Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567891011 LastLast
Results 40 to 52 of 143
  1. #40
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    1,253
    Quote Originally Posted by syndicated View Post
    Tar sands? Not subsidized I promise. Subsidizing? Yes.
    The oil sands are the only reason your premier dad can afford to pay solar producers over .80c Kw/h for solar.
    If equalization wasn't in effect, Ontario would have already gone bankrupt!

    By the way solar mike, they're called Oil Sands.
    "tar sands" is for the NDP
    BTW, for many more years, Ontario paid Alberta for the same reason, and many other provinces.

  2. #41
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    1,253
    Quote Originally Posted by syndicated View Post
    Lol, stop reading the Toronto star. Even mark carney doesn't buy that Dutch disease nonsense.
    The high dollar is not solely caused by the oil sands. The real value of our dollar has not increased nearly as much as the value of the US dollar has declined.
    If it weren't for the oil sands in Alberta, the gas and mining booms in BC and Saskatchewan this country would be a shambles.

    You're operating on old information on the oilsands as well. It is not NEARLY as water intensive as it used to be, in fact most water is recycled and those tailings ponds will be eliminated as most producers move towards in situ extraction.
    All Canadians should feel proud and fortunate we have these resources to take advantage of while the rest of the world flounders.

    I was born and raised in that hole called Ontario, moved to Calgary at 25. I can tell you that the country looks different once you've escaped the gravitational field of Toronto. I encourage all canadians back east to stop buying into mcguinty's nonsensical ravings. It's easy for him to blame everyone else!
    Well, I was born and raised in Nova Scotia in a town with a an aging steel mill and defunct coal mines so I don't have either an Ontario or Toronto centric opinion. I have a clean air issue and if you have to pay $.02/kwh more to get thousands of new jobs and start industries that WILL NOT need to be subsidized in the future, that is a price I am willing to pay. If you want to live in the past while others progress around you, you can still get bags of coal delivered to your door. I had to shovel that stuff into our furnace when I was a kid and it was not fun.

    I also had friends with "black lung" and thats no fun either.

  3. #42
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    1,253
    Quote Originally Posted by amd View Post
    I'm with solarmike on this one - they're tar sands.

    Oil flows, tar does not.

    It's dirty, crappy tar which has to be mined and processed into oil; doing so wastes a huge amount of natural gas and fresh water which could be put to better use.

    The worst part of it is that most of the oil produced gets exported.



    "Premier dad" is a ****en idiot.

    As for Ontario going bankrupt, the high dollar (caused by tar sand development) along with a drive to outsource manufacturing to the third world is responsible for that.
    Meanwhile, Alberta ranchers are complaining about water problems, poisoned wells from sour gas, and the lowest water table in memory (mind you, that is happening all over the North American mid west).

  4. #43
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    1,115
    Quote Originally Posted by SolarMike View Post
    BTW, for many more years, Ontario paid Alberta for the same reason, and many other provinces.
    Alberta received equalization payments a grand total of one year. That was the first year of the program. Alberta has paid into it every year, almost the exact amount that Quebec has pulled out. Check your facts.

  5. #44
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    1,115
    Quote Originally Posted by SolarMike View Post
    Well, I was born and raised in Nova Scotia in a town with a an aging steel mill and defunct coal mines so I don't have either an Ontario or Toronto centric opinion. I have a clean air issue and if you have to pay $.02/kwh more to get thousands of new jobs and start industries that WILL NOT need to be subsidized in the future, that is a price I am willing to pay. If you want to live in the past while others progress around you, you can still get bags of coal delivered to your door. I had to shovel that stuff into our furnace when I was a kid and it was not fun.

    I also had friends with "black lung" and thats no fun either.
    Look, I'm not arguing coal is a good idea, an the notion of "clean coal" is a cruel joke.
    My point is that the world needs oil, and would prefer to buy it from a secure source not run by a tin pot dictator or have their money support nefarious causes.
    Solar is great too, when it works and when it can compete.
    You speak of Alberta ranchers with bad wells? What about the people living under wind mills complaining of unexplainable health problems?

  6. #45
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Rochester NY
    Posts
    4,735
    Quote Originally Posted by Elfshadow View Post
    Just for your general information. Oil and Coal, are subsidized by the USA federal government. To compete, solar has to be subsidized as well. Before condeming "green" tech you might wanna find out if the current tech could stand on it's feet first.

    Lets be clear I want all subisides ended, because it messes up the markets, and causes things like Ethenal gas.

    Oh btw, you have fossil fuel subsides up in canada as well. The playing feild really does need to be evened out.
    TECHNOLOGY. It moves quickly. Truth today becomes inaccurate dogma in 15 minutes. It's really hard to stay on top of current circumstances.

    Remember the early Compact Flourescent bulbs? Not very compact, took a long time to fire, and light quality was terrible more often than not. I still get people referring to the experiences they had with bulbs 20 years ago as excuse to hate CFL's.


    Solar panels have gotten so cheap they can compete with the power plant in many areas, even without subsidies.
    Which makes more sense to you?
    CONSERVATION - turning your thermostat back and being uncomfortable. Maybe saving 5-10%
    ENERGY EFFICIENCY - leaving your thermostat where everyone is comfortable. Saving 30-70%

    DO THE NUMBERS! Step on a HOMESCALE.
    What is comfort? Well, it AIN'T just TEMPERATURE!

    Energy Obese? An audit is the next step - go to BPI.org, or RESNET, and find an auditor near you.

  7. #46
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    885
    Quote Originally Posted by tedkidd View Post
    TECHNOLOGY. It moves quickly. Truth today becomes inaccurate dogma in 15 minutes. It's really hard to stay on top of current circumstances.

    Remember the early Compact Flourescent bulbs? Not very compact, took a long time to fire, and light quality was terrible more often than not. I still get people referring to the experiences they had with bulbs 20 years ago as excuse to hate CFL's.


    Solar panels have gotten so cheap they can compete with the power plant in many areas, even without subsidies.
    Ain't that the truth. Of course CFL will be starting to be phased out as well soon now that LED bulbs are hitting the market.

    Solar has come a long way. With some of the recent break throughs the idea of a decentralized power network starts to become a little closer to reality.

  8. #47
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Rochester NY
    Posts
    4,735
    Quote Originally Posted by Elfshadow View Post
    Ain't that the truth. Of course CFL will be starting to be phased out as well soon now that LED bulbs are hitting the market.
    And even with lots of color options on CFL's, I think the LED color options are far superior (at least as of 3 weeks ago...)
    Which makes more sense to you?
    CONSERVATION - turning your thermostat back and being uncomfortable. Maybe saving 5-10%
    ENERGY EFFICIENCY - leaving your thermostat where everyone is comfortable. Saving 30-70%

    DO THE NUMBERS! Step on a HOMESCALE.
    What is comfort? Well, it AIN'T just TEMPERATURE!

    Energy Obese? An audit is the next step - go to BPI.org, or RESNET, and find an auditor near you.

  9. #48
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Jurupa Valley, CA
    Posts
    1,781
    Quote Originally Posted by Elfshadow View Post
    Ain't that the truth. Of course CFL will be starting to be phased out as well soon now that LED bulbs are hitting the market.
    LED's don't have THAT much better lumens/watt than CFL's, so I'm not sure the CFL's will really have a very aggressive phase-out schedule. The also haven't gotten the high-lumen systems out there in any competitive numbers for LED's yet. Just spent quite some time looking for some 100W equivalent dimmable bulbs for my kids rooms, and there is just nothing out there on the led front that can do it yet. Got some 23W dimmable CFL's, and honestly, the color is VERY good on them (3500K, really close to a good halogen bulb). Plus, the UV component of the CFL's really makes their glow-in-the dark stars on the ceiling come to life in a way they never did with the incadescent bulb I replaced... :-)

  10. #49
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Rochester NY
    Posts
    4,735
    Is "dimmable" the failure point? I'm seeing a lot of LED's in commercial spaces that IMO look better than CFL or incand.
    Which makes more sense to you?
    CONSERVATION - turning your thermostat back and being uncomfortable. Maybe saving 5-10%
    ENERGY EFFICIENCY - leaving your thermostat where everyone is comfortable. Saving 30-70%

    DO THE NUMBERS! Step on a HOMESCALE.
    What is comfort? Well, it AIN'T just TEMPERATURE!

    Energy Obese? An audit is the next step - go to BPI.org, or RESNET, and find an auditor near you.

  11. #50
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    885
    Quote Originally Posted by CraziFuzzy View Post
    LED's don't have THAT much better lumens/watt than CFL's, so I'm not sure the CFL's will really have a very aggressive phase-out schedule. The also haven't gotten the high-lumen systems out there in any competitive numbers for LED's yet. Just spent quite some time looking for some 100W equivalent dimmable bulbs for my kids rooms, and there is just nothing out there on the led front that can do it yet. Got some 23W dimmable CFL's, and honestly, the color is VERY good on them (3500K, really close to a good halogen bulb). Plus, the UV component of the CFL's really makes their glow-in-the dark stars on the ceiling come to life in a way they never did with the incadescent bulb I replaced... :-)
    THe main advantages of LED vs CFL is longevity and lack of mercury. At the moment you are absolutely correct about them. They are to expensive and do not have the output to replace halogen, although I'm sure that will be coming in time. That being said the idea have having bulbs last for decades is appealing.

  12. #51
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Jurupa Valley, CA
    Posts
    1,781
    Quote Originally Posted by tedkidd View Post
    Is "dimmable" the failure point? I'm seeing a lot of LED's in commercial spaces that IMO look better than CFL or incand.
    dimmable is part of the failure point, though that will come. The other failure point, is light density and focus. LED's, having a primary illumination direction, require some extensive lensing/element arrangement to get an even near-360° Light that a traditional incadescent or CFL have. This has been part of the problem in residential adoption - and why companies like Switch have gone with an oil filled light (as well as it's thermal dissipation capabilities) and why phillips is using a remote phosphor surface to emanate light in a more disperse pattern - added complication that still makes their newly displayed 100W equivalent LED household style bulb still use the same amount of power (23W) that the CFL does, but cost 5 times as much. The dimming capability IS better on LED bulbs that support it, being able to got down to near 0% dimming, where CFL's are usually limited to around 15-20% or so.

    Commercial spaces, on the other hand, HAVE seen better LED adoption, but that is because they are most likely not limited by the standard household fixture. LED light is perfect for indirect light-bar type applications, and for directional lighting (R20, R30, etc), which are used quite a bit in commercial can lighting. I, personally, have in stalled a lot of LED R20 and LED PAR38 bulbs at work, and I do expect them to last a VERY long time. But, they are directional lights, and are not dimming uses.

  13. #52
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Columbus Ohio
    Posts
    2,019
    I just switched my entire house over to LED lights in an effort to save on our electric bill.

    I am pretty disappointed in the light output as a whole compared to CFL's and incandescent.

    You do get used to it though. I had to add a few CFL's back in the mix to even out the lack of lighting, especially in the basement.

    Technology will get better with LED's and residential lighting.
    UA LU189

    10mm, because it's better than .45acp

Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567891011 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event