Re: Pearls Before Swine: Rat The Luddite

On 2024-08-08 23:21:21 +0000, Bobbie Sellers said:

On 8/6/24 14:18, Your Name wrote:

On 2024-08-06 11:40:02 +0000, Mad Hamish said:

On Tue, 6 Aug 2024 16:25:08 +1200, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
wrote:

On 2024-08-06 03:14:09 +0000, Bobbie Sellers said:

On 7/7/24 05:38, Christian Weisgerber wrote:

On 2024-07-07, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
 

LED bulbs are largely a scam for bulb makers to stuff more money into
their pockets.

 Here's some realistic numbers:  I replace a 40 W incandescent bulb
with a LED one.  Aldi middle isle, 2 euros.  Residental power is
about 0.40 euros/kWh here, so the bulb will have paid for itself once
it has saved 2/0.40 = 5 kWh.  It produces the same illumination at
1/10 of the power of the incandescent, so it saves 40 - 40/10 = 36 W.
5000 Wh / 36 W = 140 h, so if used one hour each day, it will have
paid for itself in under five months.  If it eventually dies after
10,000 hours instead of a promised 30,000, so be it.
 You can plug in numbers that are applicable to your situation and
in your part of the world.
 

 Â Â Â Â That is theoretical saving. Down at the Power Company the
receipts are down due to power saving so to pay for maintenance
and emergency repair service they must raise the price of your
power. This is what happened in California at least in the
San Francisco Bay Area and the Pacific Gas and Electric Company
is now mainly a power distribution company and they are putting
lines under ground now in sensitive areas which we are helping
to pay for.  As well as Battery Farms to save all the wind & solar
power generated while the sun is shining and wind is blowing for
those times we call night.
    And if stops some wild fires in sensitive areas
then it will be worth the additional cost because the day
after the sky turns red with smoke it comes down to where
we must breath.
 Â Â Â Â bliss

 Yep. and none of that new greeny nonsense, including LED bulbs, are
actually any better for the environment than the old versions anyway.
So it's simply a waste of money "look good" promotional exercise.

 No doubt you actualy have figures to prove that assertion is
correct...

 You simply have to look at the facts.
 Electric cars are claimed to be better for the environment, mainly due to the lack of exhaust gases. The reality is that the manufacturing and disposal of the battery pack is highly non-green, the extra weight of the cars is causing all sorts of issues, and the generation of the extra electricity to charge them is often non-green as well (including the manufacture and disposal of solar panels, wind turbines, etc.).
 And that doesn't even include the destruction / disturbance of large areas of land and sea for electricity generation "farms" and the sheer "visual pollution" ugliness of loads of wind turbines.
 Most of these ridiculous ideas have been rushed through simply to appease the greeny brigade with zero actual thought of the full consequences.

  So you are a climate change denier?

Oh dear, another fool with zero reading comprehension skills and makes things up to suit themselves as to what they *think* I was saying ...game over, you lose. Another idiot for the killfile.  :-\

Think that Global Warming is all a Chinese Scam?
Look at the numbers if your are not innumerate.
Do you not believe in the lack of Arctic Sea Ice?
Think that the changes in Antarctica ice pack are illusory?
  Do you believe that the Moon Landing was faked?
  bliss