• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page



Recent comments

  • Emma Harris
    May 06, 2013 - 06:34

    With the advent of energy-efficient lights like LED and CFL, there is no reason for us to keep using fluorescent lights anymore. The switch should be easy from fluorescents to energy-efficient lights. Replacement bulbs like this http://tinyurl.com/a4cnh5k are widely available in markets. They’re a little expensive but their benefits should outweigh the cost overtime.

  • terry
    April 17, 2013 - 12:25

    It sounds as though electric lighting, which already includes somewhat efficient fluorescent tubes is about one sixth (15%)of one's electric bill.We, based on our experience therefore doubt that newer lighting will be much advantage. For example, we salvaged some 12 well used two tube fluorescent fixtures that were due to scrapped from a school renovation and installed them in our occasionally used basement workshop. Some tubes were broken (perhaps 60%), so we bought new tubes and a couple of spares at a cost of less than $30..Since installing them several years ago we have had to replace only one tube. The electrical lighting consumption is therefore of the order of 750 - 800 watts per hour (well under 10 cents) and they are on less than 50 hours per month. These are the 'old fashioned' ballast equipped lamp fixtures and seem to be capable of performing well into the future at minimal cost; so even if the cost of electricity were to more than double/triple the economics of replacing with 'more modern' fixtures and lamps/bulbs does not exist. Other points of view are most welcome.

  • Ed Power
    April 17, 2013 - 07:43

    And..... cue more Muskrat Love from Mr.Pseudonymous Smith. Unfortunately, his version of the song has none of the quirky charm of the Captain and Tennille recording.The lyrics, however, are much the same, "Muskrat Susie and Muskrat Sam, do the jitterbug out in muskrat land...."

  • John Smith
    April 16, 2013 - 07:39

    LOL...the intelligentsia has spoken...give me a break. Some guy says he may have a better light bulb and these braniacs think there is no need to develop our natural resources? OMG...give me a break. Vale plant alone will consume huge amounts of power, there is talk of another refinery here in the future, expanded mining in Labrador, people are not consuming less power...they are consuming far more power. There was a time when most house in NL had a 60 amp panel, and a wood stove...now they have a multiple panels...200-400 watts each, gigantic refridgeerators, freezers hot tubs, pools, jetted tubs...etc. I mean really guys...what you are saying are the ravings of lunatics. Keep pouring billions of dollars into burning oil in Holyrood, a dirty 40 year old plant that is on the verge of collapse. Or build a new state of the are hydro plant, which will provide all the power we will need into the next century, allow a connection to the mainland, provide 300-400 million a year in revenues....you lost guys...the dam is being built...and it is well thought out, intelligent, and the absolute right direction for us to go...and you have no argument against it that holds water...

  • Calvin
    April 15, 2013 - 14:21

    As someone who designs electrical requirements in commercial and industrial facilities all day, I can say that Phillips is drastically over-estimating the timeframe for the takeover by LED lighting. Any given LED fixture right now is 4 times (or more) more expensive than the same fluorescent fixture. Building owners, from government to small business owners, are nowhere near ready to alot such a large portion of their budget to lighting, especially when spending more money on other systems like heating and air conditioning can save way more money during initial startup. The engineering firm I work for has an excellent relationship with the local Phillips lighting rep, and he would chuckle at this time table produced by Phillips. One of the biggest misconceptions with regards to LED lighting is that the wattage of the new fixtures is so much lower than comparable fluorescent fixtures. The wattage of the LED fixtures actually isn't that much lower. The big bonus with LED fixtures is that maintenance is relatively non-existent because the LED's last so long. Taking that into account, will Phillips, and all other lamp manufacturers for that matter, be quick to replace all fluorescent lamps with LED lamps? Putting in LED lamps will mean little to no future lamp sales once a job has been completed. What happens when sales decrease? Companies still have to please their shareholders, so in order to post similar profits with the LED fixtures, the cost will increase. LED lighting is absolutely the future of lighting, but that future may be further away than Phillips would lead us to believe.

    • Jon
      April 15, 2013 - 20:18

      Well said Calvin!

  • Ed Power
    April 15, 2013 - 07:50

    Just one more reason to question the need for a $10 billion (if we are lucky) dam in the Labrador wilderness. Too bad our government and Nalcor are committed to century-old industrial development and technology in the 21st century. Coming soon from Dunderdale government - a major announcement on industrial subsidies for local buggy whip manufacturers "to help them compete with horseless carriages"......

    • Willi Makit
      April 15, 2013 - 15:03

      Ed, I've been preaching exactly what you're talking about for ages. Apparently the geniuses at NALCOR and the provincial government have a crystal balls that allows them to see 50 years into the future. Now, if they had that miraculous ability 50 years ago they would have foretold the jet airliner, communications satellite, personal computers, cell phones, fiber optics etc. etc. etc. All of those inventions resulted in the collapse of what were tried and traditional ways and costs. ''Investing'' $10+ billion in a hydro project is about as rational as investing in buggy whips in the '50's.. This will not end well for NL.