ST Alpha - "from an efficiency standpoint, assuming you can get the transmission costs down, it's far better to burn coal in a plant to make electricity to run " (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 152

In response to "have they? CFLs are a terrible substitute, given their manufacturing cost and toxic nature.." by colinski

from an efficiency standpoint, assuming you can get the transmission costs down, it's far better to burn coal in a plant to make electricity to run

Posted by Reagen (aka Reagen) Jul 10 '09, 13:27

cars than to to burn gas in each individual car, simply from scaling factors.

And yes, CFLs are a stopgap on the way to LEDs, but their "toxic" nature is wildly overstated. Funny that no one has a problem with there being fluorescent lights in every office, mall or commercial building.

Responses:

i'm only bringing up the toxic due to the EPAs wild procedures for breakage of one.. - colinski Jul 10, 13:31 2
- certainly I didn't make the change to CFLs when they were $20 a bulb. But they're well past the point of economic benefit now. -- nm - Reagen Jul 10, 13:36
- Personally, I am not a huge fan of CFLs, except for lights that are on 24/7 (or nearly so). However, I am excited about LED lights. -- nm - Beryllium Jul 10, 13:32

Post a message top

from an efficiency standpoint, assuming you can get the transmission costs down, it's far better to burn coal in a plant to make electricity to run

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.