Looks like Trump learned a lesson from his first term. Avoiding politicians and hiring private business people to many cabinet positions. The kind of people who actually know how to get things done an

@Raiders22

 No need for a link. I can put two and two together based on other "efficiancy" product scams. Green energy, that is alternative energy sources, is not a scam. Solar energy is a good thing. Wind energy is a good thing. Water driven energy is a good thing. The notion that we can one day rely 100% on so called "renewables" is total bull crap though. And "energy efficient" products are definitely a scam. I'll break that down product by product after I run a few errands.

@StumpTownStu

 The scam part is the money grab part of it.

Then the forcing something on the world that is not perfected and efficient enough yet.

Solar is good, wind is good, EVs are good, etc., etc.  There is no way possible at this time they could replace fossil fuels.

But they need innovation and improvements.  No one is saying they are the scams.  The Green Energy money grab is the scam.

There are so many difficulties with EVs for example.  Just to get the batteries made and then disposal, etc.

Now imagine the issues with everyone charging them all at once when they get hoe from work -- if no combustible engines are no longer allowed.

Imagine evacuating in a hurricane, etc.

All of these things are supplemental at best currently.

No one argues against a clean earth and general energy improvements.

But the Global Warming scam has bled over into the Green Energy scam now to get money and force folks house washing machines that are more 'efficient' but not more effective.

Then they try to make the folks feel guilty and that they are doing a good thing by not 'polluting' and cooling the Earth.  The 'pollution' is very, very minimal overall and could never cool the Earth if it was done in totality.

But they get billions upon billions of dollars to promote it and force it on folks when it is not practical or effective enough for the folks.

If it were the folks would automatically gravitate to these 'better' things.  Maybe one day they will be.

But they are not and the Left and the Government should not be forcing them on the people.

@Raiders22

 Like I said, alternative energy sources, in theory, are a good thing. All those products are total scams. I'll go down the list.

Ceiling Fans- Remember, I knew nothing of "energy efficient" ceiling fans. This is what I do know though. There hasn't really been much advancement in electric motors. If a ceiling fan is using less energy, it's because the motor is moving at a lower rpm, which means it's moving less air. Fans don't really cool to begin with. They just circulate air. Try telling that to some poor shmuck in some hot climate that doesn't have A/C. Forcing "energy efficient" fans on people, is dirty work.

Washers/Dryers- Again, I can't stress enough, there is so real "energy efficiency". If it creates heat via electricity, uf it drives a motor, or both, it draws what it draws. Dryers haven't really changed in decades. They have electric motors that drive a drum (tumbler). They create heat via electricity or natural gas. Dryers are the one heating element where I prefer electricity to natural gas. There's no real way to make them "energy efficient". Washers are made "efficient " via shorter cycles, less agitation, and use of less water. This is canceled out by people like me who simply wash things on longer cycles. Energy efficient washers/dryers are a scam.

Furnaces and stoves/ovens- I'm lumping these two together as they are essentially the exact same thing. I will just say this. Generating heat via electricity vs. natural gas is incredibly inefficient, and incredibly expensive. Insanely inefficient and insanely expensive. Sticking people with electric furnaces, electric stoves and ovens, and electric water heaters is just sticking people who are often without the greatest of means, sticking them with astronomical electricy bills. And you lose them in a blackout. Personally, I don't even believe in electric pilots (starters technically). I want to be warm and have hot water during a snow storm. Electic furnaces, stoves, and water heaters... total scams.

Light bulbs- Biggest scam. This scam started years ago with CFLs (compact fluorescent lights). CFL bulbs do use significantly less energy. They are often in a spectrum of light that is disagreeable to the human eye though. And fluorescents "hum". And if you are sensitive to such things, that hum can actually make you feel pretty crappy. And they were significantly more expensive than incandescent bulbs. For this reason, they never caught on.

LEDs (light emitting diodes) are actually great. I have been familiar with LEDs for quite a while because they were used in entertainment long before the had a home consumer application. The light is much more agreeable to the eye. The light can be any color, any relative intensity. They also use a fraction of the electricity of an incandescent bulb and are now comparable in price to incandescent bulbs. They are engineered to fail in similar intervals as traditional incandescent bulbs. LEDs should last for years, and the early iterations of consumer LEDs, i.e. LED tapes, and even early LED bulbs, lasted forever. Manufactures purposely engineer them to fail so you have to keep buying bulbs. Not having to buy bulbs as often was supposed to be a benefit. I feel like the current home use LED bulbs now burn out faster than incandescents. Incandescents will last a while too if you aren't constantly turning them on and off.

Here is the rub though. Light accounts for a very small amount of the average household's electricity consumption. As I said before, things that generate heat, and/or have motors are what draw electricity. So while LEDs and compact fluorescents both use significantly less energy, any savings are eaten up if you forget to turn the warmer off on your coffee maker on day and it sits their warming a half pot of coffee for two hours. Or when your wife/girlfriend used the blow dryer, or the styling iron. Or when you go to use a power tool. Or whenever you use your highly inefficient electric furnace, oven, or water heater. LED bulbs are the biggest scam. And that's coming from a guy that swears by LEDs. I've used them in the home for over 10 years and commercially for over 15.

@StumpTownStu

 Overall, I mostly agree.  Some of the things no doubt are more energy efficient.  Bulbs that generate far less heat for light, washers that use much less water for loads, etc.

But a lot of folks want freedom of choice and if things are truly better then those products will naturally win out over time.  I know folks that simply prefer the older lightbulbs because they say the light is better.  Some folks prefer the older washers because they can ut more clothes in and/or get a better wash instead of having to do more loads, or do loads more often.

Sometimes, this is just folks preferring their known methods with no sound resigning other than that is what they prefer.

But when the 'new and more efficient' things are forced on folks and the unintended consequences are not considered is where I see a bigger problem.  Now you have to look at disposal of things differently -- say the LEDs with mercury or arsenic, etc.  Or the batteries in EVs.

Then even take the wind turbines.  So many people that live near them have issues.  At first it seems like just bellyaching until you look into it, etc.

Then look at the problems with EVs in general -- from building, charging, maintenance, etc.

Sure, some of these things can and will be innovated to be better -- but 'forcing' people and whole states to only have these choices is wrong.  Most are not even really that much more environmental friendly -- some can be argued are worse.  

That is why it looks like just a money grab that is part of the Global Warming scam.  That is why I call most of this nonsense a scam.  Some of course have good parts.  Like I say, most folks want a cleaner environment and more efficient 'things'.  But are they truly any of these things instead of part of the larger scam is the question.

Using less water, sure. Again, some of that is negated by simply washing things on longer, heavier cycles like me though admittedly, most don't do that. They don't use less electricity though. Nor do the dryers. And less water consumption is a scam too. In a perpetually drought stricken state like California,  every citizen conserving water doesn't negate the use of large scale agriculture and industrial use. As far as light bulbs, they 100% use less energy. Drop in the bucket. I can't stress enough how relatively little electricity is used by light bulbs in residences. So sure, I guess cumulatively, a widespread switch to LEDs has some affect on the power grid but you're talking a small percentage of electricity consumption. Not enough to make a dent in the average persona pocket book, I promise you.

@StumpTownStu

 Not just the energy savings of LEDs -- like 80%.  So, that for sure adds up over a vast amount.  But they last 30 times longer.  So, not just individually does it add up but overall this would add up for the difference to be noticed.

But when you try to explain to folks that they are more expensive but last longer, do not get as hot, and last far longer so they save money in the long run -- do the folks really believe it or even care.  

They just do not want to be told that this is their only choice now.  Even when they see the brightness is the same and have the dimmer option, etc.

But this is an example of constant innovation over time that can be demonstrated.  But the disposal and the 'forceful' attitude on the folks is what is not liked.

The washers a lot of folks seem not to like because they say it doesn't agitate the clothes enough and you need to do fewer clothes at a time, etc.

So, it is always tricky to convince folks how overall better these things are.  But in the long run if it is seen better people will automatically switch over.

For example, even where old bulbs were still available people moved more to LED on their own, etc.

It costs about 0.20-0.50 a day to light most houses, depending on rate, size, number of residents, etc. And that's being liberal. A very small percentage of an electric bill goes to lighting. So yeah, even costing 70-80% less, you're saving 4 bucks. As far as lasting 25+ times longer, it's a crock. The diodes are pretty bullet proof and theoretically they could last that long but even with the early home consumer bulbs, you weren't seeing that kind of longevity. And the bulbs that are on the market are engineered to fail at similar intervals as incandescents. Qhy would GE or Philips want to sell you a bulb that lasts. Quite honestly, what burns out incandescent bulbs more than anything is constant on/off. Given that current home LED bulbs are designed to fail, in some cases, in fixures that aren't constantly switching on/off, or in dimmable fixtures, an incandescent bulb could outlast an LED.

@StumpTownStu

 Heaven forbid we have an Attorney General or a Supreme Court Justice that actually respects the Constitution, the rule of law and the equal distribution of justice. Democrats want these people to follow the latest opinion poll.

@StumpTownStu

 I am not questioning how much more efficient or more reliable they are.  

I get that they are.  All of the studies show the LEDs last 20-50 times longer.  I am not disputing that.  Even if that is in a lab environment, that is still a tremendous difference.  That is why I rounded down to a middle ground of 30 times longer.  Due to issues with the electrical systems not being recently upgraded or clean, etc.

I have never seen a study saying they are 'designed to fail'.  But even so, the savings is clearly there due to length of time for replacement.

I get your point about a household use and savings being minimal.  But I do not even question that.  Of course, it will add up over time.  Of course over a vast grid it will add up more and over a nation even more.  Every little bit helps.

The savings are far bigger in a business or facility than a household, I get all of that.

For example, some years back I had occasion to visit a large-scale aerospace manufacturer.  It was a 'newer' facility so not an older place.  But it had the big old bulbs.  These are always going out and the maintenance guys simply replace them from time to time.  Some places will replace them as they go out and some will wait until there are a few to replace at once.

Going through the place you would see the guys replacing them sometimes.

I got to know the head facilities manager pretty well.  I noticed one day they are installing a big square fixture in place of one of the big bulbs.  I asked him what his guys were doing.  He said they were upgrading to the LED as a cost-savings as the older bulbs blew out.

Then one day I am there and notice they are doing all of them and not just the random blown ones.  I asked him why he was not waiting on them to blow like before.

He told me that he had decided to go ahead and replace all of the ballasts and install all LED lights.

I asked him how long it would take to make that up considering he was 'wasting' some bulb that were still good.  

He told me he would easily recoup the costs by the end of the year.  This was like early springtime or so.

The place was broken into quadrants.  So, pretty much the whole quadrant had to be lit up if anyone was working an off shift even in a small segment of the quadrant.

He even had a PLC touch panel installed at the security desk where whole quadrants could be turned off when not being used.  Then in the quadrants that were being worked in, you could select only certain rows of lights to be used.

He said that the LED were so much cooler than the older bulbs that they would save a large amount on cooling costs during the summer time.  He said the older bulbs made the facility around 2 degrees warmer.

@StumpTownStu

So, I get that the efficiency and the savings is there.  Especially long term and especially for larger places.

My contention is that it is not the right way when you 'force' it on folks to 'upgrade'.  Let it be of their own volition.  If some folks want to gradually replace their bulbs -- fine.  If folks want to wholesale do it -- fine.

But think of the costs to a smaller business or even a household that is 'forced' to do that and does not have a cushion on the timeframe to recoup the costs.

Plus, if someone prefers old style bulbs because they 'think' the light is better -- let them.  The older bulbs are not bad for the environment or disposal.  Even though they tell me the LEDs are not so bad in that regard anymore.

The bottom line is that if the product is slowly improved and proven to be what it is touted -- the folks will change over to them more and more.  Then eventually the demand for the older 'wasteful' bulbs would not even be there.

I knew people that went out and bought whole batches of incandescent bulbs because they wanted them and were worried they were about to stop selling them.

But when you are 'forcing' manufacturers to have to retool to meet a new requirement (like with the ceiling fans) that is not a good thing.

Same thing with the EVs.  If they become more and more practical and easier to deal with -- people will buy more of them.

But when you start forcing the agenda on folks by saying no more combustible engine cars after 2030, or whenever, that is not the way to do it.

Now they want to make EV tanks, 'fix' appliances and everything else.

That is the scam part of it.  It is not shown to be beneficial enough to individuals to override their 'preference'.  

There is never a total return on solar, wind or EVs.  They are are supplemented with subsidies and tax credits, etc.  They never fully pay for themselves.

Instead of forcing the change on folks, let the innovations and improvements come.  Then the people will start to buy them.  At best all of these are very small and supplemental.

I knew a guy years ago that would only buy Japanese cars.  I ask him why?  The quality of USA cars are just as good now, it is just an older perception that they are not.  He said the quality had nothing at all to do with it.  He just did not like any of the USA-style cars.  He liked the designs of the foreign cars better.  Just personal choice.

That part should never be eliminated just for an unproven agenda.

@Raiders22

 Just keeps getting better.

January 20th can't come soon enough.

@cdog8043

 Gold, bitcoin -highs

California restaurateurs are celebrating Donald Trump's divisive victory with skyrocketing sales, according to celebrity chef Andrew Gruel.

@cdog8043

 Stock futures were pointing to further gains on Monday, with the market cheered by President-elect Donald Trump choosing Wall Street veteran Scott Bessent to head up the Treasury Department.

NO FEAR - TRUMP IS HERE

@cdog8043

 Dow Jones plus 418.00

NO FEAR - TRUMP IS HERE

@cdog8043

 JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, one of the most powerful executives on Wall Street, is a fan, too. Dimon thinks very highly of Bessent and believes he’s an excellent choice.

This is CNN boys and girls.

Trump is getting is RIGHT AGAIN.

Trump announces 3 key appointments to the WH.

First three most important jobs that are top priority. DOJ, DNI, and VA. DOJ needs a giant purge and needs to be going after Constitutional violators. DNI and Intel, purged with illegal tools dismantled. VA, because Veterans should be before ANY citizen. Purged and privatized so Vets can finally receive choice and private care, not to mention the benefits and compensation they earned and deserved without having to fight more for it. Downvotes? Government employees and Veteran haters.

@cdog8043

 Several Of President -elect Trump's Cabinet picks victims of bomb threat and swatting incidents.

Democrats are FULL OF HATE.

@cdog8043

 And your not.