red states rule
12-11-2013, 03:27 AM
This is why liberals should not be taken seriously and NEVER elected into office where they can impose their insane beliefs on the rest of us
If this writer for the Washington Compost is worried about global warming he can take a walk out side now or wait until the weekend when snow may fall on DC by the FOOT
snip
Holiday lights, however, are an exception to the rule. A new strand of LEDs will last four or five decades, possibly the rest of your life, depending on how long you leave them on (and how long you live). They’re also less likely to start a fire, which is important when you’re wrapping them around a bundle of kindling like a Christmas tree. If you’re still harboring an old strand of incandescent lights, the Earth begs you to ditch it and go for the LEDs. (If it’s one of those multicolored, flashing strands, your neighbors would probably second the motion.)
Of course, there are more extreme options for electricity grinches. When I was a child, my favorite tree adornment was a string of popcorn. Making such a thread is a fun family activity, and you can sneak a few kernels for yourself in the process.
Is it greener than a strand of lights, though? To make this comparison, we’ll have to make some assumptions.
It’s hard to say how much embedded energy is in a strand of Christmas lights. However, since the lights will last 40 or 50 years, that embedded energy comes very close to zero on a yearly average. The only energy we have to attribute to the lights is the electricity, which, for a strand of larger LEDs, is 2.5 watts. If you run them four hours per day for 30 days, that means 0.3 kilowatt-hours over the course of a season.
According to EPA conversion data (http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.html), generating that much electricity would emit 0.44 pounds of greenhouse gas equivalents (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases.html). (A carbon dioxide equivalent is all the greenhouse gases emitted, expressed in terms of the global warming potential of carbon dioxide.)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/led-holiday-lights-really-are-quite-efficient/2013/12/06/60352792-5b5c-11e3-a49b-90a0e156254b_story.html
If this writer for the Washington Compost is worried about global warming he can take a walk out side now or wait until the weekend when snow may fall on DC by the FOOT
snip
Holiday lights, however, are an exception to the rule. A new strand of LEDs will last four or five decades, possibly the rest of your life, depending on how long you leave them on (and how long you live). They’re also less likely to start a fire, which is important when you’re wrapping them around a bundle of kindling like a Christmas tree. If you’re still harboring an old strand of incandescent lights, the Earth begs you to ditch it and go for the LEDs. (If it’s one of those multicolored, flashing strands, your neighbors would probably second the motion.)
Of course, there are more extreme options for electricity grinches. When I was a child, my favorite tree adornment was a string of popcorn. Making such a thread is a fun family activity, and you can sneak a few kernels for yourself in the process.
Is it greener than a strand of lights, though? To make this comparison, we’ll have to make some assumptions.
It’s hard to say how much embedded energy is in a strand of Christmas lights. However, since the lights will last 40 or 50 years, that embedded energy comes very close to zero on a yearly average. The only energy we have to attribute to the lights is the electricity, which, for a strand of larger LEDs, is 2.5 watts. If you run them four hours per day for 30 days, that means 0.3 kilowatt-hours over the course of a season.
According to EPA conversion data (http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.html), generating that much electricity would emit 0.44 pounds of greenhouse gas equivalents (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases.html). (A carbon dioxide equivalent is all the greenhouse gases emitted, expressed in terms of the global warming potential of carbon dioxide.)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/led-holiday-lights-really-are-quite-efficient/2013/12/06/60352792-5b5c-11e3-a49b-90a0e156254b_story.html