Yet another "law of unintended consequences"

[Vandy Vol]

BWAAAHAHAHA.....wait...what does that even mean?

Ask your son.  He's probably seen it on teh yew toobs.

[Snaggletiger]

Ask your son.  He's probably seen it on teh yew toobs.

He is banned from teh tewbz until he's 27.

[Saniflush]

He is banned from teh tewbz until he's 27.

Bet he can still tell you about the starfish cleaning.

[chinook]

He is banned from teh tewbz until he's 27.

unless he marries to someone "like his mom"... then it's the mid-40's. 

[Vandy Vol]

He is banned from teh tewbz until he's 27.

Such an asshole...trying to keep all of the fun for yourself...

[AUTiger1]

unless he marries to someone "like his mom"... then it's the mid-40's.

Zing!

[GarMan]

This is merely a point of semant... 

OK...  I give up.  All diodes are the same...  All LEDs are diodes...  Therefore, all LEDs are the same regardless of their semiconductor material, "gap", voltage, current, casing material, physical dimensions, light spectrum, other design specifications and flavor...  That makes sense to a third grader, but it's hardly true.  And, it's not even close to a semantic argument when you're considering real-world applications. 

A) Those people with headaches are pussies, B) we have devices that can detect and record spectra, so I'm not sure why we'd have to guess where in the spectrum LED light would fall.

I figured you'd already have the information to refute this concern.  You seem to be such an expert on everything else. 

By the way, LCD monitors don't use LED as a source of backlighting.  Well, they can, but if they are advertised as an "LCD monitor," then they use a fluorescent backlight.  An LCD monitor that has LED backlighting will be advertised as an "LED monitor" or "LCD-LED monitor."  Given the fact that LCD-LED monitors are still not that popular (but are more popular for televisions), and given the fact that the initial LCD monitors up until the last few years were backlit by fluorescent lights, I would assume that these headaches are due to fluorescent lighting, not LED lighting.

My bad...  I didn't realize that I had to spell everything out for you.  While early LCD televisions and desktop monitors may have used fluorescent lights, notebook computers have been using LEDs since the 90s.  The displays on these notebook computers have been known to cause fatigue, eyestrain and headaches among other things.  So, PHUCK EM!  Let's get the government to pass some more bullschit green legislation so we can flood the market with overpriced technology that has not had a chance to be proven in the real world.  That'll show 'em!  And, we'll make millions!!!

I'd call $15 billion wasted annually a financial burden, especially considering that the incandescent bulbs that we are powering are using 80% of their energy consumption on producing heat, not light. 

I'd call $15B a farfetched pile of horse squeeze, especially since the government has been shifting to alternative sources of lighting for the past couple of decades.  Even if it were true, when the government plans to spend $2.5T this year, that $15B expense becomes an insignificant drop in the bucket at less than 1% of the total spend.  And, don't get me started on our government's pathetic energy policy that has really created this mess in the first phukin' place... 

[GH2001]

I'd call $15 billion wasted annually a financial burden, especially considering that the incandescent bulbs that we are powering are using 80% of their energy consumption on producing heat, not light.

I would call spending 900 billion dollars TWICE with nothing to show a much bigger waste of taxpayer money.

[Vandy Vol]

OK...  I give up.  All diodes are the same...  All LEDs are diodes...  Therefore, all LEDs are the same regardless of their semiconductor material, "gap", voltage, current, casing material, physical dimensions, light spectrum, other design specifications and flavor...  That makes sense to a third grader, but it's hardly true.  And, it's not even close to a semantic argument when you're considering real-world applications.

The semantics argument was in regard to your statement that not all diodes produce light.  My point was that, yes, they all produce light, it's just that the light is not seen either because A) the diode is encased in an opaque substance that prevents us from seeing the light, or B) the light is infrared.  I was merely pointing out that all diodes do produce light.  Not being able to see the light doesn't mean it is not produced.  My reference to semantics had nothing to do with the variations between diodes.

All of these variations that you list don't ultimately change the basic manner in which a diode works and the manner in which it emits light.  If it did, then not all diodes would produce light, as different diodes would operate in extremely different manners.  The variations that you point out are relatively minute alterations that change the color of the light, change the manner in which current is regulated, change the intensity of the light, etc.  However, these aren't vast differences that introduce entirely new health hazards that we've never dealt with before.

My main point is that the makeup of the LED is essentially the same whether it's used for a monitor or a light bulb.  The size may be different, and the semiconductor material may be different, but when you start talking about these "dangerous" chemicals that are present in "new" LED light bulbs, they're the same chemicals that are in the "old" LEDs.  So, unless you're claiming that a larger "gap" in the LED is a health hazard, or that the new semiconductor material is a health hazard, I don't see where these minor variations are of any health concern.

Again, I am asking you to point out these potential hazardous differences to me.  I'm not claiming to know everything, but when you first use lead as an illustration, it's not convincing; incandescent bulbs contain lead.  When you then point to arsenic and phosphor as examples of potentially new health hazards with these LED light bulbs, it's not convincing; virtually every LED currently in use contains phosphor, and many LEDs currently in use contain higher levels of arsenic.  If there is a new health concern related to these LED bulbs, then it hasn't been pointed out yet.  That's all I'm asking for.
 

My bad...  I didn't realize that I had to spell everything out for you.  While early LCD televisions and desktop monitors may have used fluorescent lights, notebook computers have been using LEDs since the 90s.

Laptops have not been using LED backlighting since the 1990s.  Sony has used LED backlights in some of its higher-end slim VAIO notebooks since 2005.  Fujitsu introduced notebooks with LED backlights in 2006.  In 2007, Asus, Dell, and Apple introduced LED backlights into some of their notebook models.  As of 2008, Lenovo has also announced LED-backlit notebooks, and other companies like HP will also be marketing LED-backlit notebooks in the near future.  This is a relatively new manufacturing concept for laptops that didn't even begin to occur until the mid-to-late 2000's.
 

I'd call $15B a farfetched pile of horse squeeze, especially since the government has been shifting to alternative sources of lighting for the past couple of decades.  Even if it were true, when the government plans to spend $2.5T this year, that $15B expense becomes an insignificant drop in the bucket at less than 1% of the total spend.  And, don't get me started on our government's pathetic energy policy that has really created this mess in the first phukin' place...

First, it's $15 billion annually, not just a one-time savings.  Second, it's rather poor financial planning to scoff at $15 billion simply because we spend way more than that annually.  Third, the total for budget cuts which were proposed for 2010 was $17 billion, so yes, when considered alongside our total  proposed budget cuts for one year, it is pretty significant.

The truth is that budget planning is going to inevitably require cutting 1% of spending here, 5% of spending there, etc.  It's not as if we're going to be able to realistically cut trillions of dollars in spending from just one spending source.  I never said that this particular savings should be the only way that we reduce spending.  However, it's something that's certainly worth looking into.

[Vandy Vol]

I would call spending 900 billion dollars TWICE with nothing to show a much bigger waste of taxpayer money.

Of course...and there's nothing preventing us from dealing with that waste as well.  When we manage the nation's budget, we cut from various sources.  More often that not, there are a lot of sources from which we can only cut a few billion dollars (or, in most instances, are only willing to cut a few billion dollars).

My only point is that cutting $15 billion in wasteful energy spending is a step in the right direction.  No, it's not a panacea for our $14 trillion debt, but you're never going to be able to save $14 trillion by making one alteration in one aspect of our budget.  It's an accumulation of savings and budget cuts that will make a significant effect, so we might as well save everywhere we can.

[GarMan]

The semantics argument was in regard... blah blah blah blah...

Seriously...  If you're not open to a reasonable discussion, I'm not going to waste my time.  I'm all about learning from one another, but this is pointless. 

My main point is that the makeup of the LED is essentially the same whether it's used for a monitor or a light bulb.  The size may be different, and the semiconductor material may be different, but when you start talking about these "dangerous" chemicals that are present in "new" LED light bulbs, they're the same chemicals that are in the "old" LEDs.  So, unless you're claiming that a larger "gap" in the LED is a health hazard, or that the new semiconductor material is a health hazard, I don't see where these minor variations are of any health concern. 

These minor variations don't matter about as much as all nuclear reactors are the same too...  Right?  (Well, maybe in your mind...)  If the simplistic example of two internal combustion engines didn't help you understand, further discussion is pointless. 

Again, I am asking you to point out these potential hazardous differences to me.  I'm not claiming to know everything, but when you first use lead as an illustration, it's not convincing; incandescent bulbs contain lead.  When you then point to arsenic and phosphor as examples of potentially new health hazards with these LED light bulbs, it's not convincing; virtually every LED currently in use contains phosphor, and many LEDs currently in use contain higher levels of arsenic.  If there is a new health concern related to these LED bulbs, then it hasn't been pointed out yet.  That's all I'm asking for.

Again, you're being ridiculous.  Do you really think they had a good handle on the potential hazards of lead and asbestos when they passed all of their product testing?  All along, my point has been that we don't know enough about the viability or safety of this technology in mass use for the purpose of lighting until the market passes judgement.  The product brochures, websites, wiki-searches and other marketing literature will claim anything you want to hear as long as you're willing to believe it.  Somehow, I'm supposed to conjure up some smoking gun for you...  Well, until the product is proven on the market, I just can't do that.  I can only point to the logical differences and hope that you're intelligent enough to see the potential risks. 
 

Laptops have not been using LED backlighting since the 1990s. 

Fair enough Wiki-Wizard...  You should really consider posting a bibliography and footnote your quotes in the future.  I'm on my eighth notebook computer since the mid-90s, and the last three contain LED technology as backlighting.  Of the seven LCD televisions and computer monitors in my home, all purchased over the last 5-7 years, three utilize LED backlighting.  This technology is not as fresh as your original statement suggested, and the market seems to have taken well to it without overbearing government goons. 
 

First, it's $15 billion annually, not just a one-time savings.

Your first point follows the demented logic of a crooked politician.  "By cutting the rate of growth, we're saving billions over ten years..."  Besides that, I just don't believe that they're legitimately wasting $15B per year on incandescent lighting.  You never posted a source for that ridiculous claim, and I'm not sure the government is even capable of coming up with that estimate on their own. 

Second, it's rather poor financial planning to scoff at $15 billion simply because we spend way more than that annually. 

But, it does provide a relative measure for which to focus your overall efforts.  If the same energy could be focused on social spending, you could save 5-10 times that amount every year simply be improving the organizational efficiencies of the various departments.  So, your parental advice is really quite petty and naive. 

Third, the total for budget cuts which were proposed for 2010 was $17 billion, so yes, when considered alongside our total  proposed budget cuts for one year, it is pretty significant.

Wait a minute...  During the last round of negotiations, they said that they saved $34B.  Who is right?

The truth is that budget planning is going to inevitably require cutting 1% of spending here, 5% of spending there, etc.  It's not as if we're going to be able to realistically cut trillions of dollars in spending from just one spending source.  I never said that this particular savings should be the only way that we reduce spending.  However, it's something that's certainly worth looking into.

Sure...  If you don't mind stepping over piles of dollars to chase pennies and nickles...  I guess...  Of course, you have to spend 3-5 times that amount as the initial investment to save that much every year.  I certainly hope it pays for itself at some point...

[Vandy Vol]

These minor variations don't matter about as much as all nuclear reactors are the same too...  Right?  (Well, maybe in your mind...)  If the simplistic example of two internal combustion engines didn't help you understand, further discussion is pointless.

You say that the LED bulbs pose health hazards that have not yet been identified.  I counter that these new LEDs are not very different from LEDs and diodes already used in electronics.  After ineffectively using lead as an illustration, you bring up arsenic and phosphor.  I point out that these are already used in LEDs, and thus there still has been no illustration of a significant change in the production of these "new" LEDs that show there is a health hazard.  So then you point to gaps, semi-conductors, etc., none of which you state have a specific health risk.

Again, all I'm trying to understand here is what is the big change in LED bulbs that has supposedly not been studied and may pose a health risk of some sort.  Thus far, you've either A) pointed to aspects of LED bulbs that are present in virtually all LEDs, or B) have pointed to minute changes but have not given any indication as to how those changes are potentially hazardous.

Again, you're being ridiculous.  Do you really think they had a good handle on the potential hazards of lead and asbestos when they passed all of their product testing?  All along, my point has been that we don't know enough about the viability or safety of this technology in mass use for the purpose of lighting until the market passes judgement.

And my point is that why should we be overly wary of a product that contains arsenic, for example, when hundreds of other existing products contain arsenic as well?  If arsenic wasn't extensively studied enough to the point that it was definitively deemed safe for mass production in various products, why are we suddenly concerned about arsenic because of a light bulb?  Again, I'm not seeing any indications that LED bulbs expose us to new health risks that aren't already abundant in the market.

Fair enough Wiki-Wizard...  You should really consider posting a bibliography and footnote your quotes in the future.  I'm on my eighth notebook computer since the mid-90s, and the last three contain LED technology as backlighting.

PC Magazine calls LED backlit laptops the "future of laptop screens" in 2007.  It refers to fluorescent lighting as the "conventional" method of backlighting prior to this point.  In 2007, CNET reported that Apple and HP were releasing their first models of LED backlit laptops.  The article also stated that the first laptop with LED backlighting of which they were aware was the Sony VAIO VGN-TXN15P/W, which was first produced in 2006 (this is based upon CNET's review of the product being dated November 17, 2006, and Sony's support website not having an initial update on the product prior to 2006).  MacWorld.com confirms that Apple never had an LED backlit laptop until 2007.  Last but not least, a CNET article quotes a Lead Analyst for Business Displays for PC Magazine who has been studying computer monitors for 20 years; in 2007, he indicated that the usage of LED backlit screens was relatively new.

This technology is not as fresh as your original statement suggested, and the market seems to have taken well to it without overbearing government goons.

I never said that the technology itself was fresh; I stated that LED backlighting was not used in laptops until the mid-to-late 2000's.  LED backlighting was obviously used in GPS systems, music players, cell phones, televisions, and other devices prior to laptop screens.

Besides that, I just don't believe that they're legitimately wasting $15B per year on incandescent lighting.  You never posted a source for that ridiculous claim, and I'm not sure the government is even capable of coming up with that estimate on their own.

Well, the government did come up with that estimate.

But, it does provide a relative measure for which to focus your overall efforts.  If the same energy could be focused on social spending, you could save 5-10 times that amount every year simply be improving the organizational efficiencies of the various departments.  So, your parental advice is really quite petty and naive.

Sure, but the government doesn't focus on one thing a year.  I see no reason why resources can't also be focused on social spending.  Afterall, that's why there are different government agencies with different responsibilities, and a Congress that isn't limited on the number of cuts, bills, etc. that it can legislate in one year.

Wait a minute...  During the last round of negotiations, they said that they saved $34B.  Who is right?

They may have actually saved that amount after the 2010 financial report was finalized, but my statement was that the proposed cuts for 2010 was initially only $17 billion.  Thus, if the government plans to cut $17 billion and believes that such a cut is beneficial and/or necessary, then a $15 billion cut in energy spending is pretty significant.  This is especially the case when you look at the fact that the $17 billion was spread over a variety of types of cuts, whereas this estimated $15 billion is in energy savings alone.

[GH2001]

Vandy Vol loves teh wikis!

[GarMan]

You say that the LED bulbs pose health hazards that have not yet been identified.  I counter that these new LEDs are not very different from LEDs and diodes already used in electronics.  After ineffectively using lead as an illustration, you bring up arsenic and phosphor.  I point out that these are already used in LEDs, and thus there still has been no illustration of a significant change in the production of these "new" LEDs that show there is a health hazard.  So then you point to gaps, semi-conductors, etc., none of which you state have a specific health risk.

Again, all I'm trying to understand here is what is the big change in LED bulbs that has supposedly not been studied and may pose a health risk of some sort.  Thus far, you've either A) pointed to aspects of LED bulbs that are present in virtually all LEDs, or B) have pointed to minute changes but have not given any indication as to how those changes are potentially hazardous.

Seriously...  If you lack reason, there's nothing for us to discuss.  I threw out the points where the differences exist.  If you are unable to see the potential risks, I really have nothing more for you.  You're essentially saying that a canoe is the same as an ocean liner, when we know that isn't true. 

And my point is that why should we be overly wary of a product that contains arsenic, for example, when hundreds of other existing products contain arsenic as well?  If arsenic wasn't extensively studied enough to the point that it was definitively deemed safe for mass production in various products, why are we suddenly concerned about arsenic because of a light bulb?  Again, I'm not seeing any indications that LED bulbs expose us to new health risks that aren't already abundant in the market.

Then, follow the herd, line up for your government cheese and enjoy the cool-aide...  I've got nothing else for you. 

I never said that the technology itself was fresh; I stated that LED backlighting was not used in laptops until the mid-to-late 2000's.  LED backlighting was obviously used in GPS systems, music players, cell phones, televisions, and other devices prior to laptop screens.

Sure... 

Well, the government did come up with that estimate.

That's nice...  That's a forecasted annual savings in the year 2030 using today's dollars.  Estimates on top of assumptions on top of forecasts that will never hold true...  right along with Social Security, Medicare and other crooked political schemes.  How's that cheese?

Sure, but the government doesn't focus on one thing a year.  I see no reason why resources can't also be focused on social spending.  Afterall, that's why there are different government agencies with different responsibilities, and a Congress that isn't limited on the number of cuts, bills, etc. that it can legislate in one year.

Ummm...  Naive logic at best...  These same clowns still haven't passed a budget for this year, so let's distract them with more green technology garbage and make more promises and claims that will never hold true. 

...then a $15 billion cut in energy spending is pretty significant.  This is especially the case when you look at the fact that the $17 billion was spread over a variety of types of cuts, whereas this estimated $15 billion is in energy savings alone.

In 2030...   

By the way, that reference is also claiming that they would save $120B, in today's dollars, between 2010 and 2030.  The details that they didn't share would have likely shown 2011 savings to be forecasted at less than $2B.  That's good cheese!   

[AUTiger1]

There is a good verbose joke in this thread somewhere.

[Vandy Vol]

I threw out the points where the differences exist.

Points

1. LED bulbs contain lead - So do current LEDs and incandescent bulbs.  No new health hazard.
2. LED bulbs contain arsenic - So do current LEDs, especially colored LEDs.  No new health hazard.
3. LED bulbs contain phosphor - So do current LEDs.  No new health hazard.
4. Gap differences, semiconductor differences, etc. - No health hazard pointed out by you, just a recitation of differences.

Again, I just want to know what health hazards stem from these differences.

That's nice...  That's a forecasted annual savings in the year 2030 using today's dollars.  Estimates on top of assumptions on top of forecasts that will never hold true...  right along with Social Security, Medicare and other crooked political schemes.  How's that cheese?

Incandescent bulbs waste 80% of the energy consumption on producing heat, not light.  LEDs only waste 20% of energy on heat, and they consume less electric current in producing the same intensity of light.  Even if the estimate is off by 50%, $7.5 billion in savings is still significant when compared to the fact that the government has previously proposed only $17 billion in cuts overall for an annual budget.

Ummm...  Naive logic at best...  These same clowns still haven't passed a budget for this year, so let's distract them with more green technology garbage and make more promises and claims that will never hold true.

And that is probably due to the fact that they can't find enough budget cuts that they're willing to agree upon.  This is simply another budget cut for them to consider, which may or may not expedite the passing of a budget.  The incompetency of government officials doesn't directly speak to the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of such an energy savings proposal.

By the way, that reference is also claiming that they would save $120B, in today's dollars, between 2010 and 2030.  The details that they didn't share would have likely shown 2011 savings to be forecasted at less than $2B.  That's good cheese!   

Again, when the government is currently proposing budget cuts of only $17 billion a year, the average annual savings of $6 billion a year between 2010 and 2030 is nothing to scoff at.  It would increase budget cuts by approximately 30%, based upon previously proposed cuts for 2010, and by 15%, based upon the figure you claimed they actually cut/saved in 2010.

The proposed budget cuts for 2010 made 121 cuts, and reduced spending by $17 billion.  That means that, on average, each particular cut only reduced our spending by $140 million.  Considering that this one energy savings budget cut would be 14 times larger than your average individual cut alone (based upon your random estimate of $2 billion saved in 2011), it appears to be pretty significant compared to what our government has been trying to do with their budget cuts.

And, once more, I am not stating that this is some sort of budget cut panacea.  Obviously we have to make cuts in other areas as well.

[Vandy Vol]

Vandy Vol loves teh wikis!

Don't forget teh Googles.

[GarMan]

Points

1. LED bulbs contain lead - So do current LEDs and incandescent bulbs.  No new health hazard.
2. LED bulbs contain arsenic - So do current LEDs, especially colored LEDs.  No new health hazard.
3. LED bulbs contain phosphor - So do current LEDs.  No new health hazard.
4. Gap differences, semiconductor differences, etc. - No health hazard pointed out by you, just a recitation of differences.

Again, I just want to know what health hazards stem from these differences.

We don't know.  These products have NOT had the opportunity to be proven in mass use applications for lighting. [Do I sound like a parrot yet?]  We only know that these LEDs have similarities and differences to LEDs of other designs, styles and purpose. 

Incandescent bulbs waste 80% of the energy consumption on producing heat, not light.  LEDs only waste 20% of energy on heat, and they consume less electric current in producing the same intensity of light.  Even if the estimate is off by 50%, $7.5 billion in savings is still significant when compared to the fact that the government has previously proposed only $17 billion in cuts overall for an annual budget.

The document that you finally posted in your last message proved that your $15B annual savings was actually a forecast for 2030.  It went further to forecast the savings from 2010-2030 as only $120B.  The analysis also failed to consider the initial investment and periodic maintenance/replacement of these new technologies.  Like anything else from the government, it was grossly inadequate for any reasonable assessment or comparison. 

And that is probably due to the fact that they can't find enough budget cuts that they're willing to agree upon.  This is simply another budget cut for them to consider, which may or may not expedite the passing of a budget.  The incompetency of government officials doesn't directly speak to the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of such an energy savings proposal.

So, let's stick it to Joe Sixpack and Suzie Homemaker.  That makes a lot of sense!

Again, when the government is currently proposing budget cuts of only $17 billion a year, the average annual savings of $6 billion a year between 2010 and 2030 is nothing to scoff at.  It would increase budget cuts by approximately 30%, based upon previously proposed cuts for 2010, and by 15%, based upon the figure you claimed they actually cut/saved in 2010.

Now, you're even playing the numbers like a crooked politician.  Your $15B savings was over-inflated.  Your average annual savings of $6B is even incorrect, particularly for the first several years.  And finally, there's minimal accounting for the investment required to purchase these new technology lights as well as the periodic expenses for failure replacements and other activities.  If you're not being intentionaly dishonest, you don't really understand how to adequately analyze this. 

The proposed budget cuts for 2010 made 121 cuts, and reduced spending by $17 billion.  That means that, on average, each particular cut only reduced our spending by $140 million.  Considering that this one energy savings budget cut would be 14 times larger than your average individual cut alone (based upon your random estimate of $2 billion saved in 2011), it appears to be pretty significant compared to what our government has been trying to do with their budget cuts.

Of course, as I've suggested, the initial investment would likely exceed any cumulative savings for the first several years, and with these technologies not yet proven in the real-world, we don't know those costs.

And, once more, I am not stating that this is some sort of budget cut panacea.  Obviously we have to make cuts in other areas as well. 

This is really one of the last items that should even be considered, especially when you understand how it would affect the citizenry. 

[Snaggletiger]

Turn out the liiiiiights the party's over.

[AUTiger1]

Turn out the liiiiiights the party's over.

they say that all good things must end
Let's call it a night the party's over and tomorrow starts the same old thing again