YYZ

This, I agree with. Not to gloat since we were hit overall as well, but no Canadian banks fell during the global downturn. We have an economist as our leader and our Conservative government has taken a more pragmatic stance on environmental issues. Many assume Canadians are all left leaners and tree huggers - and no doubt many are - but no more than in the US. The oilsands may be dirty, but they account for 0.01% of global emissions and they represent an ethical choice for oil when compared to the Middle East, Venezuela, etc... We allow the seal hunt despite global protests, because it's actually the right thing to do. This, too, but you can't swing too far the other way either. Some issues are important and need addressing - it just has to be done without the mongering and hysteria. The problem in a lot of countries right now is that people have drawn lines in the sand and taken an "us vs them" stance on many issues. It happens here, of course, but not as much since we don't have the religious influence that has somehow taken hold in the US, be that Christianity or Environmentalism - they are the two great American religions right now and while it's perfectly fine to believe in what you like - it has to be kept separate from the State - something the founding fathers wanted from day 1.

Well - out of state companies still fall into the "same companies" category I was talking about - existing energy companies. They'd still have to build a whole lot of infrastructure that they wouldn't be willing to do if they'd have to charge less for the energy later on. Don't you think they want into CA specifically because they could charge more, based on the gov't wanting to force people to use less? One way or another the costs are going to keep going up, no matter how much competition you allow, because it's costing more and more to make and distribute. OK, so what would happen if a company did fold? More brownouts? Bailouts? The government would either have to bail them out, or let one of the other companies take them over - and let them charge you more for the privilege of having to rescue a money losing venture. It's happened elsewhere, like here in Ontario, where on every bill we pay "debt retirement fees" or "delivery charges" above and beyond the actual cost of the energy and/or transmission costs. You pay for extra "dirty" power they have to produce. Looking at California some more - don't you think if every device connected to the grid had a power factor of over 90% that they would suddenly be able to exceed the actual demand with existing power plants? They would. Doesn't it make sense to get more efficient first, then build new capacity when needed? You want lower bills, you have to lower the costs of providing the energy. To do that, you need to reduce the consumption and increase efficiency. It's not simply about throwing more capacity at it.

Drilling and refining is now talking about oil and gasoline - I thought we were talking about electricity? And I never said that additional plants would be controlled by one company, just that the same companies that are already out there would be the ones with the resources to build more and infrastructure to connect them. For an outsider to build and then charge the same or less (assuming some measure of competition as you hope), it would be a money losing proposition on a huge scale. The only way new players are going to get in is if the government agrees to let them charge higher rates - which is the exact opposite of what you want.

How does building more plants create competition when they're likely to be controlled by the same companies? Second, what about the natural resources used, and chemical waste that come from these new plants?

Wind and solar can only do so much since they can't be relied on for base load generation anyways. LEDs are just one way to reduce actual consumption - especially if they start replacing incandescents or halogen lamps. Fluorescents and neon are still very efficient so the case there is more about maintenance or ease-of-use. It makes perfect sense to reduce base load consumption, the question is how? Left to individuals nothing would happen, so someone has to take a leadership role. Some have tried to scare people into change (Gore), others have tried to force change with taxes and price hikes (parts of Europe), but neither is the way to go IMO. You just have to present the right technology at the right price and people will willingly go where they need to. If the right price is achieved by rebates then it's possible to push things along more quickly, but those rebates have to make sense. If $1 billion in rebates can offset the need for a $1 billion coal plant, then it makes good sense. The money is a wash, but it's a cleaner, more efficient solution overall. A lot of people blindly support or oppose these efforts, and both are equally wrong to do so IMO.

I think every country or state has their own approach, but it is usually the government that is bankrolling these efforts. If they're faced with having to put billions into new nuclear generation, or windmills or solar or coal plants - what they're trying to do is reduce overall consumption and ease the need to spend money on new generation infrastructure. The logic is that if they spend say, $100 million a year to help reduce certain types of consumption, and it is able to offset the increased demand that population growth would require, then they don't have to invest in billion dollar power plants - or at least not as many. So it's ultimately tax dollars that subsidize all these efforts, but those tax dollars are used to prevent from even more tax dollars being spent elsewhere. If they can cover any increased demand with cleaner technology like windmills and not burn coal (the largest source of power in the US), then it does make sense environmentally. It doesn't have to be about global warming, but think about smog or acid rain or spent uranium that are known, measurably negative side effects of power generation. The question is whether your government is smart enough, or can be trusted to invest only enough to make smart financial case, or if they're going overboard and pushing a different agenda based on carbon credit trading, subsidies, etc... Just like the (supposed) military-industrial-complex pushes for investments into ships and planes and weapons to keep their people employed, the energy-environmental-complex is the next thing that will be at the forefront of government spending contracts. They're both important and needed in some way, but a close eye has to be kept so that you don't have crooks and speculators don't end up running the show and putting taxpayer dollars into their own pockets.

Great email Hanson, thanks for sharing that. It may have been a joke, but I completely agree. The fact is that there already are strip clubs and clothing retailers and any number of 'questionable' businesses in the area around Ground Zero, so if there's going to be a muslim community center, there might as well be a pork store and a biker hangout.

Brian - you're completely reading into things what you want to. Power factor is important not just for LEDs, but for neon and fluorescent as well and has nothing to do with spin. If a neon tranny is 90% PF and LED power supply only 70%, the neon would come out ahead - it works both ways. What I was saying is that PF of the power supply or tranny is something that has to be factored into any comparison if it's going to be worth going over at all. In fact, it might be a good idea for a tutorial. Do a theoretical comparison of the following: Assuming a 3' x 8' light box sign: Fluorescent on standard PF Fluorescent on high PF Neon on standard PF Neon on high PF LED on non PFC LED on PFC And Brian - just because you pay for Watts used, that doesn't mean it's the true cost of the power being generated. The discussion is about energy savings, not electric bill savings. You want to save energy - with any lighting technology - PF is a very important part of the discussion.

Care to explain what exactly is ridiculous? As for the webinar itself, weren't the membership dues everyone has paid for these sorts of things that were going to be added after the tutorials?

Much like site membership, I think you'll attract more viewers (and users) with prices that are more reasonable and easier to throw away. I think $29 would probably be a good target number, but one worry I have is that Nisa will get into the type of technical talk that will go entirely over the heads of most viewers. If she's going to talk in generalities then it won't be worth it, but if she gets into specifics about recognizable brands or products, then there's some value. Further - if the discussion is about "efficiency vs savings" - far more important than LED power consumption is the power factor of the supplies. The higher the PF, the less it costs energy suppliers to generate and transmit the power to the end user, who pays only based on the power measured at their meter, regardless of PF%. Are the savings only to be considered by the end user, or from and entire power generation and distribution standpoint?

I was able to meet or speak with Jim on a few occasions and always came away feeling like both listened, and cared, and that's not always the case in business. My thoughts and condolences go out to his family and friends, and may he rest in peace. Thank you, Jim.

Could be certain Nichia parts they're using, otherwise it makes no sense to me. There's no global shortage of resistors or wire or circuit board materials. If it's the driver they use, then it won't impact all mfgs since they don't all use the same drivers. Same thing if it's the LED, since not everyone uses the same diodes. What has happened in electronics is that some parts are pushed out to 8 or 12 or even 16 weeks lead time and if you haven't forecasted your quantities with the supplier, someone can swoop in and clear out items that you usually have readily available. It's no different than glass or phosphors or power supplies (insert product here). It happened to us last year with one particular component that was wiped out for 12 weeks plus, but because it was a unique light engine we were doing, we designed around the shortage and used a different processor. There's plenty of alternates that would be happy for an open door to supply you an alternate product that you might even like better.

Sounds like your supplier giving you a line. LEDs (like any other electronics) can be prone to some large OEM like say, Ford or Apple or LG consuming millions of parts per day, but that's generally forecasted for. Is there a specific product or vendor you're referring to?

Same here. Still good that we can have this conversation at all, without fear of state police or thugs coming over to teach us otherwise.

So that's the impression of me you've created - that I'll destroy a community to rub a couple of nickels together at night? Talk about hyperbole. Should I change my avatar to Monty Burns, or is Gene Simmons already strawman enough?

Agreed. The difference with the XXX store was the the pylon was not allowed. If I was a sign shop, I would have refused also - but I leave the decisions about what is allowed and what isn't to others. I might steer the customer to make a more subtle or appropriate sign for the location, but it seems the mosque is doing that too - no minarets, domes, etc... It's a mosque in name only, just like the porn store could have a nice stucco exterior with covered windows and subdued signage. But to be there at all - with some signs - is OK. You'd think the church would want it under their nose so they can keep a look out for their parishioners going in there at 11 pm ;)

I thought the question was "Would you take the job?". My point was that if they had the legal right (which you concede they do) - regardless of how suitable, appropriate, right, wrong or completely misguided - I'd take their project just like I have from any other church, synagogue or temple. I have walked away or refused jobs on principle - but never on religion. Making one here would only prove the zealots right.

Not sure what you mean by digital... as in centrally programmed and operating LED message centers (like an airport), or TV displays next to each classroom, or digitally printed wayfinding signs?

So should Canada, IMO, but unfortunately neither is 'all or nothing'. Neither country forces people to abandon their religions. Islam is the most regressive, ignorant and backwards of all religions - on that I will not argue - but if freedom of religion is allowed (whether promoted or just simply tolerated), then places of worship have to be allowed as well. There's no way around that because it's in your Constitution. If you want to start amending it with Islam specific points, what do you think would happen then? Wouldn't blocking it also feed into their propaganda that America hates Islam and needs to be fought? This is more valuable fuel to the fundamentalist fire and more damaging to America in the long run, than any short term gloating among some unrelated cave dwellers that they were able to build a quasi-mosque close to Ground Zero. I doubt they give a shit if it's built or not, but would absolutely capitalize on the fact that it was prevented from being built, of that is what ends up happening. Blocking it just to prevent a smaller percentage of the more extremist Muslims from being able to thumb their noses is short term, smaller scale thinking. If you want to beat the terrorist, you have to take away the ammunition that creates support for their hate. You have to be better than them and try to sway the larger number of good Muslims (a contradiction in terms, to an atheist) to side with the US, rather than keep silent and allow the extremists to hijack their faith. From my non-religious POV - now that this has become such a widely discussed issue - there is greater value in allowing the quasi-mosque to be built to undermine the hate that exists, than there is to block it and feed the hate even more. This is no 'shrine' or 'billboard' as it's being made to sound. It's a 13 story building with no minarets, domes or anything resembling what hardcore Islamists would consider a middle finger salute of any kind. Force certain conditions to be obeyed, monitor the place, whatever, but to block it would set a really bad precedent that allows for the trampling of all sorts of personal and religious rights, not just those of Muslims.

Look - I agree it's a BAD idea - but do you guys honestly think this thing is being built as a shrine to the bombers?

** edit ** deleting double post ** (Erik - you should allow users to delete a post within a certain timeframe. Your server often lags which makes these double posts more likely )

I'm not American, no. If that disqualifies me from answering, then please skip the rest of this post (Canadians were killed on 9/11 too), and as far as nutjobs go, were are the same infidels to them that you are. We have our own issues with fundamentalists, though of course did not have the same type of attack occur - though one was prevented a couple of years ago and 18 people have either been convicted or currently awaiting trial for the planned attack on government buildings, the stock exchange and killing our head of state. That said - I understand and agree that some faction of Islamists will view this building or an other new mosque as a middle finger to America and all infidels. They already do, though I don't think need this particular mosque to do that even more, considering it is not a new mosque coming from nowhere and will look nothing like the type of mosque they would consider a victory. In fact, true Islamists would likely find it entirely inadequate as a symbol of Islam. It's not like it will overlook the 9/11 grounds or anything - it's 2 blocks away - among the apparently 70 or 80 Muslim organizations already operating in lower Manhattan. If it wasn't Obama and the Democrats in the White House, you wouldn't hear anywhere near the opposition to this that you do. It's a wedge issue being used to attack the administration (I don't care one way or the other if it's Democrats or Republicans in office, for the record), more than it is a genuine issue. What it comes down to is that if mosques are allowed in the US at all - which they are - then what legal justification is there for anyone to step on the toes of the local government and block it? It will be a 13 story building and not some odd looking temple with domes and minarets like many are picturing. Other than signs or special stonework, it will likely blend into the area entirely.

Something that is often overlooked in this discussion is that the mosque is already there and has been there since before 9/11. This is not a new mosque to be built *on the site* of 9/11 as people make it sound - but within a block or two. It was an old bank or bookstore or something that they've been in for some time and are now trying to reconstruct on the same site. This fact should vastly change the tone of the discussion, but doesn't because people prefer to be mad or worried about something. Don't get me wrong - I would never say that building a new mosque right by Ground Zero would be a good idea, but that's not what is being proposed. This particular mosque already exists - it just doesn't look like one - and they are paying for everything themselves. This is not some taxpayer funded pet project. So the question is really "does the city grant a permit to upgrade and existing mosque, paid for entirely by the applicant?". I personally regard all religious buildings equally and if I was offered a contract to work on one, would charge the same as I would anyone else. if they can pay, I'll do it. In fact, we just supplied hundreds of feet of outdoor accent lighting for a pretty spectacular looking temple in India and were part of a large retrofit of some big Protestant church in Germany. .

We always visit, but I'm contemplating a booth, even at this late stage. I saw on the floorplan you have one of those weird demo booths, no? Gonna have a truck there?

I grew up in K-W, so Humber College was the only Toronto school I went to. Did my time in Rexdale, then downtown and Woodbridge for a few years each, now I'm in Mississauga. Our shop is just a little south of you, close to the airport.