NationStates Jolt Archive

.

Do you know why we architects and engineers don't use more "natural lighting" in buildings? It means more windows. Glass isn't the best way to insulate a home. Lost heat means more energy used to heat or cool a home or business. A greater reliance on "natural lighting" would also mean that most businesses would have to either shut down or run at a reduced capacity at night.

CFLs like the one held up at the end of the video contain mercury. That already vaporized metal can leak into the air and get breathed in causing brain damage, skin discoloration, swelling, skin shedding, and numerous other painful and potentially deadly symptoms and complications. The safer and more energy efficient alternative to CFLs, LED lamps, are often ignored by environmentalists such as yourself for reasons that remain a mystery.

Headaches are not caused by too much light but rather by the type of light. Though excessive light can induce a pain response it is the harsh light flourescent lamps used in commercial projects that cause the headaches and stress. This is the reason that florescent lights are generally not used in homes. There are numerous other technical issues with fluorescent lamps that make them impractical in several situations, impede their efficiency, and make them generally a bother. These include but are not limited to flicker, operating temperature, power harmonics, power factor, ballast issues, color, dimming, and costly disposal.

The efficient materials and methods that you mention come at a cost, which is why they cost more. They have a higher intial cost because they require more work, more materials, sometimes exotic materials, and more energy for their production and installation. Why should the government step in and manipulate the market with corporate welfare in the form of tax breaks for certain companies whilst punishing others either through heavier taxation to compensate for the loss of revenue or simply deny them the same reduction in taxes?

I'd like to see how you came to the conclusion that commercial energy consumption could be cut by more than half with the methods that you mention, especially on existing construction, without costly renovations which may compromise structural integrity or cause leaks.

I have a few more criticisms of this video but I think I've done enough for now. I'd rate this a 1 out of 5 stars but I don't think I even want to bother registering. The lesson here? Environmentalists should never tell engineers how to do their jobs as the former are seriously lacking in a working knowledge of the latters profession. No one ever conserved their way out of a crisis. Leave this to the professionals, kid.

No one ever conserved their way out of a crisis.

Sometimes, there is one statement made at the end of an argument that is so stupid, it completely invalidates the preceding argument whether it's related or not.

Famine? An instance of being stranded? Severe metal or fabric shortage, or a hard winter in an agricultural village? Do these not qualify as crises?

so many good premisis and bad conclusions to both agree and disagree with, it would take multiple volumes no one would ever read to clearify my own position on all of them.

why would anyone who was concerned with the well being of nature and our dependence on it, be opposed to energy efficient bright l.e.d.s?

nor the someone who gets paid to do something being the only one who could ever possibly know how to do it position makes a whole lot of sense either.

nor for that mater, does, ever has, can or will, the pretence of symbolic value being a more intrinsic default condition of anything then real value make a whole lot of sense that i can make out of it either.

of course the origeonal linc being editid out doesn't help a whole lot either.

this seems like a made up argument to gratuitously create senseless divisions among people who'se verying areas of knowledge are of potentially greatest use to and with each other.

and that, isn't science or engineering or even art, but politics, plain, simple and self servingly brutal.

=^^=
.../\...

I think a lot more people would ride bicycles to work if they roared loudly. *nod*

I think a lot more people would ride bicycles to work if they roared loudly. *nod*

I would ride a bicycle to work if it did sixty miles an hour and required no leg movement.

Actually, a knowledge of how to build with glass in a way the uses the sun has been known for millennia. It involve making the eaves overhang the correct amount the the eaves shade the glass in the summer and let the light shine in in the winter. This was used in many ancient civilizations (minus the glass) to heat and cool homes.

Before Reagan removed the energy tax incentives houses were being built this way. Along with the angle of the eaves, a rock or concrete floor was installed to absorb the heat in the winter. The real innovation was to space two windows 6 inches apart, then in the summer the space during the day would be filled with styrofoam beads so the glass would be isolated. Then at night the beads would be sucked out and the windows would allow the indoor heat to bleed out.

In the winter the opposite was done. The sun would shine in during the day and greenhouse heat would be collected in the rock. Then at night the beads would be blown into the windows, thereby insulating the house and preserving the gathered heat.

When the tax incentives were removed, builders reverted to less costly building.

What happened to the link? Did Dutopia get so butthurt by my criticism that he baleeted it?

Mirkai, you end famine by acquiring new sources of food, not by cutting back on eating when you're already starving. The same can be said of the other crises you listed. You cannot solve a problem of shortage through reduction of consumption, that just makes the situation worse.

Cameroi, I do not know why there is opposition to LEDs from environmentalists any more than I understand their continued promotion of fluorescent lights. Perhaps you should ask an environmentalist about that.

I cannot fathom why you would object to my using my education in engineering to validate my criticisms. Appeal to authority or argumentum ad verecundiam is a valid logical argument. What you are arguing seems almost akin to ad ignorantium.

I can't quite understand what it is you're saying about symbolic gestures and value versus real value and effective measures but if you're saying that symbolism should be considered more important than efficiency and results then you are dead wrong in my opinion. The means and the ends are all that matters, motivation and intention have no value.

Even though the author of the thread got all butthurt and baleeted the OP content, his video has remained up at the Off the Grid Video Contest site and can be viewed here (http://www.offthegridvideo.com/viewMovie.php?movieID=22&page=1).

What I did had nothing to do with politics but rather came from a disgust with uneducated people who think that reading a pamphlet about wind turbines of CFLs makes them an expert on the subject of energy and an authority superior to true engineers. Leave this to those that have had training, it's our job to know this stuff and we've had training you lack.

You can, perhaps, avoid crises through conservation, but once the crisis is upon you it's too late for that.

The efficient materials and methods that you mention come at a cost, which is why they cost more. They have a higher intial cost because they require more work, more materials, sometimes exotic materials, and more energy for their production and installation. Why should the government step in and manipulate the market with corporate welfare in the form of tax breaks for certain companies whilst punishing others either through heavier taxation to compensate for the loss of revenue or simply deny them the same reduction in taxes?


There's short term cost and there's long term cost. If a builder is just looking at putting out a product as cheap as possible (which most today are) then that becomes the only incentive. It's easier to sell short term than long term because it takes no education of the public. Here's the house, this is the cost, it's $50,000 less than the environmental house down the street, sign here.

But if that other house saves $3,000 per year in energy costs, in the long run it becomes more efficient. It does take some education. This is the angle of eave overhang, this rock floor absorbs heat, this tankless water heater will pay for its self in two years, this ground source will preheat the air in winter and precool it in summer, this light uses half the energy, this light system will automatically turn lights off and on,....the list goes on.

For the government the long term cost can become less expensive than the short term cost. If the energy saving tax incentives of the late '70's were kept we would not be sending soldiers to Iraq right now, at a cost of billion$ and blood. If those billion$ had been invested in tax incentives the people would have had more money to spend which would be stimulating the economy today.

As an engineer you should understand waste. Waste comes off the net not the gross. Every time something is thrown away with no benefit the cost ripples through the economy. If the same job can get done with less cost that saved money also ripples through the economy. So if I can heat a house for $100/mo using energy saving technology or heat the same house for $500/mo under ordinary construction, that is like giving the citizen $400/mo extra spending power. That would be better than any tax cut over the last 27 years. In other words the government could have continued to collect the taxes and pay their bills (rather than borrow and spend and the H--- with the grandkids) and the economy would actually have more spending. So a little incentive by the government would have paid off big time for both the government and the people.

[QUOTE=Indri;13079979]
Mirkai, you end famine by acquiring new sources of food, not by cutting back on eating when you're already starving. The same can be said of the other crises you listed. You cannot solve a problem of shortage through reduction of consumption, that just makes the situation worse.
QUOTE]

And when there are no other sources, or when it regenerates very slowly?

The solution to the environmental problem that began in the Industrial Age lies in demand.

Just like people demanded that shampoos not be tested on animals, you need to demand the types of energy changes that you believe are necessary. If you believe that GE is a polluting company (I'd say they just pollute my mind with their media outlets), then write the company a letter. Protest in front of their offices. Boycott their products. Organize others to do the same. Pursue a demand solution.

But the moment you start getting the government involved, everything falls apart. I don't want my tax money flowing into bureaucracy that will only make the problem worse.

If you care about the environment--and I mean really, really care, not for political reasons or because it's cool, but because you really want to see pristine wilderness, clean, potable rivers, and abundant oceans, then you need to stop fueling companies that cause the unpleasant situations that bother you. If you eliminate the market for polluting products, you eliminate the pollution. If you "can't" stop buying these products (ie. gas, but you could just change jobs and get a bike), then write letters, organize, and protest. Use your money to organize a boycott, not to elect a politician that will use his power to bloat the size of government and manipulate the environmental cause for political gain, not out of genuine concern.

I think a lot more people would ride bicycles to work if they roared loudly. *nod*

which is evident by all those cars with baseball cards in their hubcaps.



...




what... I'm the only one who does this? :p

The solution to the environmental problem that began in the Industrial Age lies in demand.

Just like people demanded that shampoos not be tested on animals, you need to demand the types of energy changes that you believe are necessary. If you believe that GE is a polluting company (I'd say they just pollute my mind with their media outlets), then write the company a letter. Protest in front of their offices. Boycott their products. Organize others to do the same. Pursue a demand solution.

But the moment you start getting the government involved, everything falls apart. I don't want my tax money flowing into bureaucracy that will only make the problem worse.

If you care about the environment--and I mean really, really care, not for political reasons or because it's cool, but because you really want to see pristine wilderness, clean, potable rivers, and abundant oceans, then you need to stop fueling companies that cause the unpleasant situations that bother you. If you eliminate the market for polluting products, you eliminate the pollution. If you "can't" stop buying these products (ie. gas, but you could just change jobs and get a bike), then write letters, organize, and protest. Use your money to organize a boycott, not to elect a politician that will use his power to bloat the size of government and manipulate the environmental cause for political gain, not out of genuine concern.
QFT put up or shut up. *nod*

CFLs like the one held up at the end of the video contain mercury. That already vaporized metal can leak into the air and get breathed in causing brain damage, skin discoloration, swelling, skin shedding, and numerous other painful and potentially deadly symptoms and complications. The safer and more energy efficient alternative to CFLs, LED lamps, are often ignored by environmentalists such as yourself for reasons that remain a mystery.

When LEDs are purchasable from somewhere other than Radio Shack, maybe people will use them. There is nothing wrong with CFLs if they are disposed of properly.

I think Indri is my new hero.

I think Indri is my new hero.

I think you should refrain from making a hero of anyone that starts an argument with "we architects and engineers."

If you need to either announce or pretend you're an expert for your assertion to be worth reading.. well, what does that say about it in the first place?

I think you should refrain from making a hero of anyone that starts an argument with "we architects and engineers."

If you need to either announce or pretend you're an expert for your assertion to be worth reading.. well, what does that say about it in the first place?
You're just butthurt over getting pwned in an argument by someone who has had professional training in a pertinent field. What I did was present a clear argument criticising the work presented in the OP prior to its baleetion whilst using my professional training to show that I am an authority on the topic of applied science and validate what I said. Now I'm not saying that just because I say it is so, it is. What I am saying is that I have gone to college for this field of study and have a greater understanding of it than most people. Most people can't read architectural, mechanical, electrical, etc. drawings and understand everything on the; most people don't understand how things work so you don't generally go to most people to fix something they don't understand.

It is important to keep in mind that appeal to authority can be a fallacy when used incorrectly. The authority used must be informed and qualified to make the statements they make. You don't ask a janitor how to perform brain surgery any more than you would ask an astronaut to run the fry vat at a Wendy's. The Census Bureau gets to make claims about the population of the US. Mechanics get to discuss and debate engines and other machines. Architects and civil engineers get to talk about how to design cities. Protesters and hippies get to tell you which is the really good acid and which will make you sick.

There are clean, compact, safe sources of power and fairly clean, compact, safe, renewable sources of power. The problem is that they're generally considered unpopular and so ignored. Wood is a renewable resource; if you plant 6 acorns for every oak you cut down you'll have more trees then when you started. 99% of all naturally occuring uranium is depleted but can be tranmuted into plutonium fuel. rotting garbage gives off methane gas. There are real sources of power that can meet demand and there are engineers and scientists working on them now. Some people just don't like those sources of power even though they're everything they asked for.