LEDs save energy, but not lives
Summary: LED traffic lights are too efficient to melt off the Wisconsin snow: resulting in accidents.
Ooops. Somebody didn't think through the whole process when they converted some Wisconsin traffic lights to energy-saving LEDs. Sure, they save energy over the old-fashioned bulbs. And that means they don't burn so warmly...and that means they don't melt the snow off in those regular snowstorms. Energy efficient starts to not matter if the drivers can't see which light is on. So some wiper blades? Or an automatic de-icing system?
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
... or perhaps should have left traffic lights alone (NT)
RE: LEDs save energy, but not lives
Why
Cuz road signs and signals never got snowed over before there were LEDs
If there's that much snow around then signals are almost irrelevant anyway. If something's moving in your direction it ain't gonna be able to stop.
Just put a hot air blower attachment on the snowplow. Then the driver blasts any signals and signs that they pass.
RE: LEDs save energy, but not lives
I like that
How many lives lost due to malfunction?
year, storm or no -- often when drivers are not
expecting a failure.
How many lives are lost then?
Or when the somewhat dimmer incandescent is
lost in the bright sunlight?
At least when you see a traffic signal covered
in snow, you're alerted to the need to look
closely. And treat it as a 4-way stop, as
LEGALLY REQUIRED, if not visible.
I think someone didn't think things through
before writing this article. I'm pretty sure
traffic safety engineers DID.
This is like a mini-lesson for cap and trade
Unintended Consequences
atmosphere. Pity that wasn't thought through before it was done.
Or what about the hazards caused by the outages of bulbs that occur
in every city at any time of year, that LEDs reduce, and in some cases
avoid completely.
And what does this really have to do with cap and trade? just another
poor attempt to stop anyone fixing the problems by making a very
weak link between a flawed technology solution and an economic
system.
What about if the LEDs had a de-icing system on a timer - maybe so
revolutionary that it is just like what your fridge does, or even the
reverse cycle air-con does? A small amount of heat every so often
when the temp is low enough would fix it. This system should still
save a heap of energy and therefore save tax dollars.
Human induced Climate change is real and provable and unless stupid
people stop us from rescuing our environment, your pollution's
unintended consequences will mess up our lives in ways that will cost
us a lot of money.
Would you rather you and I didn't pay money in taxes to heat the air
around a street light during summer?
Or are you better served by money going to people to dig up the
ground and burn it so that they make money and we all pay them for
the burnt ground.
For me this is an economic argument and I am on the side of low
taxes and not having to pay for gas and power, but right now the
economy is geared towards continually paying the oil, nuclear and
coal industry to keep us addicted to their products.
Again, How much CO2 is there?
insignificant!
H20 vapor 1-4%
Water vapor is the gas the greenhouse effect is named after.
CO2 is just plant fertilizer
Dude, water rains out of the sky. CO2 doesn't.
You say that as if that is a bad thing
If climate science was finished there wouldn't be climate scientists.
It seems to be relatively recently discovered that "El Nino" drives a warm to cold to warm cycle about a decade long, so that some years the statistics are more useful to climate enemies and some years less.
Again, How much CO2 is there?
In terms of greenhouse insulation, water vapour is self limiting in a cyclic equilibrium that CO2 is shifting to a tipping point.
380 ppm = 3,000,000,000,000 tonnes is hardly insignificant unless you wish to lie to yourself and others.
CO2 is self regulating too
Do you see where this is going? All the true believers in this hooey are the people in college that never questioned anything. Academia, unfortunately, can revolve around money, position, and prestige. None of these things can be achieved in the Orwellian environment of climate science without being a true believer. Hence, it is almost impossible to get the truth.
When the scientist has a vested interest in the outcome (it must always be pro-man made climate change) the answer will always be "It's true!" or "More study is needed and more money!".
CO2 is NOT self-regulating...
"thicker insulation, less heat."
Doh. Wrap yourself up a couple of down sleeping bags, see if you experience less heat. Please: don't further advertise your ignorance with any more posts.
Show me
stupid people stop us from rescuing our environment, your pollution's
unintended consequences will mess up our lives in ways that will cost
us a lot of money."
Finally the proof we sceptics have been looking for. Can you show it to
us?
Re: Unintended Consequences
people stop us from rescuing our environment, your pollution's unintended consequences will mess up our lives in ways that will cost us a lot of money." end quote
real and provable eh then prove it or shut the hell up. o wait you cant prove it, when you look at the big picture there are to many variables that you cant remove.
RE:Unintended Consequences
atmosphere. Pity that wasn't thought through before it was done."
Yeah because no CO2 equals no trees.
No trees equals no oxygen
No oxygen equals no lifeforms
Go drink some more Kool-Aid
Your argument is flawed.
It is a proven fact that plants existed before humans started burning coal, gas & oil. It's a fact plants existed before humans (unless you're a religious fanatic).
lehnerus2000