Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Yes, I'm serious. Really.

http://vimeo.com/18917974

Yeah just so you know that was all utter complete bullshit.
The hybrid really does use much less gasoline and goes up and down hills just fine. And it IS an internal combustion engine, with a battery backup, so that 70% of potential energy which we've been wasting for over a hundred years can finally have some of it reclaimed. Thats why its called a hybrid and not an electric. Video maker should have criticized the nasty crap they need to make the batteries, which has no good argument at all.

The fluorescent bulb uses even less than 25% of the energy of its incandescent bulb counterpart, which means fewer of your precious wetlands plowed over to make new power plants. And it comes on instantly nowadays, and the disposal method is no worse than what the other bulbs were required to have, but people just got used to ignoring those instructions. I'm sure they will do the same with these ones as well.

And the main reason Obamacare is broke is because of what the conservatives did to it. But once again the guy making the video did not wanna acknowledge that.

The only one that was dead on was the low-flow toilet. That sucker needs double the flushes to get working right and was a huge mistake from the beginning. I had one at my last apartment and the on call handyman got tired of coming to fix it every other day. Eventually they swapped it out with a real toilet.

CMON MAN! Try harder! Theres plenty of real things to be angry about. If you've gotta make stuff up or focus on the stupid, piddly, unimportant things, you really arent looking at the world too closely.

Don't let it worry you, Short. It's all Sarah Palin's fault anyway

ShortMan wrote:Yeah just so you know that was all utter complete bullshit.
The hybrid really does use much less gasoline and goes up and down hills just fine. And it IS an internal combustion engine, with a battery backup, so that 70% of potential energy which we've been wasting for over a hundred years can finally have some of it reclaimed. Thats why its called a hybrid and not an electric. Video maker should have criticized the nasty crap they need to make the batteries, which has no good argument at all.

The fluorescent bulb uses even less than 25% of the energy of its incandescent bulb counterpart, which means fewer of your precious wetlands plowed over to make new power plants. And it comes on instantly nowadays, and the disposal method is no worse than what the other bulbs were required to have, but people just got used to ignoring those instructions. I'm sure they will do the same with these ones as well.

And the main reason Obamacare is broke is because of what the conservatives did to it. But once again the guy making the video did not wanna acknowledge that.

The only one that was dead on was the low-flow toilet. That sucker needs double the flushes to get working right and was a huge mistake from the beginning. I had one at my last apartment and the on call handyman got tired of coming to fix it every other day. Eventually they swapped it out with a real toilet.

CMON MAN! Try harder! Theres plenty of real things to be angry about. If you've gotta make stuff up or focus on the stupid, piddly, unimportant things, you really arent looking at the world too closely.

In fairness your mostly right, but I don't have a problem with my low-flush toilet.

My problem is --WHO has the rights to force me to Drive a Horrid Crappy car that I hate -And I SAY HATE-- I pray for the day I can find a 60s car and truck so Ill be able to drive what I like until I finally die -!!!
No way will I drive the kind of car the libs want me to -!!

I have those Curly Cue Light bulbs In my work place --I notice if you look at one more than a few seconds when you turn away It leaves a burn on your retina ..

I hate the liberals and there agendas .
Cant understand why Im leaving NY

Jakeiscrazy wrote:In fairness your mostly right, but I don't have a problem with my low-flush toilet.

You obviously are not eating enough!

Would the Greatest Moments in Conservative History be a never-ending listing of "pro-family" "anti-gay marriage" men that got busted screwing other dudes?

Zing!

Semi-seriously (because the above does seem to happen an awful lot) hybrids are actually not a good investment unless you drive alot on level terrain. You'd have to burn a lot of fuel to justify the purchase price of one of those little guys.

I put all CFLs in my house and was able to cut the electric bill in half, they paid for themselves already. Finding dimmable ones was a pain though, and they're not as controllable as incandescents, but oh well.

My electric bill was also cut in half. They were paid off in two months and after that it was good savings. They also last a lot longer. And I dont bother with fully dimmable bulbs, the three stage type are nice enough for me.

ShortMan wrote:Yeah just so you know that was all utter complete bullshit.
The hybrid really does use much less gasoline and goes up and down hills just fine. And it IS an internal combustion engine, with a battery backup, so that 70% of potential energy which we've been wasting for over a hundred years can finally have some of it reclaimed. Thats why its called a hybrid and not an electric. Video maker should have criticized the nasty crap they need to make the batteries, which has no good argument at all.

Hybrids for small cars are a poor idea. The weight added to the car from the car is a major problem as are the chemicals used for the batteries. If you think we are making a lot of toxic chemicals for our laptops and phones now, just wait until every car has them! The EPA standards are seriously flawed for hybrid MPG. Most owners of those 70MPG cars get significantly less, usually mid-high 40s. When they build a regular sized small car they usually get low to mid 40s. You can almost get that with a manual gas car and diesels in Europe easy eclipse that.

Where hybrids make the most sense is exactly where they are used the least: people who drive very large automobiles around the city. The slow, stop and go traffic is perfect for electric motors; it is horrible for internal combustion engines. Better still is a diesel electric setup like locomotives. Vastly better than all of the silliness of filling your car with batteries.

No matter how you slice it, we need resources to enable modern life. Wasting resources is always a bad idea, but the liberal model of using the government to mandate the solution is a terrible idea. At the very least the government shuts down all competing alternatives by fiat.

ShortMan wrote:The fluorescent bulb uses even less than 25% of the energy of its incandescent bulb counterpart, which means fewer of your precious wetlands plowed over to make new power plants. And it comes on instantly nowadays, and the disposal method is no worse than what the other bulbs were required to have, but people just got used to ignoring those instructions. I'm sure they will do the same with these ones as well.

If this is correct (http://www.eia.doe.gov/ask/electricity_ ... y_lighting) than only 15% of the average household power bill is due to lighting.

Residential lighting consumption was about 208 billion kWh, equal to about 15% of all residential electricity consumption.

It depends on your CFL, but they are are much better than 25% more efficient on average. More like they only use 25% of the power of an incandescent bulb. I.e. your reference frame is flipped.

For a given light output, CFL's use 20 to 33 percent of the power of equivalent incandescent lamps. Since lighting accounted for approximately 9% of household electricity usage in the United States in 2001, widespread use of CFL's could save as much as 7% of total US household usage.

The lower usage is probably mostly due to model used to estimate the power. Using the worse number of 15%, saving 75% of your lighting power would reduce your power usage by about 11%. The average bill in the US appears to be $104.52 (http://www.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/ ... _home#tab2), thus an 11% reduction would yield about $11.50 a month in savings. The really nice CFLs which are designed to have virtually no negatives concerning light spectrum, instant on, lumens, etc. cost nearly $5 a piece. Of course you can get them cheaper, but the quality of light is not comparable in most cases. The average users is either going to loose light quality or it will take 1-3 years to recoup the costs.

I replaced all of my bulbs because I have a lot of recessed lighting which was using flood lights. In my situation it made a lot of sense as the CFLs significantly reduced the heat output, but that isn't true of the average user. Banning incandescents is silly IMHO. There are still applications where they are vastly superior and besides, I guess you think you are better and more knowledgeable about what other people need in their houses?

As a side note, the average monthly usage is 908kWHr in the US (same reference as the last). An 11% savings is only 100kWHr a month, which is 3.33kWHr a day, which is only a 139W continuous load. I bet your PC uses at least that much. Even if you power everything off in your house, the zombie load is probably that much. I think we should pass a law which requires you to unplug every electronic device in your house until you need it to eliminate the zombie load. We can create a massive bureaucracy to monitor you in your house too and of course the minimum punishment is 10 years in jail for ever 5mins you don't comply. Clearly I know what is better for you and think of the wetlands I will save controlling your activity.

ShortMan wrote:And the main reason Obamacare is broke is because of what the conservatives did to it. But once again the guy making the video did not wanna acknowledge that.

That has to be one of the funniest things I have ever read. (5 of 5)

The whole concept is demonstrably unsustainable according to game theory, unless you allow the federal government to do what I suggested they do to you above concerning your zombie load. The only way the system the democrats were suggesting could possibly work (even in theory) long term is if we give up all remaining freedom concerning health care. Besides, all of the problems they are trying to fix they caused from previous reform...remember the insurance companies are only doing what Congress mandated they do.

What changes are you talking about? The conservatives didn't vote for it, so why did Obama need any of their changes? You "compromise" to get votes which he didn't get so WTF? The changes you reference were to buy off the blue dog democrats, not conservatives. Take a little reality pill with your state sponsored propaganda.

Come on Garret and tell us what you think.
LOL Bill

When I was taking Electricity in school (many years ago BTW), we hooked up 40 incandescent lights (more than in a typical household) to a watt-hour meter supplied by what was then VEPCO, known today as Dominion Power. With all of the lights on, you could not see the meter move. Therefore, I highly doubt that changing all the lights in your house to CFL's cut your bill in half. There would have to be other things that you did as well in order to see that kind of savings.

I have tried CFL's. I hate them! The color, being tempermental to start, etc. Let's not forget that they are considered to be hazardous waste as well! (Had to throw that in for any tree huggers present!)

LED's on the other hand, are a better alternative IMHO. Yes, they are pricey right now. With any new technology, at first it is expensive, then as it gains acceptance and the technology improves, the price comes down.

Yarddawg wrote:When I was taking Electricity in school (many years ago BTW), we hooked up 40 incandescent lights (more than in a typical household) to a watt-hour meter supplied by what was then VEPCO, known today as Dominion Power. With all of the lights on, you could not see the meter move. Therefore, I highly doubt that changing all the lights in your house to CFL's cut your bill in half. There would have to be other things that you did as well in order to see that kind of savings.

It is possible, but not likely. I would require that they were using really inefficient versions like flood lights which give off a lot of heat. Also, really inefficient AC and insulation so that the power required to get rid of the heat from those inefficient bulbs is multiplied. Also couldn't hurt if they were the kind of people who leave all their lights on and/or are lacking windows (townhouse/condo?).

Yarddawg wrote:I have tried CFL's. I hate them! The color, being tempermental to start, etc.

With the cheaper ones that is especially true. Even the high end ones don't have great color or brightness when you first turn them on. There clearly is an increase in brightness and color quality.

Yarddawg wrote:LED's on the other hand, are a better alternative IMHO. Yes, they are pricey right now. With any new technology, at first it is expensive, then as it gains acceptance and the technology improves, the price comes down.

LEDs likely won't ever offer the color quality you are looking for. Another issue with LEDs is that they don't take too kindly to voltage fluctuations. They take even longer to realize the savings not only because price, but because they aren't that much more efficient than CFLs. Typical "60-75W" CFLs are using only 10-20W. LEDs are using more like 3-7W for equivalent lighting (which only the really, really expensive ones do). Yes, saving another 5-10W a bulb is nice, but it is significantly less than the 50-75W+ saved with CFLs. I don't see them taking off until they can match CFLs in price which may or may not happen. Besides, LEDs are semiconductor devices which make even batteries look like green tech. Some of the chemicals used to make LEDs, solar panels, and ICs are the most toxic known to man. Some of the cleanest water in the world comes out of fabs because of that.

gunderwood wrote:It is possible, but not likely. I would require that they were using really inefficient versions like flood lights which give off a lot of heat. Also, really inefficient AC and insulation so that the power required to get rid of the heat from those inefficient bulbs is multiplied. Also couldn't hurt if they were the kind of people who leave all their lights on and/or are lacking windows (townhouse/condo?).

Agreed.

gunderwood wrote:LEDs likely won't ever offer the color quality you are looking for. Another issue with LEDs is that they don't take too kindly to voltage fluctuations. They take even longer to realize the savings not only because price, but because they aren't that much more efficient than CFLs. Typical "60-75W" CFLs are using only 10-20W. LEDs are using more like 3-7W for equivalent lighting (which only the really, really expensive ones do). Yes, saving another 5-10W a bulb is nice, but it is significantly less than the 50-75W+ saved with CFLs. I don't see them taking off until they can match CFLs in price which may or may not happen. Besides, LEDs are semiconductor devices which make even batteries look like green tech. Some of the chemicals used to make LEDs, solar panels, and ICs are the most toxic known to man. Some of the cleanest water in the world comes out of fabs because of that.

Yes, you are correct that LED's are not exactly the "greenest" technology out there. Or are they? LED lights reportedly last 10 times longer than CFL's, create less heat (lowering your cooling costs), and no mercury.

http://www.greenzer.com/face-off_5

Cooling costs offset? The time of the year that the lights are used most is the time of year that the heat given off by lamps reduces heating costs.

Yarddawg wrote:Yes, you are correct that LED's are not exactly the "greenest" technology out there. Or are they? LED lights reportedly last 10 times longer than CFL's, create less heat (lowering your cooling costs), and no mercury.

http://www.greenzer.com/face-off_5

There are pros and cons either way and there is no perfect technology.

WRW wrote:Cooling costs offset? The time of the year that the lights are used most is the time of year that the heat given off by lamps reduces heating costs.

True. I know in my place that in the summer CFLs have made a huge difference. I get a lot of sun though so even in the winter my heat doesn't kick on much when the sun is out.

gunderwood wrote:

WRW wrote:Cooling costs offset? The time of the year that the lights are used most is the time of year that the heat given off by lamps reduces heating costs.

True. I know in my place that in the summer CFLs have made a huge difference. I get a lot of sun though so even in the winter my heat doesn't kick on much when the sun is out.

Problem is, that time of year is when the sun is "out" the least. And you are absolutely correct about landscaping having a considerable impact on heating and cooling costs. Evergreens to the north and deciduous trees to the south and west.

Yarddawg wrote:When I was taking Electricity in school (many years ago BTW), we hooked up 40 incandescent lights (more than in a typical household) to a watt-hour meter supplied by what was then VEPCO, known today as Dominion Power. With all of the lights on, you could not see the meter move. Therefore, I highly doubt that changing all the lights in your house to CFL's cut your bill in half. There would have to be other things that you did as well in order to see that kind of savings.

I over generalized, the previous owner (when we did our walk through) told me his last electric bill was $220(this being mid-december air conditioner usage was not a factor), I put in all CFLS (its a big house) and got a $120 bill.

Beyond that I didn't touch anything electrical.

The insulation is a whole 'nother story, this place was drafty as hell! I got a $250.00 gas bill already! Plugged up what i could, and am replacing the windows. Hoping its less next month!

Green "whatever" = liberal claptrap...global warming = homer simpson science...

zephyp wrote:Green "whatever" = liberal claptrap...global warming = homer simpson science...

Can't disagree with you though!