Banning the Light Bulb

[Fairlane]

Well i dont now what to make of this but they are banning the inridiscent (sp) light bulb, in order to cut green house gas.

I cant say im a huge fan of this, ok it will cut a fair bit of greenhouse gas, but not everyone (ie me) wants to be forced to use a energy saver bulb in ever item, i for one depend on the heat produced by some bulbs. I suppose it also raises question of what people will do to get bulbs for heatlamps, spotlights, even my fridge etc and will 12v wiring systems be exempt?

[Polyal]

I think its a good idea, every little bit does count when everyone is forced to change.

[4.9 EF Futura]

Sounds like a good idea. Im not a scientist so cant debate the accuracy of expected greenhouse emission reductions (im sure someone will refute the claims purely because they're being put forward by the govt lol)... but if they are what they claim... then seems like a great idea.

Going from a $0.80 bulb to a $5.00 bulb isnt going to break me financially... besides which the energy saving lights last a fair bit longer...

On the wider issue, i think simple government mandates like this are much more favourable compared to complex, expensive and exploitable nationalised carbon trading schemes.

Im sure the details around heat lamps etc will come forward... a long time between a minister announcing a scheme and all of the "i"s being dotted.

[Polyal]

All that carbon trading talk is crap. Just plant some more trees, and start doing things like this, its a small start, but you can only take little steps to begin with.

[charles_wif_xf]

I just had a weird idea. Let's just say everyone did buy the fluoro lights, had the most energy efficient electrical appliances and didn't run air conditioning at all. The generators would still run flat out generating electricity 24/7/365. I know this for a fact as I have several friends which work at Yallourn in the La Trobe valley here in Victoria that can attest to this fact (I am only speaking of the coal fired plants, not the hydro sources).

Wouldn't that mean that the net saving of carbon dioxide emissions due to electricity production from coal is essentially ZERO???

[protd]

MM not sure but i would expect that the amount of load demand on the station would have alot to do with it's emissions.. just a guess as i have no idea but it seems logical to me

[FordFan86]

Who else here enjoys a good old fashioned raising of the leg, letting it rip and having a jolly good laugh?

[4.9 EF Futura]

Originally Posted by charles_wif_xf

I just had a weird idea. Let's just say everyone did buy the fluoro lights, had the most energy efficient electrical appliances and didn't run air conditioning at all. The generators would still run flat out generating electricity 24/7/365. I know this for a fact as I have several friends which work at Yallourn in the La Trobe valley here in Victoria that can attest to this fact (I am only speaking of the coal fired plants, not the hydro sources).

Wouldn't that mean that the net saving of carbon dioxide emissions due to electricity production from coal is essentially ZERO???

Gotta start somewhere! Whilst i doubt any of our power generating facilities would be scaled back at any time in the near future, an initiative like this may alleviate the need for more power sources in the future? Damn good point tho....

An interesting read in terms of energy consumption and associated outputs... is Jevons' paradox.

William Jevons would basically have you believe that as use of a resource becomes more efficient (through technological improvements), total use of that resource may well be inclined to increase.

A derivative view of Jevons' paradox, prob applicable in this scenario, arises when you factor in the way which modern economies are driven by the credit creation process and the value associated with energy (i.e. the cost).

The following is taken from http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/SecondPage.html which discusses the paradox in the context of oil consumption. But i think its fair to say that electricity (particualrly coal fired power) is an appropriate substitute.

Apologies for dumping huge amount of text in here, but its worth the read:

Pretend you own a computer store and that your monthly energy bill, as of December 2004, is $1,000. You then learn about the coming energy famine and decide to do your part by conserving as much as possible. You install energy efficient lighting, high quality insulation, and ask your employees to wear sweaters so as to minimize the use of your store's heating system.

After implementing these conservation measures, you manage to lower your energy bill by 50% - down to $500 per month.

While you certainly deserve a pat-on-the-back and while your business will certainly become more profitable as a result of your conservation efforts, you have in no way helped reduce our overall energy appetite. In fact, you have actually increased it.

At this point, you may be asking yourself, "How could I have possibly increased our total energy consumption when I just cut my own consumption by $500/month? That doesn't seem to make common sense . . .?"

Well think about what you're going to do with that extra $500 per month you saved. If you're like most people, you're going to do one of two things:

Option #1. You will reinvest the $500 in your business. For instance, you might spend the $500 on more advertising. This will bring in more customers, which will result in more computers being sold. Since, as mentioned previously, the average desktop computer consumes 10X it's weight fossil-fuels just during its construction, your individual effort at conserving energy has resulted in the consumption of more energy.

Option #2. You will simply deposit the $500 in your bank accoun where it will accumulate interest. Since you're not using the money to buy or sell anything, it can't possibly be used to facilitate an increase in energy consumption, right?

Wrong. For every dollar a bank holds in deposits, it will loan out between six and twelve dollars. These loans are then used by the bank's customers to do everything from starting businesses to making down payments on vehicles to purchasing computers.

Thus, your $500 deposit will allow the bank to make between $3,000 and $6,000 in loans - most of which will be used to buy, build,or transport things using fossil fuel energy.

Typically, Jevon's Paradox is one of the aspects of our situation that people find difficult to get their minds around. Perhaps one additional example will help clarify it:

Think of our economy as a giant petroleum powered machine that turns raw materials into consumer goods which are later turned into garbage:

Petroleum In > The Economy Garbage Out >

If you remove the machine's internal inefficiencies, the extra energy is simply reinvested into the petroleum supply side of the machine. The machine then consumes petroleum and spits out garbage at an even faster rate.

The only way to get the machine to consume less petroleum is for whoever owns/operates the machine to press the button that says "slow-down." However, since we are all dependent on the machine for jobs, food, affordable health care, subsidies for alternative forms of energy, etc., nobody is going to lobby the owners/operators of the machine to press the "slow-down" button until it's too late.

Eventually (sooner than later) the petroleum plug will get pulled and the machine's production will sputter before grinding to a halt. At that point, those of us dependent on the machine (which means all of us) will have to fight for whatever scraps it manages to spit out.

To be clear: conservation will benefit you as an individual. If, for instance, you save $100/month on your energy bills, you can roll that money into acquiring skills or resources that will benefit you as we slide down the petroleum-production downslope. But since your $100 savings will result in a net increase in the energy consumed by society as a whole, it will actually cause us to slide down the downslope faster.

[flappist]

Smoke and mirrors guys, an election is coming soon.

[Polyal]

Originally Posted by flappist

Smoke and mirrors guys, an election is coming soon.

That it might be, and its a shame that things like this only come up at this time; but hey, better late than never.

[GXL078]

Now that everybody has air conditioning maybe we should cut down on our electricity usage. I thought a compact fluro was a type of worker's singlet.

[LTDHO]

Originally Posted by flappist

Smoke and mirrors guys, an election is coming soon.

This sounds about right.

Although, I have already replaced all mine with energy savers. It's a good idea. The light is softer too.

[uranium_death]

Originally Posted by FordFan86

Who else here enjoys a good old fashioned raising of the leg, letting it rip and having a jolly good laugh?

Who doesn't?

Awesome post.

[4.9 EF Futura]

Originally Posted by flappist

Smoke and mirrors guys, an election is coming soon.

True, very true.

But that's a serious hand of poker to be bluffing on!! Light bulbs just a start... and a pretty easy one at that.

"Hey grandad, how come the earth's so stuffed?"

"Well mate, back when the government said it was time to start cutting back on greenhouse emissions, we kinda wrote it off as an election campaign gimmick"

PS. Note to self, sell shares in OSRAM.

[Work Horse]

Originally Posted by flappist

Smoke and mirrors guys, an election is coming soon.

Cynic. :hihi:

Next you'll be complaining about all the co2 produced to manufacture all the replacement light bulbs.

Or the fact that while Australians are turning off light bulbs, Chinese are turning them on in ever greater numbers, so whats the point?

Wasn't the whole China thing the reason we didn't sign up to Kyoto?

I'm suprised anyone takes this seriously (apart from good old 4.9 EF Futura). Listen to our Australian of the Year, and maybe read his book.

The Future eaters by Tim Flannery.

[charles_wif_xf]

Originally Posted by 4.9 EF Futura

Gotta start somewhere! Whilst i doubt any of our power generating facilities would be scaled back at any time in the near future, an initiative like this may alleviate the need for more power sources in the future? Damn good point tho....

An interesting read in terms of energy consumption and associated outputs... is Jevons' paradox.

William Jevons would basically have you believe that as use of a resource becomes more efficient (through technological improvements), total use of that resource may well be inclined to increase.

A derivative view of Jevons' paradox, prob applicable in this scenario, arises when you factor in the way which modern economies are driven by the credit creation process and the value associated with energy (i.e. the cost).

The following is taken from http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/SecondPage.html which discusses the paradox in the context of oil consumption. But i think its fair to say that electricity (particualrly coal fired power) is an appropriate substitute.

Apologies for dumping huge amount of text in here, but its worth the read:

Excellent post EF. Some very valid points made there. He touches on one of my pet peeves: fractional reserve banking, but that can be addressed another time.

It is commendable for everyone (as individuals) to be able to use less electricity and use their vroom vrooms less, but industry as a whole uses way more fossil fuel sourced energy than all of us domestic users. Industry and the corporates have for too long shirked their responsibility, placing the blame squarely on us, the domestic user and how we aren't doing enough. It's high time the abovementioned entities are held accountable for their polluting ways. If a carbon trading scheme is introduced, they will find a way to get the money to pay for the amount of emissions they need or even worse, find ways to circumvent such schemes.

This might sound a bit odd, but what if the solar constant has increased in value?

(The solar constant is the amount of energy received at the top of the Earth's atmosphere on a surface oriented perpendicular to the Sun’s rays (at the mean distance of the Earth from the Sun).

The currently measured figure is 1368W/m2 but I have been hearing whispers from a colleague at my alma mater that indicates this figure is increasing in value, ie, the Sun is pumping out more energy than it used to, that it is closer to 1390W/m2 and slowly growing (around about 0.5W/m2 per year).

[wulos]

For those that may actually be interested in what is intended regarding the banning of incandesant lighting read on.
I have yet to read anywhere a hard and fast date, or ruling as to when this is set to take place, or how indeed they intend to enforce it.
We are however on the edge of a rather large technological change if the industry insiders are to believed. The revolution will involve the usage of 'light emiting dioded' to produce domestic lighting, instead of incandesants that have remains virtually unchanged since Edisons days. Even Compact Flourescents are comparatively inefficient when compared to LED's.
The LED's are still in early development stages, however for the same lumens output they are SIGNIFICANTLY lower in their overall energy usage even when compared with CF lighting. (current figures indicate that a 3.5w LED is approx equivalent to a 55w LV downlight / 10w compact flourescent) The efficiency levels of these LED's will improve further still once work to improve the beam spread of the lamps is refined. As a bit of a rough guideline the LED's are expected to cost somewhere between the costs of the CF & current incandescents and have a lifespan of around 30,000 hours of use(twice the lifespan of CF and roughly 30x that of incandescents).
Sounds to go to be true? google it & see for yourself.

[charles_wif_xf]

Originally Posted by wulos

For those that may actually be interested in what is intended regarding the banning of incandesant lighting read on.
I have yet to read anywhere a hard and fast date, or ruling as to when this is set to take place, or how indeed they intend to enforce it.
We are however on the edge of a rather large technological change if the industry insiders are to believed. The revolution will involve the usage of 'light emiting dioded' to produce domestic lighting, instead of incandesants that have remains virtually unchanged since Edisons days. Even Compact Flourescents are comparatively inefficient when compared to LED's.
The LED's are still in early development stages, however for the same lumens output they are SIGNIFICANTLY lower in their overall energy usage even when compared with CF lighting. (current figures indicate that a 3.5w LED is approx equivalent to a 55w LV downlight / 10w compact flourescent) The efficiency levels of these LED's will improve further still once work to improve the beam spread of the lamps is refined. As a bit of a rough guideline the LED's are expected to cost somewhere between the costs of the CF & current incandescents and have a lifespan of around 30,000 hours of use(twice the lifespan of CF and roughly 30x that of incandescents).
Sounds to go to be true? google it & see for yourself.

I have a Maglite retrofitted with a Luxeon 5W LED "bulb" and it is extremely bright. Don't see why they won't be utilised in household applications, FFS they are using them on most of the traffic lights here in Victoria.

[wulos]

It "is" only a matter of time before they achieve common acceptance & increased usage. I would be very suprised if they aren't in general usage within the next 10-15 years(if not sooner)
The only real issues with them being put into mainstream usage is the "directional" nature of LED's and that they are working on ways of fitting better 'dispersion' lensing on the front of them. A redesign of light fittings would make the LED lamps cheaper again as the lenses add additional costs to the manufacturing process

[max]

Had to laugh when I heard Turnbull say on air today, the concept is a world leader and will possibly start a global trend! Hehehe... that man is switched on!!

[GasoLane]

Want to see just how much difference changing light globes in OZ will make to overall Greenhouse gasses

On a global scale we're right up there with Alaska and Siberia!

[XR6-VCT-2000]

That is just rediculous ! , a light globe is no different to a resistor ! - thats what a light bulb is realy anyway , and there can be up to a few hundreds resistors in 1 electrical item ! - what next ? are they going to ban all electrical equipment too !

Besides, i hate those fluro energy saver lights , they put out a horrible colour light.

[bEAn86]

mr edison would not be happy!

[Night Runner]

I hope NZ isn't to follow...I'm all for clean, we're probably the cleanest around but sheesh!!
That's an awesome photo you posted GasOlane. Check out the yanks and Jappas!?! Holy crap! :

[charles_wif_xf]

Amazing, isn't it, how the US has 15 times the population we do and yet they consume hundreds of times more energy than we do.

[Outbackjack]

Phasing out the old filament light globe is a good idea. The fact that an election is coming will bring more good ideas, but more importantly, the motivation to actually do something about them. As more and more people buy the compact flouro globes, the price will come down. My house is full of them. I only have 1 filament globe that is red and used as a night light for our little one. The reason for buying them was for longevity, not power saving ( I dont pay our power bill ). They do last longer and I cant see any other difference.

Bring on the ban!! What will the druggies do? Will grow lioght still be available?

[bEAn86]

yeah everyone talks green but as soon as they have to get off thier fat *** and do somthing they grizzle and moan about it, "awwww its going to cost a little bit of money" ect

[Night Runner]

Originally Posted by charles_wif_xf

Amazing, isn't it, how the US has 15 times the population we do and yet they consume hundreds of times more energy than we do.

Yeah but most Americans could care less about the rest of the world. The way they think and are brought up, no wonder half of them know nothing outside the US. A huge % think NZ and Aussie are one big island. Mind you, when they have a World series Baseball event that's only played between states - go figure. "Greatest Country in the world". Yeah, sure.

[flappist]

Two other conciderations:

1) Incandescent is resistive, fluro is reactive (ind) so the aggregate power factor will be lower and therefore VAR/I2R rears its ugly head.

2) The most inefficent time for power generation is spooling up or down the turbines. If the load at night is reduced then the differential between that and day will increase and therefore cost more and waste energy. i.e. if you drive in stop start traffic you make more exhaust and use more fuel than just cruising along.

This is election based warm and fuzzy bullcrap. Yes it is a good idea in theory but there are other conciderations and in the big picture 1 aircon = LOTS of lights and CRT televisions and hot water heaters use lots of power.

In cars power steering, aircon and autos use power so maybe we should ban them too.

Like dropping the highway speed limit to 10km/h. Almost no more road deaths and significant fuel savings but nothing would get done.

But it does make a nice news story and directs us away for the real problems if only for a few hours.......

[Night Runner]

Originally Posted by flappist

Two other conciderations:

1) Incandescent is resistive, fluro is reactive (ind) so the aggregate power factor will be lower and therefore VAR/I2R rears its ugly head.

2) The most inefficent time for power generation is spooling up or down the turbines. If the load at night is reduced then the differential between that and day will increase and therefore cost more and waste energy. i.e. if you drive in stop start traffic you make more exhaust and use more fuel than just cruising along.

This is election based warm and fuzzy bullcrap. Yes it is a good idea in theory but there are other conciderations and in the big picture 1 aircon = LOTS of lights and CRT televisions and hot water heaters use lots of power.

.......

You're above my head, unless you Googled it I didn't know that. However, I think it would be safe bet to say that the Government would have professional scientists who would know a little more about the matter than that of yourself. Not picking but if you're that hard-out about it, so would they. It wouldn't have been: "Hey, lets ban light bulbs today aye fellas?!!"


You get my point.