let's not be crazy and destroy civilization in a panic of fear. We will adapt to and survive the climate change.
Reply-
0%
ybdogsct1 year, 7 months ago
TAGANAN:
"The point is that man is contributing about .002% of the rise in atmospheric CO2 per year, the rest all comes from nature and life in general."
I don't mean to hijack the post, but where did you get this figure (0.002%)? I'd like a direct link to your source.
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/1998/98_10_22.
"Increases in greenhouse gas in our atmosphere can create changes in global temperatures that, in turn, disrupt the environmental balance. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an important component in the potent chemical cocktail of greenhouse gases. It is the gas whose concentration is most affected by human activity. The major source of human-made CO2 emissions is the burning of fossil fuels. CO2 concentrations have increased by more than 20% in the short period since industrialization and are expected to double sometime after the year 2040."
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct1 year, 7 months ago
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volg
"Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 1998) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!"
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct1 year, 7 months ago
Analysis of Milankovitch cycles and solar forcing fail to account for the speed with which the current global warming event is occurring. Solar forcing can only account for 20-30% of the global warming due to greenhouse gases--AT MOST.
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.
"From the short record we have so far, the trend in solar irradiance is estimated at ~0.09 W/m2 compared to 0.4 W/m2 from well-mixed greenhouse gases."
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob
"Solar variability certainly plays a minor role, but it looks like only a quarter of the recent variations can be attributed to the Sun. AT MOST." [my emphasis]
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct1 year, 7 months ago
Previous global warming events have followed ice ages. It's not clear what may have caused these previous global warming events, although it could have been a combination of natural factors. What's indicative regarding the current global warming event is that it is unlike any other in the Earth's history. Instead of elevated atmospheric [CO2] lagging 800-1000 years after a global warming event, the CO2 is actually increasing simultaneously with average annual global temperature increases. Coupling this with the IR absorption spectroscopic determinination of CO2 and CH4, which indicates significant absorption of IR, indicates that elevated CO2 is the primary driving force behind the current global warming event. And, as indicated in my last post, humans are the primary emitters of CO2.
Reply
-
-
0%
airglide1 year, 7 months ago
Couldn't have said it better. Changing to more efficient light bulbs makes sence from an economical perspective as do fuel efficient cars. We have a history of doing something in a hurry that doesn't help.
Other info that goes along with your comment. 90 PPM increase in CO2 over a 300 year period. That's total from all sources.
Reply-
0%
simonsez1 year, 7 months ago
I would imagine most of you have seen the photos from the space station about the lights on in every country. Those lights are not from homes, they are from city lights left on.
Anyone asking cities to turn off a few lights at night? If Manhatten turned off a third of the lights left on at night how much power would be saved. Now multiply that by every city in the world!
Reply
-
-
100%
Amazing11 year, 7 months ago
There are pros and cons here. Primarily because of the issue of recycling the bulbs. Is there any work being done to figure that part out?
Reply -
-
0%
sotiris-k1 year, 7 months ago
The average Pc uses about less than 100 W (average power peak can be 300W but idle time is way down) . Even if left on 24h it would use less energy than a single 100W old bulb. Go get FL bulbs and use your computer freelly to have fun and educate yourself . Education will lead to more sensible decisions later and the fun will give you the courage and endurance needed to fight all the bs lies that we witness daily...
Reply-
67%
czyaaloon1 year, 7 months ago
Not mine...i've got a dual video card setup along with a dual CPU...i can hardly wait to get a quad CPU rig. i play my games hard on high res. And with my music i've got it rockin...man, just rockin.
And that's just one of my rigs, i've got three more all run just fine. i've got only one LCD the others are old CRTs as i can't afford more. but i can actually play a couple of rigs at the same time, gamin on one and SL. Cool, just cool.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
ningyo1 year, 7 months ago
it would take about 18 secs in 2008 to vote republican--that would be a better start--global warming is one thing--whats causing it another and mans contribution is just so insignificant--plus there is absoloutly no corelation between warming and co2 levels--thats not speculation..thats geology--a couple hundred million years of evidence--oh.. and to all you feel gooders that ran out to buy a prius or hybrid--seems the mpg's were way overstated--rolled back about about 25% or so--almost even with a regular 4 cylinder gas guzzler--without the extra enormous toxic polloution from making all those batteries..and battery making is one nasty business..now its light bulbs going to save the world
Reply-
0%
sotiris-k1 year, 7 months ago
Actually it probably takes more than 18 seconds to vote republican. It takes a lifetime of wrong thinking , wasted small depth education ,hypocritical superficial understanding of religious ethics etc. But i can assure you to a foreign observer it only takes 10 sec of a current presidential speech to get a serious clue about a massive crisis of intellect in this country's leadership...
Reply
-
-
0%
themim1 year, 7 months ago
Here we go again: "it's not our fault; pollution is a natural phenomenon."
"I'll think about it tomorrow."
All of you who think this way--It is tomorrow-and you'd better be scared.
Reply -
33%
themim1 year, 7 months ago
It's a shame that the Republican administration of the past few years has convinced you that everything is alright. Dumbing down people about important issues has been its agenda and so many of you have fallen for it. I cannot believe the collective naivete contained in this comment section.
Reply -
0%
gsquare1 year, 7 months ago
YBDOGSCT
You have it exactly right. However, you might as well save your breath. GW is a fact - Whats causing it is approaching a hoax. Clevland, Chicago and Detroit were under the great polar ice cap just 18 thousand years ago. There's been a whole lot of warming and melting going on not so long ago. We just survived the last big hoax; that being Y2K. We spent billions on a problem which was fixed and did not exist. At least with Y2k we knew the instant when we got screwed. This one will last a bit longer I fear. I cant wait till my nursery says "plant a tree" and save your grand child. What a crock. Expensive light bulbs save the planet - Give me a break
Reply-
0%
ybdogsct1 year, 7 months ago
GSQUARE:
"Whats causing it is approaching a hoax."
I'd like to see direct links for the scientific basis of this claim, as anthropogenic global warming has been accepted by a vast majority of practicing climatologists, meteorologists, chemists, and physicists. Where's your proof?
Reply
-
-
100%
simonsez1 year, 7 months ago
Global warming is going to become, perhaps, the largest money grab in the history of the world and it will, of course, be at the expense of the masses.
I invite you to read a story this AM on CBS Marketwatch about Kohlberg Kravis (KKR) and Texas Pacific Group to make an offer to buy TXU in Dallas.
KKR is not known for investing in utilities, particularly utilities planning to build 11 coal fired power plants in the near future. But with the coming application of "carbon credits", they recognize the money making possibilities.
You have bought into this "people caused calamity" that is going to destroy us all; so you better grab your ankles cause the bull is coming.
Reply -
0%
themim1 year, 7 months ago
Keep going - you're appearing dumber by the minute.
"Liberal agenda;" what is that exactly?-That's a term that's been given to you folks who are severely "dumbed down."
Reply -
-
0%
simonsez1 year, 7 months ago
Recent NY Times story ... Wall Street gearing up to trade "carbon credits".
Flash ... bonus pot grows by another billion dollars in 2008.
Here's how it works. A 50 year old coal-powered power plant is too expensive to renovate and yet too valuable to shut down because of the value it adds to the balance sheet.
So, the government gives it a "CO2 Pollution allowance", which becomes a new product that can be sold.
This plant can now reduce staff, maintenance, raw material costs, etc., can operate at 10 or 20% capacity and SELL carbon credits.
They are adding less power to the grid, so power cost goes up to accomodate lower supply.
That old power plant becomes very valuable again.
Reply -
0%
simonsez1 year, 7 months ago
Another NY Times story in last 6 weeks ... A power plant in China can buy a "scrubber" for $5 million to significantly clean up their pollution.
They will be allowed to collect $50 million from the Chinese government, the profit of $45 million to be shared by the owners of the plant and BANKERS IN LONDON!
Does this story bother anyone?
Reply -
0%
simonsez1 year, 7 months ago
To paraphrase Paul Simon "There will be 50 ways to game the system for money". And, as usual, we pay for it.
Reply
Add a Comment
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.