By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Yeah, you can't just make it more efficient. If I had a 90 mpg Prius, I'd be driving all over the country for sure. :-) Lighting got cheap and now every gizmo we own has LEDs in it. So we wind up using as much power as we ever did to light up our life.
Jevons paradox (NY Times). If that's a subscription link, here's the Wiki blurb.
Interesting to note that none of Japan's wind farms were damaged by the earthquake, although the transmission lines were (another reason to make your energy "local"). Many are on the coast that the tsunami hit. (renewableenergyworld.com)
Coal power plants are not at full capacity 24/7 EITHER.
Is Wind Less "Reliable" than Conventional Generation?
No. Conventional resources occasionally shut down with no notice, and these "forced outages" require operating reserves. For example, a power system that has 1,000-megawatt nuclear or coal plants will typically keep 1,000 megawatts of other generation available, to be ready to quickly supply electricity if a plant unexpectedly shuts down. The power system can still be operated perfectly reliably in this fashion. Thus, "reliability" is not specific to any single generation facility, rather it is measured on a system-wide basis.
As noted by Jon Brekke, Vice President of Member Services for Great River Energy, a utility that operates in Minnesota and Wisconsin: "Wind energy is a valuable part of our diverse and growing energy portfolio. When partnered with other traditional generation resources, wind energy is an effective way to provide reliable, clean and affordable power to our member cooperatives.
Geographic diversity of wind energy helps even out the variability of wind energy in the regional market. In addition, wind farms are typically made up of many individual turbines, which reduce the impact of outages. For instance, there are 67 1.5-MW turbines at our Trimont Wind Farm, so if one is down for maintenance only 1.5% of the total wind farm's generating capacity is lost."
Changes in wind energy output are not instantaneous, as are conventional generator failures. Because of the geographic diversity inherent with large numbers of wind turbine installations, it typically takes over an hour for even a rapid change in wind speeds to shut down a large amount of wind generation. This is a significant benefit when compared with the instantaneous tripping of conventional units. In addition, wind forecasting tools that warn system operators of pending major wind output variations are becoming widely used and better integrated into system operations.
Average wind speeds means just that - the AVERAGE. That means a wind farm placed in a prime location where the winds AVERAGE 12 mph or more 24/7 will be a VERY productive system.
Spain got 40% of it's power from Wind in 2008.
It's plenty reliable, and plenty "available" when used properly.
Good thing you mention small steps because we have hundreds of years worth of fossil fuels in N.A. The oil from sand in Athabasca is an incredible source that is efficient at $20 a barrel.
I'm for small steps in the change in price of energy.
Here is my Nostradamus moment:
By the time fossil fuel "runs out" and we cannot get more for use in power generation, fossil fuel power generation will be an outdated model and supplying only a tiny bit of our needs.
Mark it down, amigos.....mark.....it.....down..... :shades:
None of US will still be here. :shades:
But I'm hoping the Edmunds Archives live forever, like the Dead Sea Scrolls....:) :shades:
They'll be around somewhere...possibly in the stomach of a British Columbian Chilliwack Sasquatch or stuck in the "sword" of a swordfish. But they'll be there...somewhere.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
What have we discovered in the last 100 years as an energy source? 1 new thing - nuclear fission. Wind and hydro power were known long ago. People have always used passive solar. Any other sorts of solar are still limited by the limit of solar radiation reaching the Earth in any given location at any given time. There's lots of energy yes, but practically difficult to provide consistent power to 7B people.
So I'm not so optimistic that it's going to be easy to get breakthrus to a new useable energy source to keep the world going as it is.
And again consider this - if there is a great breakthru tomorrow - nuclear batteries are created - a battery the size of your car's current one can be made and it'll run your car for 36K miles - great right. Yes; until you consider that some new energy source also could be used as the source of weapons.
Do you think our government or any would put nuclear batteries in the possession of their citizens?
Anyway be careful what you wish for. I don't think humanity really could handle some great new breakthru.
And those 7b people are all finding out how the few of us live the high life with every gadget known to man. They will want what we have and it all requires an energy source.
My favorite sustainable energy is all but ignored, Geo Thermal. Why is that? So much more reliable than Wind or Solar. Safer than Nuclear by far. Most of San Francisco is powered by The Geysers GT plant. Why do we allow the Eco Nuts to block this fine source of energy?
But remember: we have NEVER been so technically advanced as we are now.
Our computers are more powerful.
Our problems (as well as our PERCEIVED problems) are greater.
Our requirements for power have never been greater.
Our desire to clean up pollution has never been greater.
Put all those factors, along with others I did not mention, into a brew, and you get what you will need to make amazing breakthroughs.
One person's fine source of energy is another's eyesore. For commercial scale outside the hot zone, you're back to wires and towers. Reliability is an issue too. Boise's downtown has been heated with geotherm for decades but the water was cooling down. They started pumping the used water back into the aquifer and that seems to have stabilized the temperature, last I heard.
Back in the 60s, the nascent industry was hammered by ... nuclear power lobbyists. That happened in the Cascades.
In ground heat pumps work too, but the price is still up there compared to other residential heat sources.
I believe it was GW Bush that brought that to the eyes of all to see. How deep do they have to go for it to work? Has to be different depending on the area. I was all for in-ground homes until a neighbor built one in Havasu. The hassles he went through getting permits was incredible. Then try to find a bank that will loan on anything unconventional. We are pretty much stuck with wasting energy to heat & cool our homes.
There are a lot of geo thermal locations, that are off the table due to being in parks or in Hawaii disruptive to the pagan god Pele.
Similarly no amount of human advancement is going to make something that can NOT combust, combustible tomorrow. Ex. No one is going to get granite to burn in 5,000 years.
Our computers are more powerful.
That means tasks people give computers run faster. But since the task is still assigned/programmed by a human who is advancing at a MEGAsnail rate compared to the computer, it means the limit is still the intelligence of the human. In centuries mankind really isn't advancing in IQ.
The best a human has is a 200 or so IQ? To understand somethings may require the equivalent of a 1,000 IQ, or a 5000 IQ. It is the limit of IQ of humanity that to me makes any claim to the validity of computer models of the climate, appear to be bravado of the scientists. I don't think they have anywhere near a detailed and accurate enough model of the climate. Even if they had a computer 1,000,000 times faster than today's fastest computer, that computer woulod still be working on calculating what some guy with a 175 or 200 IQ put in. Garbage in, very fast garbage out of the computer.
You are being very generous with regards to most scientists on the GW dole. I imagine most are hacks that could not make it in the real world. So they get good at writing grants and milk the tax payers. I would be surprised if the average GW scientist was over 120 IQ.
Only approximately 1% of the people in the world have an IQ of 135 or over
According to Science (2003), the average IQ for American scientists was informally measured as about 125.
Their demonstrations at the LightFair trade show in Philadelphia this week mean that brighter LED bulbs will likely go on sale next year, but after a government ban takes effect.
The new bulbs will also be expensive — about $50 each — so the development may not prevent consumers from hoarding traditional bulbs.
To stimulate LED development, the federal government has instituted a $10 million "L Prize" for an energy-efficient replacement for the 60-watt bulb. Philips is so far the only entrant in testing, and Eftekhar expects the company to win it soon. But Lighting Sciences Group plans its own entry, which it will demonstrate at the trade show.
The big problem with LEDs is that although they don't produce as much heat as incandescent bulbs, the heat they do create shortens the lifespan and reduces the efficiency of the chips. Cramming a dozen chips together in a tight bulb-shaped package that fits in today's lamps and sockets makes the heat problem worse. The brighter the bulb, the bigger the problem is.
Philips has been selling a 60-watt-equivalent bulb at Home Depot since December that's quite similar to the one submitted to the contest. But it's slightly dimmer, consumes 2 watts too much power and costs $40, whereas the L Prize target is $22. Sylvania sells a similar LED bulb at Lowe's, also for $40.
However, LED prices are coming down quickly. The DoE expects a 60-watt equivalent LED bulb to cost $10 by 2015, putting them within striking range of the price of a compact fluorescent bulb.
$10 LED by 2015
I went to try and find CFL replacement bulbs for the bathroom. They are the small round globe type. When I bought them at Walmart, SDG&E had a promotion for all the CFL bulbs. They were 88 cents a piece. Now the closest CFL I can find size wise is $8 at WalMart. Fortunately I saved all my incandescent light bulbs. CFL bulbs do not last any longer than the old incandescent. They do save electricity. BUT, they are way too expensive. LEDs are ridiculous and so far not any good. Talked to a dealer and he said LEDs burn up too fast. I know the Christmas ones don't last long. No thanks to LEDs that cost $50 and do not last long.
In fact I use regular light bulbs from Oct - May. Big deal if they give off heat. I run electric space heaters anyway, so there is no net difference in my electricity usage. I'm using electricity to generate heat. I put in the fluorescent bulbs in my lamps mainly as a matter of comfort in the warm-humid weather. Using fluorescent bulbs in the winter simply means adding one more space-heater, or running them longer, or having the oil-burner come on more. For me a $0.25 bulb that gives off heat is a great deal. I think I'm going to go out and stock up on them.
I'll be danged if I am going to pay $7 or more for a CFL or $10 for an LED. Makes no good sense.
So far the LEDs sold at places like Sam's Club are getting horrible reviews. $23 for an LED flood that only puts out the equivalent of a 24W incandescent. What are they doing to US? Maybe it is a conspiracy with the Optometrist Union to make US go blind and need glasses.
You need to correct that to say it the correct way:
"*EVERY* CFL does not last longer than incandescents. But *SOME* do last WAY WAY longer."
Because that is the fact of the matter.
CFLs do better when put in areas where they are left on all the time, like an outside light that stays on all the time.
I have had several which lasted for 7 years or longer.
Only in warm climate areas.
So how am I saving electricity by keeping a 17W CFL on 24/7 vs a 100 W incandescent that only comes on when someone walks up to the front door?
A CFL left on would cost me about $4 per month. A motion sensor with 100 W flood only stays on for 2 minutes. Maximum twice a day. That costs me about 34 cents a month. We don't leave any lights on all the time. Two over the sink in the kitchen stay on much of the day (maybe 8 hours). They are CFLs. I have replaced them twice in just under 4 years. For those that have kids that are untrained about turning out lights, the CFL will save some money. Provided you get them cheap. No way an LED at the current price point is worthwhile. Except LED Christmas lights. Which I just leave up year round. The facts are CFLs at 88 cents a piece are a good buy and will save some electricity. At $7 the current Walmart price they are a rip-off.
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/more-led-truths-and-half-trut- hs/6328?tag=nl.e660
For its part, Philips North America is rating its new 17-watt EnduraLED at the same 25,000 hours, but, as the LED numeral system would have it, at a yet again different number of years: not Europe’s 25, not the UK’s 15, but 17 years.
Philips is offering a 5-year warranty. Why not a 17-year warranty? Eftekhar pointed out that manufacturers of all sorts of electronics products do not issue warranties that cover the entire lifetime of a product. Many gadgets for instance come with 1- and 2-year warranties but last much longer (my last Apple MacBook didn’t, but again, that’s another story). “If we went to a longer warranty, there would have to be conditions and usage attached to that,” he said.
How can we be sure that the bulb will last for 17 years or that my 25-year bulb will actually last a quarter of a century? Why is it that some brands of bulbs are conking out quickly?
Much of a bulb’s longevity depends on “how well the electronic components are put together” and “how well it dissipates heat,” noted Eftekhar, who added, “I’d like to see that there are clear cut standards.” LED bulbs include circuitry that cuts voltage way down from 110-volts and 220-volts to around 5-to-12 volts, and that converts household alternating current to direct current. The components also include heat sinks.
His comments echoed explanations by other LED experts and entrepreneurs at a panel discussion at the Cleantech Forum Amsterdam last week URL HERE who noted that LED bulb failure tend to stem from components other than the light-emitting diode itself.
Even a bulb’s efficiency – industry tends to rate them at both 80% and 90% more efficient than incandescent – can vary with the quality of construction and components. Efficiency can also vary with the phosphor applied to a bulb. Room bulbs such as the new 75-watt EnduraLED are coated with phosphor (that’s why they’re yellow when turned off) that converts a blue diode’s light into visible white light, and that also warms up its Kelvin rating (vendors have more work to do to improve the warmth of the light URL HERE). Directional LEDs tend use phosphor closer to the diode, which can undermine efficiency.
I like the chances of an LED lighting future. These things have so much going for them besides energy efficiency that should easily accomplish a 2012 U.S. regulation mandating 25% improvement. For people who can afford the upfront cost of $45, LEDs should indeed offer a lower cost of ownership if they last 17 years, and slash energy consumption. As Eftekhar notes, “They are not just consumables.”
They can also help grow crops faster and with less land. They’re easy to control remotely – the Dutch town of Tilburg has installed LED streetlights that brighten as people and traffic move below them and then dim again. The potential for lighting highways, towns and cities is enormous. The controls even allow users to change a light’s color remotely, which has all sorts of possible uses in health and education, as different light waves stimulate learning, healing and behavior.
As for how long a bulb lasts, we’ll have to wait and see. I installed one of my new 12-watt LED bulbs at home 5 days ago. It’s one of the European models rated at 25 years. I’m happy to report that it’s still blazing away, although my usage has totalled a whopping 2 hours. I’ll have to wait 25 years (or is it 15? or 17?) or 24,998 hours before I can issue a full report. I’ll instruct my computer to flag me on May 16, 2036, to revisit the subject. I’ll get back to you then - if my laptop outlives its warranty, that is.
Yes, we were....
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/smart-takes/flexible-solar-sheet-can-capture-mor- e-than-90-percent-available-light/16395?tag=nl.e660
Flexible solar sheet can capture more than 90 percent available light
By Larry Dignan | May 17, 2011, 1:00 AM PDT
A University of Missouri engineer has developed a flexible solar sheet that captures more than 90 percent of available light. The move could be big gain for solar panel efficiency.
Today’s solar panels capture roughly 20 percent of available light.
Like most discoveries, these solar sheets won’t be available immediately, but Patrick Pinhero, an associate professor in the Missouri University Chemical Engineering Department, aims to make prototypes available in the next five years.
How do these efficient solar panels work?
Pinhero and his team developed a thin, moldable sheet of small antennas—dubbed nantenna—to harvest heat. Nantennas are capable of collecting solar irradiation in the neared infrared and optical regions of the solar spectrum. Pinhero worked with a team at the University of Colorado to extract electricity.
The teams are looking to secure funding from the U.S. Department of Energy and private investors. A second phase will focus on harvesting energy at industrial complexes.
It appears that these efficient solar sheets are designed to complement existing solar panels. The moldable sheets could be incorporated into roof shingles.
$45 for a 75W replacement. :sick:
Call me when they get down to $5....
$123 for this array. LEDs are the best for providing the proper lightwaves for growing.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
I have used watermelons for target practice and they blow up really cool. Especially with an AR15 223 cartridge. Been awhile since we lived where you could do that.
I still eat watermelon almost daily. I get good ones here in Phoenix, for the most part. On rare occasions I get them too mushy or not very sweet or crunchy.
It's the reason no one in Saskatchewan lives past the age of 32;
According to Environment Canada, dust from unpaved roads in Ontario puts a whopping 90,116 tonnes of PM2.5 into our air each year, nearly 130 times the amount from coal-fired power generation. Using the Clean Air Alliance method for computing deaths, particulates from country-road usage kills 40,739 people per year, quite the massacre considering there are only about 90,000 deaths from all causes in Ontario each year. Who knew? That quiet drive up back country roads to the cottage for a weekend of barbecues, cozy fires and marshmallow roasts is a form of genocide.
And wood fires are big killers also. :P
The particular type of emissions that gets talked about now as the main health concern is called PM2.5, or ultra-fine particles smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter. According to Environment Canada’s emissions inventory, Ontario’s coal-fired power plants released 699 tonnes of PM2.5 in 2009. Is that a lot? One way to tell is to compare it with another source nobody worries about: residential wood fireplaces. According to the same Environment Canada emissions inventory, Ontario residential wood-burning fireplaces released 1,150 tonnes of PM2.5 in 2009, 65% more than all the coal-fired electricity generation together.
Its the DUST
My anecdote:
When I wanted a new van in 1973 I went to Anchorage Chrysler to buy one. He had many on the lot. None with Air Conditioning. I told the salesman I wanted to order the extended van with AC. He wanted to know why I wanted AC in Alaska. I said for all the dirt roads. It pressurizes the cabin and keeps a lot of dust out. He was not convinced and was not interested in ordering one for me. So I called dealers in Seattle and that was my first of many times ordering vehicles from somewhere else. I have not owned a vehicle without AC since 1973. Probably saved my life.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
There's been a big stink in Seward Alaska for years about the coal dust blowing around at the Alaska Railroad terminal - they pile it up there staging it before loading it up for shipment to Korea or wherever. That's just one spot - the wind blows where it's mined and dust blows off the coal in transit. (Seward City News).
May 19, 2011
The Dangers of CFLs Even Greater Than Previously Known
New evidence of CFLs causing fires -- even exploding -- as well as new environmental concerns have come to light since my article The CFL Fraud published. Here are some of the additional fires:
CFL Fires
The Reasons why CFL's are a rip-off
by Rick Delair
http://edisontechcenter.org/CFLs-Rick.html
LEDs (light-emitting diodes) are frequently cited as the next generation of lighting technology, supplanting CFLs. Many people believe their very high cost will come down, and many recommend them even at today's prices because of CFL shortcomings and the belief LEDs have no environmental problems. However, recent LED research at the University of California at Irvine found the lead content was over 8 times the regulatory limit, and the nickel content was over two and one-half times. Under California's environmental law, most LEDs would qualify as hazardous waste, though California does not currently classify them as toxic and disposes of them in landfills. The study was based on LED multicolored Christmas lights, traffic lights, and automobile headlights and brake lights.
A recent news release from the university about this study states:
"Those light-emitting diodes marketed as safe, environmentally preferable alternatives to traditional lightbulbs actually contain lead, arsenic and a dozen other potentially hazardous substances, according to newly published research.
"'We find the low-intensity red LEDs exhibit significant cancer and noncancer potentials due to the high content of arsenic and lead,' the team wrote in the January 2011 issue of Environmental Science & Technology....Results from the larger lighting products will be published later, but according to Ogunseitan [who headed the study] 'it's more of the same.'
"Lead, arsenic and many additional metals discovered in the bulbs or their related parts have been linked in hundreds of studies to different cancers, neurological damage, kidney disease, hypertension, skin rashes and other illnesses. The copper used in some LEDs also poses an ecological threat to fish, rivers and lakes."
http://today.uci.edu/news/2011/02/nr_LED_110210.php
When the dust settles, Coal may be safer than all the above. NO FREE LUNCH. Our lifestyle is a hazard to our health. Our homes, our cars, our iPhones, our computers. All add to the health risks.
All these people "fighting" CFLs are just the same people who don't like being told how to live - EVEN IF THOSE INSTRUCTIONS ARE BENEFICIAL.
"Damn the consequences, full polluting speed ahead !!!"
Puh-Leeze. I'm glad I'm not THAT kind of idiot. :shades:
Maybe because they make power generation equipment they don't want to hurt electricity sales, but if LEDs were cheap, we'd all put them everywhere and wind up using more power.
You mean like the University of CA at Irvine? Or Edison labs? Keep drinking the Chinese koolaid. If they were safe to manufacture in the USA, I would be a bit more likely to see your point of view. I personally had a CFL shoot out flames when it was brand new and the first time I turned it on. So there is more to it than just right wing propaganda. The UC Irvine study was the first time I had read anything negative about LEDs. You can bet CA will be looking at them very closely. LEDs may never get off the ground.
But the bursting into flames? C'mon, dude. Urban Legend Fearmongering, IMHO. And if it's NOT false? So what. Electrical things catch on fire all the time - it's the nature of the beast.
And the "unsafe to manufacture in the USA" comment? False. It's only done in China and not here because we cannot compete with the costs.
Compact fluorescent bulbs will be the standard in the United States come 2014, and G.E. recently closed its last major plant manufacturing incandescent bulbs in September 2010. The company decided against converting the plant to manufacturing the CFL bulbs as it could not compete with plants manufacturing the bulbs in China.
You notice this does not say "because U.S. law prohibits manufacturing of CFL bulbs in the USA" at all. It says we cannot compete cost-wise.
It's not my opinion, but true in fact, that almost everyone who loudly protests and complains about the "safety" of CFL bulbs is doing it from a POLITICAL viewpoint ONLY.
And safety and U.S. regulations cost $, which then makes U.S. industry non-competitive. The medium-small manufacturing site I work at has 3 full-time engineers that do nothing except deal with government safety and emissions issues. That adds cost and makes it more likely that China can make an item cheaper.
Now don't go off saying I'm against safety and a clean environment. I'm just stating there are different safety and environmental standards. You pay directly and indirectly thru lost jobs and industry when you want higher standards than your competitors.
We've seen historically what companies will do when they have "freedom" to do whatever they want - and it AIN'T pretty.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/07/AR2010090706933_- pf.html
Today, about a quarter of the lights sold in the United States are CFLs, according to NEMA, an industry association. Of those, Yan says, he manufactures more than half.
Someday soon, Yan says, he hopes to build a U.S. factory, though he so far has been unable to secure $12.5 million in government funding for the project.
Manufacturing in the United States would add 10 percent or more to the cost of building a standard CFL, he said, but retailers have indicated that there is a demand for products manufactured domestically.
"Retailers tell me people ask for 'Made in the USA' " Yan said. "I tell them the product will cost 45 to 50 cents more. They say people will pay for it."
Sales of the CFLs began slowly, but they spiked in 2006 and 2007, when federal and state government efforts promoted their use.
The Energy Department teamed with Disney to develop a public service announcement based on the Disney Pixar film "Ratatouille" to encourage the adoption of technologies such as CFLs. It was shown on CNN, HGTV and the Food Network.
Lawmakers in California and Nevada drafted legislation calling for higher efficiency standards for light bulbs. And in December 2007, Congress passed its new energy standards.
GE balked at the standards at first, knowing that they could impact their U.S. manufacturing. But the company also saw that with restrictions gaining momentum in more states and other countries, some kind of legislation was unavoidable. They decided to support the bill as long as it didn't amount to a ban on traditional incandescents, but instead simply set energy standards.
"We obviously pointed out to legislators that the impact of an outright ban would be an elimination of some manufacturing operations," said Earl Jones, senior counsel in government relations and regulatory compliance at the company. "But it was inevitable that some kind of legislation would be coming to the U.S."
As expected, the new standards hurt the business in traditional incandescents.
The company developed a plan to see what it would take to retrofit a plant that makes traditional incandescents into one that makes CFLs. Even with a $40 million investment and automation, the disparity in wages and other factors made it uneconomical. The new plant's CFLs would have cost about 50 percent more than those from China, GE officials said.
The company also makes halogen light bulbs, which are an innovative type of incandescent, and Sylvania is transforming its incandescent light bulb factory in St. Marys, Pa. to halogen as well.
But the era of traditional incandescents built in the United States was coming to an end.
In announcing the plant closure here, GE said in a news release that "a variety of energy regulations," including those in the United States, "will soon make the familiar lighting products produced at the Winchester Plant obsolete."
"For those who make incandescent bulbs the law was bad for business," Yan said. "For people like us, it was very good."
Nothing has changed; just subsititue LEDs or GW for Biology. Or just look at the history of lung cancer and the political cover the tobacco companies paid for over the decades.
I don't imagine that GE can compete with China. That plant was a strong Union shop. However I personally talked to the President of Lights of America. I asked him why he was not making CFL lights in the USA? His answer was twofold. EPA regulations on mercury would not let them expand passed their current florescent tube manufacturing. The Hassle was not worth the legal battle. So jobs are lost to China where the regs are mercury are much less stringent. So you can say it is political as the Eco nuts have blocked many processes that used to be done here on an environmental basis.
It gets back to my original argument. If a product cannot be made here and many cannot. They should not be sold here.
That's a very curmudgeonly and unusual stance. I don't think I know of anyone else who believes that. You are one of a kind for sure, Gary. :shades:
I personally don't see the logic in it. What does it matter? If it's already made and the pollution already created, then buying it does no additional harm.
If we refuse to buy or the Feds block the sale, they will cease their polluting to satisfy our desire for clean air. The pollution does not stay in China or India. Yours is a very short term benefit thinking.
To get anything REALLY accomplished by your personal boycott, it would have to be on a MUCH larger scale.
You are talking about a nationwide boycott Gary. Not possible. You and everyone you have ever met could execute this boycott, and the polluting would not stop.
Worry about it less. :shades:
You'd have to achieve that result by having developing nations impose a tax or tariff such that buying "harmful" products would be cost prohibitive.
Natural Capitalism aka eco-capitalism, is one such example of an effort to have industrial items incorporate their "true" costs into the price paid on the shelf.