Lights Out for your bulb

[STEED]

EU switches off our old lightbulbs (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23388387-details/EU+switches+off+our+old+lightbulbs/article.do)

I hate those energy saving bulbs and they don't always last longer, I had too change one which was less than two days old. :huh: I bet the price on them will go up once the old one has been banned. Time to stock up on them and sell them on the black market. :shifty: :lol:

[Tchocky]

Good idea. I prefer the light of the filament bulb, but they're so inefficient - something lke 12% light I think. My flat is lit with strings of Christmas lights anyway :)

[Letum]

It's about time. I use 15watt energy saving bulbs and they are very bright. I can not look straight at them anyway. If that not bright enough you can even get 20watt ones.
I started using these bulbs a year and a half ago when it became possible to buy really bright ones. I am yet to replace a single bulb in the house.

There is no excuse for the old fashioned light bulbs. They do more to heat your house than light it! Not to mention heating the planet via the power they waste!

[fatty]

I love the energy savers. I find the light not only brighter but also "whiter" - it seems to my eyes that the traditional bulbs cast off a more yellowish light. My only complaint is that the ones I'm using take a minute or two to reach max. brightness.

[GSpector]

Do they really save that much on the bill when you factor in the cost per bulb?

[ReallyDedPoet]

EU switches off our old lightbulbs (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23388387-details/EU+switches+off+our+old+lightbulbs/article.do)

I hate those energy saving bulbs and they don't always last longer, I had too change one which was less than two days old. :huh: I bet the price on them will go up once the old one has been banned. Time to stock up on them and sell them on the black market. :shifty: :lol:

Mine have been going out, so I just chuck em, but found out they have a 5 yr warranty:yep: Think I'll put up with em.

[Torpedo Fodder]

We switched to compact flourescant lightbulbs 2 years and I love them: Every bit as bright as the bulbs they replace, yet consume only a quarter the power. All the ones I bought originally are still working, and we've definately had lower electricty bills since we started using them. Most of the ones we bought have a warm, yellowish glow like incandecant bulbs: Everyone here thinks white or bluish-white is too harsh for indoor use, so we only use those outside. A few light fixtures still use incandescants, for a variety of reasons, some because of dimmers (I havn't been able to find any dimmer compatible CFLs in my area), and second because some CFLs are to large for fixtures, but now that has changed, thanks to more compact CFLs now available:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v123/JonNik/bulbs.jpg

Left: regular incandescant bulb, Center: new, more compact 13-watt (60-watt equivilent) CFL, Right: regular 13-watt CFL.

[Letum]

Do they really save that much on the bill when you factor in the cost per bulb?

Even if these bulbs used the same amount of electricity they would still save money because they last so long. As "reallydedpoet" said, many are sold with 5 year warranties. You would need to by many standard bulbs in the same time frame.
If a bulb fails in the first month it is faulty and most retailers will replace it for free. If bulbs still fail for you then there is something wrong with your domestic circuitry.

Next there is the saving to the electricity bill.
If you replace all your lights then your lighting bill will be cut by 75%, however you total bill will only be cut by a smaller percentage because lighting does not normally account for a large percentage of modern electricity bills. Obviously it will make a bigger difference the more lights you have.

[TteFAboB]

Europe saving the planet by guiding humanity towards greater lumen.

[STEED]

Folks of the UK this is a example of the EU forcing us to obey them and Tony Blair has rubber stamped it. This is why we should get out of the EU, too many people here are rubber stamping the EU legalisation and not saying no. Other country's in the EU say no, one good example is France. If we are staying in the EU I wish we had people who would stand up to the EU and say no.

All we get are yes men and I am sick of it. :mad:

[lesrae]

Folks of the UK this is a example of the EU forcing us to obey them and Tony Blair has rubber stamped it. This is why we should get out of the EU, too many people here are rubber stamping the EU legalisation and not saying no. Other country's in the EU say no, one good example is France. If we are staying in the EU I wish we had people who would stand up to the EU and say no.

All we get are yes men and I am sick of it. :mad:

We would expect no less of you mate :D

[STEED]

We would expect no less of you mate :D

I just wish we had people who would say no for a change. :damn:

This is why our law and order is a mess.


Back on the Subject I got a new energy saving bulb and it packed up on me in less than five minutes. :damn: :damn:

So it's off to the shops to get a swap or my money back, it's not my day folks. :damn: :damn: :damn:

[XabbaRus]

Actually I have low energy bulbs all over our house and must say haven't had any problems and have noticed an impact on our electricity bill.

Sorry STEED but this would have happened EU or not. If the only way of getting people to cut consumption is forcing them then this is the only way to go.

[STEED]

Sorry STEED but this would have happened EU or not. If the only way of getting people to cut consumption is forcing them then this is the only way to go.

That's a fair comment XabbaRus, but we in the UK should have done it not the EU.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Thats ridiculous. Its like banning sweets and carbonated drinks in schools, they're basically telling us what we can and cant spend our money on.

They'll be telling us what kind of underpants to wear next. :roll:

[Letum]

Well, yes...if people where wearing underpants that put a unnecessary strain on the environment and national powersuplys then they should be banned.

I'm impressed with these new EU ideas. Things like this work much better if everyone in Europe does it because it speeds up the changeover for the E.S.Light factories, which means cheaper bulbs!

It's a example of cooperation between nations that the world can follow.

The "us and them" attitude some people have towards the EU is arrogant and counterproductive. England is a part of the EU's decision making, we do say yes and no about propositions.

[TteFAboB]

Thats ridiculous. Its like banning sweets and carbonated drinks in schools, they're basically telling us what we can and cant spend our money on.

They'll be telling us what kind of underpants to wear next. :roll:

Who are you kidding, fool. You don't know what's best for you, I do. My authority comes from my self-righteous scientificist lemming half-brain, together with my slave's moral.

Now sit down before I decide to tell you what you can and can't complain about.

[Penelope_Grey]

energy efficient bulbs are by far the way to go, I love em. If you buy a decent quality one it will work and work and work. The one in my brothers bedroom has been going for so long now, you must be talking years! He spends a fair amount of time there too, reading and playing PS2 etc.

I can see STEED's point about Europe, but really we should be thankful that somebody is willing to take responsibility and cut energy consumption. Because our own government clearly didn't have the stones to do it themselves maybe because they are worried about losing votes? Who knows!?

I shall be telling my mother and father, energy saver bulbs are the ticket!

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Thats ridiculous. Its like banning sweets and carbonated drinks in schools, they're basically telling us what we can and cant spend our money on.

They'll be telling us what kind of underpants to wear next. :roll:

Who are you kidding, fool. You don't know what's best for you, I do. My authority comes from my self-righteous scientificist lemming half-brain, together with my slave's moral.

Now sit down before I decide to tell you what you can and can't complain about.

Lemming half-brain? So if I waved this rainbow umbrella infront of you, you'd jump off a cliff with it in an amusing and stress relieving fashion? ;)

[The Avon Lady]

I'm all for it.

Ban the bulb! :yep:

[Linton]

I do not think anybody has come out with a replacement candle bulb yet>you also cannot use any of these new bulbs with a dimmer.

[Skybird]

It's nonsens, a political hyperactivism meant to display that they are "concerned", that "they do something", and that the ordinary guy is given the opportunity "to do something for the environment". Unfortunately I have already heared and seen too many exemplary calculation in german TV and radio saying that the ammount of energy being saved this way is almost meaningless in the general calculation concerning effects for the climate.

I also hate the light these new bulbs make, it has more blue and less red and looks like Neon light. This is okay in bureaus, cellars, working areas, but at home it is absolutely "ungemütlich", hard, harsh and cold. That's the main argument for me to not buy these things so far. Also, the human biorythm is programmed to expect changing ligh conditions by the end of the day (sunset), which means an increase of red in sunlight, and darker light conditions. This effects the organism's switching over from activity to resting mode. And light conditions can mess that up severly. I expect raise in sleeping problems and other health or psychological issues. Many variables of modern life already do effect our posyche or health in this or that way.

And finally, there are these alternative daylight lamps (have nothing to do with energy saving bulbs) which also create brighter, whiter light that mimics daylight. But the trick is not to light punctually by these lamps, but to flood the environment you are experiencing with your eyes completely, else most testing subjects perceive these lamps's light as unnatural in contrast.

No eneryg saving bulbs for me as long as they do not succeed in copying the classical bulb's more yellow, warmer, "gemütlicher" light. My living space is not the last about feeling home, feeling well and having "Gemütlichkeit". Icy-cold hard light I do not accept in here. when a prohibition becomes valid, I will buy a stock of 100 or 200 classical bulbs, which will give me quite some years of "surviving". Or switch to Halogen ligh completely, as long as that does not become forbidden, too.

Politicians. Can't somebody sink them in a deep black hole, dammit? Kinderkacke. There are much more severe problems concerning energy and environment than this.

In German:
http://www.welt.de/politik/article755058/Hurra_wir_werden_die_Welt_retten.html

[ASWnut101]

I got one of those squiggly bulbs, and STEED, I think you are just getting ripped off. Mine is four years old and still has it's original, bright-brightness. You need these to look at it: :cool:

[STEED]

I got my exchange and it's working alright for now. ;)

[Torpedo Fodder]

I also hate the light these new bulbs make, it has more blue and less red and looks like Neon light. This is okay in bureaus, cellars, working areas, but at home it is absolutely "ungemütlich", hard, harsh and cold. That's the main argument for me to not buy these things so far.
I don't know what kinds of CFLs are availabe in Europe, but over here we can easily find models that are tuned to produce a "colour temperature" of around 2700K (a yellowish-white glow about the same as a regular filament bulb; close enough that I can't tell the difference if the bulb is in an enclosed fixture). I fully agree that the bluish-white ones are too harsh for most indoor fixtures, which is why I only use them outside, and if those were the only colour availabe I doubt I'd be as keen on CFLs as I am.

I do not think anybody has come out with a replacement candle bulb yet>you also cannot use any of these new bulbs with a dimmer.
I know there are models out there that are made for use in dimmer fixtures, although I havn't been able to find any in my area. One complaint against the dimmer CFLs though is that when dimmed they still have the same colour temperature (thus appearaing a dull yellowish-grey rather than orange) as they do when fully lit.

[The Avon Lady]

It's nonsens, a political hyperactivism meant to display that they are "concerned", that "they do something", and that the ordinary guy is given the opportunity "to do something for the environment".
I'm surprised by your negative attitude.

To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, a watt saved is a watt earned.

Plain and simple, one of these bulbs uses about a third of the electricity of its incandescent equivalent. Good for the purse and pocket, too.

And it also promotes awareness of the issue.

[XabbaRus]

Thats ridiculous. Its like banning sweets and carbonated drinks in schools, they're basically telling us what we can and cant spend our money on.

They'll be telling us what kind of underpants to wear next. :roll:

Well if the public are too stupid to stop their kids spending money on them at lunchtime then what choice have the government got?

The nation can't afford to have unhealtyh overweight kids who then turn into unhealthy overweight adults who drain more on the taxpayer than what they put in.

If parents actually taught their kids how to eat healthily and themselves asked the schools to remove the vending machines then legislation wouldn't be needed.

[Skybird]

And it also promotes awareness of the issue.
Which probably is the only intention of it all.

during the oil crisis in the early 70s, they had car-free (obligatory) sundays in Germany. It was not about saving oil consummation. It was not about that there was no oil left. Reserves were full. The public simply was not aware there was a critical developement, and so they had the car-free sunday to create a consequence that actually could be felt. It did nothing constructive beyond that.

but serious: anybody thinkikn g people in europe do not already know? We get flooded with environment-related news day in day out. It is en vogue. So, I think the comparison to the the oil crisis does not work. People seem to think that hybrid cars and energy saving lamps alone will save the world. CO2 is discussed as if it is the only decisisce factor, but when you say "methane", they ask "hu, what you say, what is that?". BS. there are so much more energy-critical variables, mainly in the field of transportation, aircraft, powerplants and heavy industry, were the real gains must be won. Compared to that, energy being used on private light bulbs is almost unimportant. As I said, there were repeatedly model calculations given on TV these days showing that the impact of energy-saves gained from changing the bulbs is close to unimportant. No, I do not have them recorded on VHS...

So the real intention probably is to satisfy the call of the people for "actions", and save the interests of the industry from that action. It is the chnace of politicians to presnet themselves in the role of their lifes: the one who cares, the one who acts, the one who manages the crisis. They just had their climate summit, -20% in 13 years, they said, concerning emissions. The values themselves are unimpressive. But they are only intention anyway. The real problems start now, because now they must negotiate whom has to save how much. They will already rub their heads bloody about nuclear energy, I'm sure. You know what became of these emission certificates? They were overpriced, to propagate them, and were given away for free in too great numbers. They havbe seen a constant fall in value, for these reasons. Today, they are less than 3% of their original value. Result: nobody in the industry cares anymore for trading them, economically they have become simply uninteresting. The exoistence of the system itself - nevertheless still bluffs the public. But it is a complete failure so far.

In Germany, we go freaky about garbage sorting. We have a "yellow sack" for stuff like plastic bags, yoghurt pots, plastic bottles, styropore that can be recycled. We have a "brown ton" for organic garbage. And a "blue ton" for paper. and a "green container" for glass. And a "grey ton" for rest garbage.

That is nice and well, and makes sense concerning paper and glass. Concerning the brown ton with organic waste, arguments pro and con alraedy can get exchanged. But the real laugh is about the yellow sack, which gets filled the fastest in an ordinary household. Because at the sorting-centre, the pieces that are attractive for recylcers (big, huge items) get sorted out and enter recycling. But these make only for less than 5% of the overall weight-volume (? Gewichtsvolumen) - the remaining 95% that citizens so proudly and so much aware of the environment have sorted before - then get transported to the ordinary waste burning facilities envertheless, and joimn the content of the empötied grey tons (rest garbage, ordinary waste). Most people do not know this, and politicians are not eager to point finger at this. The public conscousness is satisfied. That is the intention of it all.

It'S about pleasing the public and giving Peter and Paul the good feeling that the party cares. Maybe you catch their vote by that, who knows. The things that must be adressed and changed are of a far greater scale and level than just energy-saving light bulbs.

Think of that the next time you buy a mega-power-supply or a very hungry gfx-board for your PC, or a plasma-TV that easily eats up all what you have saved in watts by using new bulbs. Think of that the next time you (as a for example Northern european) think you need to buy fruits in winter that needs to get transported from North Africa, or as a good economist you think it is clever if german butter gets sold in Ireland and Irish butter gets sold in Germany, and the Danish think they must have Spanish tomatoes and the Germany want their potatoes from Egypt instead of taking them from their own farms. Korean refrigerators in europe and "made in the EU" transported to Asia not to mention. Or when you board an airliner for your holiday trip around the world. Or picking a plane for even a short hop where train still would be available, and reasonable. And people who take a car to drive 100 m to the baker, with a greenpeace-sticker on the car, are not to be taken serious. They are fools.

[joea]

Right, so let's go for de-industrialisation then. :shifty:

[Skybird]

Right, so let's go for de-industrialisation then. :shifty:
Quatsch, who said that? Meaningless exaggerations will not help us a bit. Only really substantial and most drastical actions will help us not to prevent, put to soften a bit the consequences we will experience from climate change, and shortening ressources, and then it still will become intense enough. Car-free days and energy saving bulbs in private households are populistic campaigns only, aiming at distracting people from the grim truth, relieving the pressure public opinion puts onto the industry consumers, coal and oil industry, transportation and airliner business, allowing politicians to polish their profile, and keeping up communal and social control by hiding that we need to implement much, much harsher actions that probbaly would lead to conflicts in the widest meaning within our societies. This bulb issue is not more than one drop of water on a hot stone. What we need is a tankload, so to speak.

[Penelope_Grey]

"The Journey of 1000 miles begins with a single step."

You have to start somewhere, and if this doesn't get any support (just simply phasing out old lightbulbs) how can the more advanced things like you are advocating take place? Bear in mind the lightest of drizzle if sustained long enough can make the place very wet.

It might be small, but its the beginning and if this works out more will follow. Rome was not built in a day after all, you cannot do too much too soon, or people will dig their heels in and it causes more problems than it solves. People don't like drastic changes too quick, you have to be gentle about it.

[Skybird]

If this small ministep is considered to be as a "first step", than I am deeply worried for the future. Too long the voyage, too little time, too much an excuse to stay within the comfort zone where one does not change profitable habits. It is an alibi only, and no further essence.If minstres and chief of governments meet on a summit and talk about energy and climate and at the end of the day they try to sell such a sweet nothing as the great deal, without having much more to show as a result than this, then this is not only ridiculous and absurd - it is a desaster and total failure in the face of recent climate reports. "Pipifax und Babykacke", that's what it is. But it helps to reduce cognitive dissonance and relieve pressure from our bad consciousness - almost for free! Isn't that great! Who would have thought that saving the world is so easy! It also helps to distract that for example especially the German government has successfully prevented to tight emission controlls for car engines - this illustrates where the real interest is.

[The Avon Lady]

If this small ministep is considered to be as a "first step", than I am deeply worried for the future. Too long the voyage, too little time, too much an excuse to stay within the comfort zone where one does not change profitable habits. It is an alibi only, and no further essence.If minstres and chief of governments meet on a summit and talk about energy and climate and at the end of the day they try to sell such a sweet nothing as the great deal, without having much more to show as a result than this, then this is not only ridiculous and absurd - it is a desaster and total failure in the face of recent climate reports. "Pipifax und Babykacke", that's what it is. But it helps to reduce cognitive dissonance and relieve pressure from our bad consciousness - almost for free! Isn't that great! Who would have thought that saving the world is so easy! It also helps to distract that for example especially the German government has successfully prevented to tight emission controlls for car engines - this illustrates where the real interest is.
Just because something is so simple, it doesn't mean it's not beneficial. "No pain, no gain" is not true 100% of the time.

For fun, see BanTheBulb.org (http://www.banthebulb.org/). Are their statistics wrong? For example, in this BBC opinion piece (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4667354.stm) by the same person, it states:
With lighting contributing 5-10% towards the typical electricity bill in the developed world, and even more in the developing world, the savings could really mount up.

Low-energy light bulbs would be a first step to curbing climate change
It has been estimated that if every household in the US replaced just three of its incandescent light bulbs with energy-saving designs and used them for five hours per day, it would reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by 23 million tonnes, reduce electricity demand by the equivalent of 11 coal-fired power stations and save $1.8bn.

Given that investing $450m could save $1.8bn, it is hard to understand why anyone would still choose incandescent bulbs.
Are these statistics wrong? Overly optimistic? Yes, be grumpy all you want about so much more that can be done but don't gripe about the bit of good news coming our way.

And if you really think that the oil industry is behind the ban the bulb legislation, please document this.

[Skybird]

As I said, the statistics trying to tell us that it is an important energy saving already were repeatdly questioned, but I have no reference to that, since it was on TV and I slipped into it by suprise only. The danger is that this story will be serving as an alibi not to tackle the real important variables and factors. If that happens - and so far nothing indicates it will not be like this while our exoperience with emission certificate trading is a failure story from A to Z - then the beig story of changing the bulbs could easily do more harm than good. I know that I am sounding like a never-satisfied party-killer, but hey, haven'T you followed the summit? All that big show, climate UN reports and telling the message over and over again -. and then nothing than a declaration of intention, and replacement of light bulbs? C'mon! That's really a bit too poor a perfomance, isn't it!

Several public offices, and local communities already have replaced their bulbs for energy-savers, btw, and years ago they did that. so far it scores on the bills. But so far no one was able to show in numbers that it had a measurable effect on the global emission calculation. And while we sit here and talk, brown coal powerplants as well as black coal powerplants get build both inside and outside europe, which is absurd. My point is simply this: we do not have the time anymore to waste our time with such stupid and ifantile propagandistic campaign nonsens like "Change your bubble, save the world!" Minsteps is not enogh, we need huge jumps, very huge jumps. We have wasted decades with avoiding even ministeps.

It will end up like with those bands that refuse to join things like "Band aid" that were attacked for not caring for the third world, being not solidaric, when they said "No". these concerts changed nothing, but were a very entertaining media event - for the first world audience - this was what it was about.A nd if you refuse to jump on the change-the-bubble-train, you will soon be accused for wishing to destroy the planet, not caring for the environment, and being antisocial in general and having a doomsday-fetish in special. And irresponsible you are anyway. Greater players in emission and energy consummation feel the relief of temporarily not being targeted, thank you. IF YOU WANT TO KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE WILLING DO ACCEPT BEHAVIORAL CHANGES AND EVEN QUALITY LOSSES IN THEIR LIFES TO HELP CLIMATE AND REDUCE RESSOURCE WASTING, ASK THEM HOW MANY OF THEM WOULD BE WILLING TO SKIP TRAVELLING TO FOREIGN CONTINENTS IN SUMMER HOLIDAY, NOT USING PLANES IF IT IS NOT URGENTLY NEEDED; AND TO STOP SHIPPING AND TRUCKING GOODS AND PRODUCTS AROUND THE GLOBE AND TO PLACE THAT ALREADY CREATE THE SAME GOODS AND PRODUCTS. OR ASK THEM IF THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO BOYCOT PC HARDWARE UPDATING THAT CONSUMES MORE AND MORE ENERGY, SINCE WE ARE AT IT :lol: "Me? But I want to play silent hunter 4, I need that new PSU and graphixs board!" "Playing with less than 1000 frames at 1600 x 1200 and all maxed out?! This is a democracy, I can play like I want!" :lol: You get th idea, so please don't de dissapointed with the result.

We had car-catalysators, and particle-filters for cars, and the things I mentioned above. Nothing of that changed the general trend of increasing energy consummation, and the climatic price for that. Econimocal arguments still go first. And the public still loves to get lulled if it is done in a way that leaves it the illusion that th Peter and Pauld actively have helped to change the world for the better.

Do a substantial job, or don't. This bulb-hype (because the Australians politically most correct had the idea) is simply not sufficient. If the Australians wouldn'T have had the idea, europe wouldn't talk about it. Europe wants to be seen as the leader of the pack in environmental issues, and do not want to be second best concerning light bulbs - so they copied the Australian decision. You could as well let it be. Kinderkacke.

[XabbaRus]

I think we should have light free fridays.

Only essential services can have power like hospitals, military bases and the like. Make people go back to early nights and going blind by candle light.

[SUBMAN1]

Here I am - the only one who is in opposition again.

How many people here know of studies based on flourecent lighting and how it is bad on your eyes?

I'll always have bulbs. I don't care what it costs me.

-S

For some worker bees, fluorescent lighting doesn't just produce a case of the blahs. It can also cause real physical maladies, including headaches and even migraines, eyestrain, and sometimes stress, reports The Wall Street Journal. But corporate America loves fluorescent lighting because it's efficient and cheap so solving this problem is something workers will probably have to do themselves.
Fluorescent lights don't even work that well. As the Journal notes, they provide, at best, the light of a cloudy sky. "Far from the come-hither glow of candlelight, fluorescent bulbs cast a hell-and-back pall over everyone," writes Journal columnist Jared Sandberg.

[TteFAboB]

I can't find the statistic for how much energy is consumed on the manufacturing of the new bulbs, and the comparison with how much energy it takes to build the older one.

Also, I can't find the statistic about the bulb industry in Europe. Where are the factories, what will be of the incandescent ones and its workers and what is the current and projected market share. Although not energy related, I'd like to have information on pollution.

It seems that the new bulbs are more complex than the older ones and require more petroleum components to be made. Exactly how much more Oil? An increase in production to replace incandescent bulbs will increase the effect on the enviroment. Where is the statistic on how energy demanding an Electrical Ballast is to make and the effects of its increased production? Where is the statistic on how much an increase in cryogenic fractional distillation of liquified air (and the liquifying of air) will affect energy consumption? How will an increase in phosphor production and the extraction of its host materials affect energy consumption? What about the casing?

Nothing is said of the waste aswell. They last longer but not indefinitely. How much Mercury is inside each lamp and how would an increase in the use of CFLs increase discharge and contamination of land, air and water by Mercury? If most of them aren't safe to be disposed in the regular gargabe (something highly likely to occur as people will simply carry over their habit of disposing the old bulbs) but must be properly recycled, how much energy does the entire cycle of reclycing demands? And can you break down the cycle giving me the statistic for consumption of each step (first transportation, selecting/processing, next possible transportation if not recycled at the factory, recycling proper, next transportation to market shelf and final transportation to user's home)?

Anyway, I didn't knew Australia started this trend, but it's true. Australia was the first government to take action but it was preceded by "non"-governamental organizations, though I can't back this claim, as these orgs might aswell have received money from governments:

1. In October 2005 the British Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology considered LEDs as a potential replacement for conventional light sources.

2. In Fall 2006 Project Porchlight distributed CFL bulbs in Canada.

3. In June 2006 American NGO Enviromental Defense launched the campaigning website Take the Pledge.

4. In September 2006 Wal-Mart announced that it would work to double the sale of CFLs, in partnership with GE.

5. In November 2006 the One Billion Bulbs campaigning website was launched in America.

6. In February 2007 the Australian government decided to phase out incandescent lightbulbs.

As a side note, I've found out that South African CFL manufacturer Eskom is replacing incandescent bulbs for CFLs: http://www.eskomdsm.co.za/pdfs/CFLdlnotification.pdf

Personally I've missed my opportunity to experiment and investigate the empirical data available to me at the moment I've switched some of my lamps for CFLs. I could've checked luminosity with a cheap tool and also easily observed any change on my energy bill. I've done neither so I must believe what the media, the companies and the governments say. I suggest that any of you who are getting CFLs right now to hold on before discarding you old bulbs. Buy a lumens measuring device and take note of the energy consumption of 3 previous months. Compare winter with winter, summer with summer, season with season. Cross-season comparisons are invalid. Also, account for extraordinary weather patterns or too great imbalances and find a properly comparable month (avoid a summer too warmer or colder than the other, same for winter). This also includes anything you've changed in your household (a new hungry refrigerator, a new powerfull PC, etc.).

With all this empirical data in your hands you have more than an opinion or a hope, you have facts.

[STEED]

How many people here know of studies based on flourecent lighting and how it is bad on your eyes?

I for one can say, I suffered headaches from flourecent lighting in two previours jobs.

And why do businesses need to leave there office block lit up at night? Just a waste of energy in my view.

[joea]

IF YOU WANT TO KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE WILLING DO ACCEPT BEHAVIORAL CHANGES AND EVEN QUALITY LOSSES IN THEIR LIFES TO HELP CLIMATE AND REDUCE RESSOURCE WASTING, ASK THEM HOW MANY OF THEM WOULD BE WILLING TO SKIP TRAVELLING TO FOREIGN CONTINENTS IN SUMMER HOLIDAY, NOT USING PLANES IF IT IS NOT URGENTLY NEEDED; AND TO STOP SHIPPING AND TRUCKING GOODS AND PRODUCTS AROUND THE GLOBE AND TO PLACE THAT ALREADY CREATE THE SAME GOODS AND PRODUCTS. OR ASK THEM IF THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO BOYCOT PC HARDWARE UPDATING THAT CONSUMES MORE AND MORE ENERGY, SINCE WE ARE AT IT

Oh now that's over the top, travel, including air travel has given me opportunities and benefits. I believe cars do cause more pollution globally anyway. I can do without tomatoes in winter (well I can buy canned, or dried) but we always traded for things like tea, wine and even oil. We always used it in my household growing up in Canada.

I hope you're not accusing Neal of promoting global warming, or quit posting in the tanksim forum. :arrgh!: (Joke)

[XabbaRus]

Actually out local supermarket does Phillip's bulbs by one get one free for 99p.

Darn cheap and usually about once every couple of months.

[Skybird]

I think we should have light free fridays.

Yes. For compensation we could reduce the number of thge many brain-free days that we already have. :-j

Here I am - the only one who is in opposition again.

Ehm, not really. :lol:

Oh now that's over the top, travel, including air travel has given me opportunities and benefits. I believe cars do cause more pollution globally anyway. I can do without tomatoes in winter (well I can buy canned, or dried) but we always traded for things like tea, wine and even oil. We always used it in my household growing up in Canada.

You see, here it already starts as I predicted! "Yes, save the world, but don't expect me to seriously change my living habits. I have plenty of good reasons, you see." Modern planes are okay beyond a certain distance, and if you have reasons to travel. Mass tourism is not. It even is no right.

Trading is okay in principle, nothing against that. I sell you what you don't have and can't produce yourself, and you sell me what I don't have and can't produce myself. That'S what trading originally has been about in past times. But why the hell must we sent container ships and cargo planes and trillions of trucks around with goods that the others at the target location alraedy have, and produce themselves??? Radios. refrigerators. Milk. butter. Eggs. Vegetables. Meat. TVs. Etc. Etc. Etc. Limit trading to those goods that are not available to the other. You have my vote. But today's practice is idiotic. Today, goods do not have so much a value in themselves, but by keeping them moving around. The longer they travel, the more precious they become. That is IDIOTIC. we are paying for the moving around, not for the item, the material it is made of, the work it took to build it. Ireland does not need milk from holland, germany does not need butter from Ireland, and Holland does not need grain from Germany. A goose must not be bred in Poland, must not be send to Holland for feeding, must not be send to spain for more feeding, must not be send back to Poland to be sold as Polish goose (it is an international coproduction by then anyway). It could be bred, raised, fed and sold on one and the same farm anyway. One could also mention airbus' crisis and it's Europe-wide spreading of production facilties to see that in such deeply sick structures also other problems are hidden.

First everybody consumes his own resosurces. and THEN deficits get taken care of by buying the according items and using what one has too much of one's own goods. That is what I consider to be clever trading. But admitted, it maybe is less profitable, so... But if somebody thinks he must have his Irish butter in Germany and therefore all the energy and effort during the logistical efforts must be maintained in the name of "free trade" and "democracy", because it is so much more tasty (probably only in his imagination anyway), then I could not care less for that man. He better should change his taste, basta.

[GSpector]

Hello All,

I'll have to admit, I agree with Skybird on many points.

For the 1st time in my life, I will disagree with Ben Franklin. If he actually said "A Watt saved is a Watt earned". Why, because a Watt you saved is a Watt used by someone else. Watts are not stored like money in a coffee jar. They are used the moment they are created since they are energy, unlike water which can be stored & saved. Now, the saying "A Dollar saved IS a Dollar earned", I agree with.

I see this whole lightbulb push, as a means to push people towards a new technology, not necessarily a better one. Certainly does not appear to be a cheaper one dispite some claims without facts.

When I just looked in the Walgreens ad in the Sunday paper, and I saw 60w - 100w ECObulbs on sale but here's the catch. 1 is $5.99 (any watt) and get 1 free. I would rather buy 1 at $3.00 then have to buy 2 for the discount.

In the Target ad, I see 4 pk 60w GE Reveal for $2.34 (about 59¢ each).

Now it may take me about 2-3 years to use up all 4 60w bulbs, so maybe it would save me about 50¢ in the long run (only if I bought 2 ECObulbs but used 1 to be fare to the comparison) after 3+ years using just 1 socket for the test, but I can save the 50¢ now by taking 5 sec to cut out a coupon to save 50¢ on Toaster Strudels and have something to eat next to the lamp.

But compared to items not on sale, the reg lightbulb still looks like a better deal since 4 bulbs come in 1 pack for $2.34 and only 1 bulb comes in ECOBulb and normally sells for $5.99 and last maybe 5 years.

I still do not believe that by the time I use up all 4 Lightbulbs, I would have spent more on them and the utility bill then I would spend on the ECObulb minus the savings on the bill.

Now when it comes to social engineering, I remember back in Jr High, we had a vending machine that sold apples for $1 and next to it, a chocolate bar for 50¢. Guess which sold and which I bought:roll:

My point is this, I will switch to the so called "better" item when the prices are comparable. I do not care what packaging they put with it whether it be fancy wrapping, a guilt trip for buying what I want or anything else. Price is the deciding factor for me, not a brand name, slogan or some vague cause. I have no intent of going out to destroy this planet any more then I plan to put a lot of hard working people out of work just to make environmentalist happy.

New technology almost always cost more to make which means the production of the ECO friendly device will more then likely negate the benefits of buying the device anyway.

Just my 2¢

[bookworm_020]

Australia Has decide to ditch the old and bring in the new. It has been anounced that they will stop selling the old incandesent bulbs in the near future.

I know some people will complain about the cost of the new v old, but the price has come down and after the first year you are saving money. Win-Win.:up:

[SUBMAN1]

Australia Has decide to ditch the old and bring in the new. It has been anounced that they will stop selling the old incandesent bulbs in the near future.

I know some people will complain about the cost of the new v old, but the price has come down and after the first year you are saving money. Win-Win.:up:
You forget - if that bulb costs you 5 times the cost of the old normal bulb, did it use 5x the energy that is could possibly save to just produce it? In all reality, it could actually harm the environment more to produce the cheaper wattage bulb! We need to see a study on this I think.

-S

PS. Besides, Flourecent bulbs cause eye strain, and ultimately it is glasses for you! Another win for the optics companies too! Win win for all! Bulb companies get more $$$ for the new bulb, it possibly could cost more energy in production than it might save (To be debated), consumer gets forced to pay more profits to the bulb companies (win for the bulb company), screws up your eyes with it 60Hz or so illumination cycle (win for the optics companies!!!). - I guess it is a win for someone, but I don't think a $25 bulb is going to save me $20 over its total life ever to cover its $5 old counterpart!!! I expect it to save me $5 in total out of pocklet energy for a total loss to me of $15 over its older counterpart!

PPS. I can totally see how this is easy to sell to the public when we as the public are lacking the full picture!

[GSpector]

I agree,

When all is said and done, I don't see the new bulbs as being cheaper, only a gimmick that environmentalist like because either they don't know or don't care about the truth.

I think they just bought onto to this whole "Low Energy" and "Good for the Environment" thing with no regard to how they are made or their cost. And like many environmentalist I hear about, probably don't care about the people, only the effect.

[SUBMAN1]

Let post a couple more things about these new low energy lights

1. Mercury is used in their manufacture, so if you do use them, do not simply just throw them away - you must properly dispose of them to avoid having the Mercury get into the land fill. (can we say - possible health hazard in the home?)

2. They make a buzz or low hum - not good to someone with sensitive hearing like i have.

3. Insects love them! More so than a normal bulb. Apparently, insects will like to crawl inside the tubing and perish in there.

4. Time to light is about 30 seconds to several minutes, depending on temperature. Not probably the best solution for a cold place for this reason alone.

Last but not least - if everyone is so worried about the energy they could save and the less pollution that these lights can bring through less use of coal fired power plants - maybe we should not be looking at the light bulb, but looking at those coal fired plants in the first place? One nuke plant can take over the duty of many coal fired plants and nuke plants are increadably clean energy!

My last thought - you can put these bulbs all around your house all you want, but something tells me that no matter how much energy we save, not one (let me re-emphasize this) NOT ONE coal fired plant will ever go offline to make up for it. When I have watched the industry in the past, if one market doesn't use that power, they simply resell that power to another market.

Don't kid yourself on thinking you can save the environment by buying light bulbs.

-S

[Letum]

Let post a couple more things about these new low energy lights

1. Mercury is used in their manufacture, so if you do use them, do not simply just throw them away - you must properly dispose of them to avoid having the Mercury get into the land fill. (can we say - possible health hazard in the home?)

2. They make a buzz or low hum - not good to someone with sensitive hearing like i have.

3. Insects love them! More so than a normal bulb. Apparently, insects will like to crawl inside the tubing and perish in there.

4. Time to light is about 30 seconds to several minutes, depending on temperature. Not probably the best solution for a cold place for this reason alone.

Last but not least - if everyone is so worried about the energy they could save and the less pollution that these lights can bring through less use of coal fired power plants - maybe we should not be looking at the light bulb, but looking at those coal fired plants in the first place? One nuke plant can take over the duty of many coal fired plants and nuke plants are incredibly clean energy!

My last thought - you can put these bulbs all around your house all you want, but something tells me that no matter how much energy we save, not one (let me re-emphasize this) NOT ONE coal fired plant will ever go offline to make up for it. When I have watched the industry in the past, if one market doesn't use that power, they simply resell that power to another market.

Don't kid yourself on thinking you can save the environment by buying light bulbs.

-S
1. a) Not a big health hazard in the home because i) the level of mercury in in very small amounts. ii) It is sealed in the bulb and only released if you break the bulb (the glass on CFL bulbs is usually thicker than normal bulbs and they do not "blow"). iii) I have a thermometer on the wall full of mercury and it does not worry me at all. ;)
b) The mercury is easily disposed of if you follow the disposal instructions provided by your local council (UK). Landfill sites have far bigger problems from people throwing batteries in the bin. Batteries have far more mercury than ES bulbs.
c) Ultra low mercury bulbs are now available.
d) The single biggest source of mercury comes from power stations. The total amount of mercury saved by not using as much power is greater than the mercury in the bulb. i.e. these bulbs put less mercury in the environment than standard bulbs.

2. Not all of them buzz. You can buy ones with no buzz. I have both types in the house.

3. Totaly impossible. The bulbs need to be air-tight to work as they contain a mixture of gases. No insect or microbe I know of can pass a air tight seal.

4. Bulbs time to full light continues to get faster. Even before they get to the full brightness, the higher-watt bulbs are still very bright.


RE: "Last but not least."
Damm right! we need far more nuclear power plants as well as other environmentally friendly power sources! Nuclear waste really isn't a problem to dispose of. The nuclear material is more radioactive (but less dense) when it is dug out of the ground anyway!

RE: "My last thought."
Power plants can not re-sell power because it is extremely expensive to store and can not travel long distance. If people are not using it than you can not give it away! If people stop using as much power then the only thing the power plants can do is reduce the amount of power they produce and the coal the use. All modern power plants are very sensitive to changes in electricity usage, they even burn less coal in the night time because people use less electric then and produce more power at the end of big football events because so many people get up to have a cup of tea! (UK). Power plants do this because it makes financial sense.
That said, I don't care too much if they are good or bad for the environment as long as they are cheaper! I can't afford big electric bills and I cant afford to keep changing my light bulbs.

[GSpector]

Good points SUBMAN1.

Now, I remember when saving energy was a new thing many years ago (before these new bulbs) and it was suggested to use lower Wattage Bulbs and use less often such as SHUT OFF THE LIGHTS WHEN YOU LEAVE THE ROOM.

Now, that sounds like a way we could lower our Utility Bill. This could save us money that could be used elsewhere like maybe a new Power Supply for the Monster Rig to play SH4 or Crysis :roll: in the dark ;).

[Penelope_Grey]

none of our energy efficient lights buzz.

[SUBMAN1]

1. a) Not a big health hazard in the home because i) the level of mercury in in very small amounts. ii) It is sealed in the bulb and only released if you break the bulb (the glass on CFL bulbs is usually thicker than normal bulbs and they do not "blow"). iii) I have a thermometer on the wall full of mercury and it does not worry me at all. ;)
I've never broken a thermometer in a wall. Can't say the same about lights. Do we need a discussion on the dangers of Mercury?

b) The mercury is easily disposed of if you follow the disposal instructions provided by your local council (UK). Landfill sites have far bigger problems from people throwing batteries in the bin. Batteries have far more mercury than ES bulbs.
Maybe in the UK is is easy to get rid of. But still, this is just another thing to worry about in life that is a pain in the butt.

c) Ultra low mercury bulbs are now available.
Mercury is still mercury. Trace amounts are still harmful to the body, and it will cause nerological damage.


d) The single biggest source of mercury comes from power stations. The total amount of mercury saved by not using as much power is greater than the mercury in the bulb. i.e. these bulbs put less mercury in the environment than standard bulbs.
No doubt coal fired plants are the cause of major problems - get rid of them is the best solution. Win win for the environment. Nuclear is clean energy, and efficient.

2. Not all of them buzz. You can buy ones with no buzz. I have both types in the house.
All if them buzz. Even the ones that don't buzz by label, I can still hear.


3. Totaly impossible. The bulbs need to be air-tight to work as they contain a mixture of gases. No insect or microbe I know of can pass a air tight seal.
Read above again - I didn't say into the fixture, but into the coils.

4. Bulbs time to full light continues to get faster. Even before they get to the full brightness, the higher-watt bulbs are still very bright.
Still you are waiting. If I have a high wattage bulb in there, it is because I need high wattage light. ANything less than what light I have specified for that particular fixture is not enough.

RE: "Last but not least."
Damm right! we need far more nuclear power plants as well as other environmentally friendly power sources! Nuclear waste really isn't a problem to dispose of. The nuclear material is more radioactive (but less dense) when it is dug out of the ground anyway!
Nuke waste is a minor problem compared to any coal fired pollutants released by any coal fired plant. Battelle labs has pretty much fixed the disposal problem for the US. Not sure if the UK is using any of its techniques.

I think it is time to start a debate on nuclear power vs. coal fired power. I hate to break it to you, but coal fired power will kill our planet. The disposal of nuke waste is an easy thing to cope with (over the alternative - coal) since the majority of global warming is caused by coal fired plants.

RE: "My last thought."
Power plants can not re-sell power because it is extremely expensive to store and can not travel long distance. If people stop using as much power then the only thing the power plants can do is reduce the amount of power they produce and the coal the use. All modern power plants are very sensitive to changes in electricity usage, they even burn less coal in the night time because people use less electric then and produce more power at the end of big football events because so many people get up to have a cup of tea! (UK). Power plants do this because it makes financial sense.
This is not true. We here in Washington routinely sell power to California and the entire western half of the country. Maybe it is different in the UK, but out here, everything runs at near capacity 24/7, and if we don't buy it, someone else will.

A famous company called Enron used to be a key player in reselling power to other states. Remember them?

That said, I don't care too much if they are good or bad for the environment as long as they are cheaper! I can't afford big electric bills and I cant afford to keep changing my light bulbs.
This should be your main motivation for buying the lower energy bulb. The thing you really have to ask yourself is - will this one bulb save me enough $$$ in power bills in its life to offset its much higher price tag?

[SUBMAN1]

SHUT OFF THE LIGHTS WHEN YOU LEAVE THE ROOM.


Such a novel concept! I think the rest of the world should read this instead of trying to fix the problem with a broken solution.

-S

[ASWnut101]

Nah, turning off the lights is too easy, and discredits Al Gore.:cool: How about we all just turn off the lights and buy night vision goggles? Problem solved.:)

[SUBMAN1]

Nah, turning off the lights is too easy, and discredits Al Gore.:cool: How about we all just turn off the lights and buy night vision goggles? Problem solved.:)

I already have some. I walked into Costco once looking for a coffee table, walked out without the coffee table and had night vision instead. I'm a sucker for gadgets though - I buy everything. Turns out, I used it so much, it is still operating on the same batteries I had in it years ago. Shows you how useful it is after the novelty wears off!

There is one really good use for these things though - comet watching / Astronomy. With these things I can pick out way more of the trails and very low light objects that people with fairly large telescopes can't even see! When a comet goes by, I can see the full tail with it - though its all green, but thats a minor point.

-S

[ASWnut101]

Ooooh, how much was it?

[SUBMAN1]

Ooooh, how much was it?

Bout 10 years ago - $400

That is how long I've had it. Saw it the other day. Its case has a layer of dust on it! But it still works. Made by the Russian company Zenit.

-S

[tycho102]

Instead of calling them "energy saving bulbs", can we all just call them "fluorescent" bulbs? There's a phosphorus coating on the tube -- it "fluoresces" when hit by the ~250nm light (UV-C). LED's are energy savers (close to 23 lumens/watt, now) in comparison to the regular 9 volt flashlight batteries (4-6 lumens/watt). Krypton and halogen bulbs are energy savers (20-25 lumens per watt) in comparison to walmart incandescent bulbs (15-18 lumens per watt).

I use as many fluorescents as I can. The 4-foot lamps start instantly with high-quality ballasts (you'll have to install them yourself), making them perfectly usable in high traffic areas. CFL's everywhere else. I like the CFL 5100K bulbs with a 85 CRI (colour reference index), but some of my 4-foot bulbs are 5000K with 93 or 95 CRI. The white light is wonderful, as opposed to that yellow 2700-3100K light that filament bulbs put out.

If your fluorescents are lasting long, you have power problems or the ballast is poor. Penny-pinching marketing bastards have cut costs on the starters and ballasts for so many years, the specifications are horrible. Run down to Lowe's/Home Depot and buy some decent quality ballasts. Run you $20-30 each, depending on your configuration, but the operating voltage and current will be far superior.

[Skybird]

In the end it all comes down to light quality for me. A financial saving in energy bills of let's say 50 Euros over 5 years is unintersting for me. I have a higher starting investement nevertheless (more expensive bulb, which I really feel at the date of buying it :) ), and in the following years the change in my bill for electricity probably even will not be noticed by me. I couldn't care less for having saved one Euro per month, or not.

Give them a better representation of the colour red (this is where they technically have immense problems), and make them produce light that is of such comfort level and warmth like the bulbs we are used to, and I can buy these bulbs - and not caring for environamental or fincial debates nevertheless. I know that there are various Kelvin-valued bulbs available. But even those named as "warm daylight" I perceive as cold, hard and harsh. And this is the dedicing argument against them for me. I also argue against a room temperature of 16° Cin winter, although it saves a lot of energy for me. :lol: you can live and work in that temperature scale, no doubt. But it feels okay in the sleeping room only, in all other rooms it does feel neither comfortable, nor "gemütlich".

I would expect that in the long run, LED light is the way to go anyway. they use even less energy, are very endurable and robust, and already can prpoduce surprising ammounts of light. But again, immense problems with colouring, and light focussing (letting them perform poor over the distance). I use them in pocket lights and bicycle lights only. They have many advantages, and no disadvantage except this: living comfort of LED white light is zero. Hope they will find ways to get the white colour much, much warmer, and "yellowish".

[waste gate]

Please tell me why the minutea of a light bulb is a topic?

'never mind, lightbulbs are not provocative'

[Letum]

1. a) Not a big health hazard in the home because i) the level of mercury in in very small amounts. ii) It is sealed in the bulb and only released if you break the bulb (the glass on CFL bulbs is usually thicker than normal bulbs and they do not "blow"). iii) I have a thermometer on the wall full of mercury and it does not worry me at all. ;)
I've never broken a thermometer in a wall. Can't say the same about lights. Do we need a discussion on the dangers of Mercury?


I've never broken a fluorescent bulb....

2. Not all of them buzz. You can buy ones with no buzz. I have both types in the house.
All if them buzz. Even the ones that don't buzz by label, I can still hear. I have sat with my ear up to one of the none buzzing ones just now......guess what.....no buzz.



3. Totally impossible. The bulbs need to be air-tight to work as they contain a mixture of gases. No insect or microbe I know of can pass a air tight seal.
Read above again - I didn't say into the fixture, but into the coils. Which bit do you call the coils?



I think it is time to start a debate on nuclear power vs. coal fired power. I hate to break it to you, but coal fired power will kill our planet. The disposal of nuke waste is an easy thing to cope with (over the alternative - coal) since the majority of global warming is caused by coal fired plants. We have just started work on a few zero-emission coal power plants. They work by chemically solidifying all the gases they produce and preparing them for burial. So not all is lost for coal.

RE: "My last thought."
Power plants can not re-sell power because it is extremely expensive to store and can not travel long distance. If people stop using as much power then the only thing the power plants can do is reduce the amount of power they produce and the coal the use. All modern power plants are very sensitive to changes in electricity usage, they even burn less coal in the night time because people use less electric then and produce more power at the end of big football events because so many people get up to have a cup of tea! (UK). Power plants do this because it makes financial sense.
This is not true. We here in Washington routinely sell power to California and the entire western half of the country. Maybe it is different in the UK, but out here, everything runs at near capacity 24/7, and if we don't buy it, someone else will.

A famous company called Enron used to be a key player in reselling power to other states. Remember them?

In the UK all power goes into the "national grid". The power plants are owned by different companies who charge their customers on a percentage system. Our power plants where recently reported to be running on 95% capacity. 5% is still a hell of a lot of spare energy, but there is a big drive to build more power stations. When the power stations produce a net surplus for the national grid it has nowhere to go out side of the grid, it is stored in capacitors for a while and eventually drained off.
By 2020 20% - 30% of the UK's power will come from renewable sources (wind, wave etc). (only 30% if the rest of the EU achieves similar targets).


That said, I don't care too much if they are good or bad for the environment as long as they are cheaper! I can't afford big electric bills and I cant afford to keep changing my light bulbs.
This should be your main motivation for buying the lower energy bulb. The thing you really have to ask yourself is - will this one bulb save me enough $$$ in power bills in its life to offset its much higher price tag?

Hehe, only an American would say that it should be my "main motivation".
The bulbs usually last 6 - 16 x longer than standard bulbs. This is the main saying. I am yet to replace one..

[Happy Times]

EU switches off our old lightbulbs (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23388387-details/EU+switches+off+our+old+lightbulbs/article.do)

I hate those energy saving bulbs and they don't always last longer, I had too change one which was less than two days old. :huh: I bet the price on them will go up once the old one has been banned. Time to stock up on them and sell them on the black market. :shifty: :lol:

Im all for banning them, easy way to save a lot of energy.

[joea]

Oh now that's over the top, travel, including air travel has given me opportunities and benefits. I believe cars do cause more pollution globally anyway. I can do without tomatoes in winter (well I can buy canned, or dried) but we always traded for things like tea, wine and even oil. We always used it in my household growing up in Canada.




You see, here it already starts as I predicted! "Yes, save the world, but don't expect me to seriously change my living habits. I have plenty of good reasons, you see." Modern planes are okay beyond a certain distance, and if you have reasons to travel. Mass tourism is not. It even is no right.

Well ok, thanks for the personal shot. :roll: I guess I started it, sorry. Not a good way to debate. I have several points to make. Who decides "a good reason" to travel or not, or what minimum distance? (Geography including mountains and water would indicate time should be the factor IMO). If we question mass tourism we must question job mobility (even if certain jobs like journalists and scientists require travel) and even educational mobility. (Yes my own experience again). These create the impetus to travel (encompassing all transport).

Good luck trying to limit mass consumption in democracies unless the elites make a show of limiting their own consumption as well or draconian measure that destroy democracy are implemented.




Trading is okay in principle, nothing against that. I sell you what you don't have and can't produce yourself, and you sell me what I don't have and can't produce myself. That'S what trading originally has been about in past times … But admitted, it maybe is less profitable, so... But if somebody thinks he must have his Irish butter in Germany and therefore all the energy and effort during the logistical efforts must be maintained in the name of "free trade" and "democracy", because it is so much more tasty (probably only in his imagination anyway), then I could not care less for that man. He better should change his taste, basta.
Well that is a very good principle, I agree totally. I suppose one way to deal with that is allow the trade but tax the heck out of it (this will bring howls from free traders). On the other hand, I don’t think the answer lies only in changing consumption patterns. I have no qualms about buying real Italian parmesan (granted not too far from Geneva) or Appenzeller from Eastern Switzerland, but favour shipping them as much of the distance as possible by rail rather than truck. Same with the search for alternative fuels, I don’t think the militaries of the world will want their toys to run out of juice when the current variety runs out. :know:


Anyway, simplicity is nice but can also become an idolatry of sorts, or a new Puritanism. Cutting back in certain areas, doing without certain luxuries while permitting oneself others and allowing core needs (different for each person) even if not “PC” is a valid choice IMO.

[Skybird]

I agree that what I said will raise resistance from people who have an interest in keeping things as they are. Also, the example I gave concerning travel distances, is simplified, or left unfinished, for the sake of keeping my posting short. I know that. But that things are difficult does not necessarily mean that they are wrong. I do believe that our prime mistake is that we think we can get away if only we press the right buttons, or readjust some mechanical routines we got used to. That is wrong. I am absolutely convinced that we need to change our attitude, and world view as well as our priorities on what should be seen as valuable in our life, in order to survive as a civilisation, and maybe even as a species. Talking of mental evolution here - and as we all know, a species that does not evolute (is there such a verb? :lol: ), faces extinction sooner or later. Mankind has pro oven it's mechanic, tool-related intelligence so far, but intelligence, or wisdom if you want, goes beyond that, and wisdom I see openly little in our species, but a lot of emotional irrationalities, and instinct-driven automatic behaviour. we are victims of our own - maybe misled - evolution. Possible that our blueprint will be given up. As long as we think only in terms of "energy-saving engines", "ecology-days", "reducing consummation", we still live in a status of expecting that all world is only existent to fulfil our expectations, and that it all revolves around us. We need to learn instead that we have to fully, unconditionally fit into something that is much bigger and important than we are. Reducing long range holiday travel will only be successfully if people change the hierarchy of their beliefs on what makes a comfortable, worthy life: and that LR travel must not necessarily be a necessity to be happy. People tell me it takes them too much time to walk to the baker and get a bread, so they take a car. But the walk to the baker can have it's merits by itself if you go through a nice park nd the weather is fine. you can even learn to see it like that when it is raining. If you change your attitude on that "sparing time" issue, your behaviour changes all by itself. But our culture is not friendly towards such changes and helps to propagate especially values that are of the opposite "quality". You may think my example is profane, but then think of how willingly we have adopt to a society where parents reduce the time they spend with their kids in order to go to work, and/or even push their career. At younger and younger ages small children of 2, 3 years are given away into foreign hands or state-run institutions, so that their parents can go into the office. I think, such time priorities are severely messed up. Nevertheless we created a society were it is a must to behave like that if you wish to survive economically. We have become too abstract (talking as a mediation teacher here), and too materialistic.

BTW, I did not take your reply personally. I noticed that I have touched a nerve of yours, but your reply was ironic, not a personal attack. My reply that you quote was not meant as a personal attack either. Understand that reply of mine purely literally please. I said people agree to save the world, but not if they personally have to change themselves too drastically. You like to travel, okay. But your wish and preference is no must. That's what I was after. there are more important problems than your or my hobbies and preferences. BTW, if you can, do like I did, travel by ship and train only, it gives you far more intense an experience than getting beamed by Delta Airways. It changes your feeling of distance, and time, you get a far superior awareness of the world you pass through, while at angels 390, the world you travel is an abstract theory only. Snipping a finger and boom! you're on the other side of the planet, already is that abstract thing again that I pointed to above.

It's like diets. People eat too bad food, and in too huge quantities, then they make a diet to get rid of their weight, thinking that way they are fine to eat the same crap in the same amounts again afterwards. They want being cured without needing to change themselves, or their habits and attitudes. It is an attitude of constantly expecting that the world cares for us, and serves our comfort. The only way to reduce your weight CONSTANTLY is by changing your food habits forever, eating better food, and banning bad food (no matter how tasty it is).

[Gorduz]

The reason I don't use power saving bulbs is simply because here i Norway you have to use electricity to warm your house 3/4 of the year, and then it really doesn't matter wether you use bulbs or any other means to warm your house.

[The Avon Lady]

The reason I don't use power saving bulbs is simply because here i Norway you have to use electricity to warm your house 3/4 of the year, and then it really doesn't matter wether you use bulbs or any other means to warm your house.
That's only because you've gotten used to living in Norway.

I say expel everyone in the northern hemisphere to the temperate zone. Start packing.

[lesrae]

That's only because you've gotten used to living in Norway.

I say expel everyone in the northern hemisphere to the temperate zone. Start packing.

Or we can just stay where we are, do nothing, and wait for the temperate zone to come to us!

[em2nought]

Being the most frugal person I know, I don't believe the energy savings will equal the increased cost. Especially with production costs and disposal costs included. And if the bulb doesn't last five years I can just ship it back as long as I include about what I paid for it in the first place to cover shipping. :hmm: The only benefit I've found is that my bedroom stays a tiny bit cooler. Also factor in that most of you won't bother to find the best price on the bulbs in the first place. Basically it's a drop in the bucket.

Now make everyone drive a Honda Fit or Toyota Yaris and you're onto something. :rock:

[joea]

BTW, I did not take your reply personally. I noticed that I have touched a nerve of yours, but your reply was ironic, not a personal attack. ...You like to travel, okay. But your wish and preference is no must. That's what I was after. there are more important problems than your or my hobbies and preferences. BTW, if you can, do like I did, travel by ship and train only, it gives you far more intense an experience than getting beamed by Delta Airways.
...
The only way to reduce your weight CONSTANTLY is by changing your food habits forever, eating better food, and banning bad food (no matter how tasty it is).

Ok, we all pick out what to reply to and I accept you had to simplify your example. I wonder if my communication skills are bad or something...I meant more than "travel for pleasure" just as I tried to communicate that Il-2 46 had more than just fantasy content as new content. :damn:

Well I will use examples from my personal experience as an ex-pat. I have family scattered all over because of work and educational opportunities, parents in Vancouver and a sister in New York for example, and even the boat/train option (and a ride on the Trans-Siberean is on my list of "must do") is out for visits because I do work. While I do like to travel this is what "touched my nerve." We live in a world where it is possible for 2 freinds of mine (one from Trinidad, of Irish/Trinidadian background) the other Spanish met doing ther undergraduate degrees in Ireland...then she (Spanish) came to Geneva to study translation while he went to the US to study dentistry. Now married and studies completed they live in the US while she works freelance receiving texts to translate by e-mail.

I don't see the point of living by banning completely the odd "bad dish" as well, just IMHO.

[SUBMAN1]

I've never broken a fluorescent bulb....


I have. Not fun.

I have sat with my ear up to one of the none buzzing ones just now......guess what.....no buzz.

I have sensitive hearing. I hear things that most people can't hear, at frequency ranges beyond what other people hear. Maybe that is part of the problem, but I have yet to see a florecent bulb that I can't hear.

Which bit do you call the coils?

The entire bulb looks like a coil. At least the ones over here do.

In the UK all power goes into the "national grid". The power plants are owned by different companies who charge their customers on a percentage system. Our power plants where recently reported to be running on 95% capacity. 5% is still a hell of a lot of spare energy, but there is a big drive to build more power stations. When the power stations produce a net surplus for the national grid it has nowhere to go out side of the grid, it is stored in capacitors for a while and eventually drained off.
By 2020 20% - 30% of the UK's power will come from renewable sources (wind, wave etc). (only 30% if the rest of the EU achieves similar targets).

Renewables work for me, but a windmill farm can't hold a candle to the power output of a single nuke generator. Only one known thing to me that has the capability to output more power than a nuke - Grand Coulee dam. All other dams can't. I wonder what the environmental cost is as associated with dam building too? Anyway, I am all for renewables if it makes sense.

Hehe, only an American would say that it should be my "main motivation".
The bulbs usually last 6 - 16 x longer than standard bulbs. This is the main saying. I am yet to replace one..

Yeah - I can't remember the last time I changed a normal bulb either. Been running for years just fine. I don't like the stereotypical response though. The point I was making is that it needs to be researched first for a cost benefit plan. If it takes 10x the energy to produce it than it will save in a lifetime, is it really worth it? This push feels remiscent of the push for pure digital TV - is it really neccesary? Same idea. Is this just a push by the industry to make a few more $$$ and force the average guy to pay more $$$ to them? That is what you must ask yourself.

-S

[GSpector]

Quote from SUBMAN1:
"This push feels remiscent of the push for pure digital TV - is it really neccesary? Same idea. Is this just a push by the industry to make a few more $$$ and force the average guy to pay more $$$ to them? That is what you must ask yourself."

Have you seen the new DLP projectors now showing up in theaters? These are also being push at us claiming to be better with sharper images and produces better sound.

Hog wash. DLP has the same problem LCD Monitors do and some CRTs with poor Graphic Card. If you look at any diagonal line or any line not straight up or down and there are Jaggies. Jaggies are not possible with Film projectors.

I agree, just another push for something the industry wants the general population to believe is better. It's not. What it is, is New Technology to replace old technology. That all. Not necessarily better technology.

[joea]

I got the last word yea! :rock:

[SUBMAN1]

Quote from SUBMAN1:
"This push feels remiscent of the push for pure digital TV - is it really neccesary? Same idea. Is this just a push by the industry to make a few more $$$ and force the average guy to pay more $$$ to them? That is what you must ask yourself."

Have you seen the new DLP projectors now showing up in theaters? These are also being push at us claiming to be better with sharper images and produces better sound.

Hog wash. DLP has the same problem LCD Monitors do and some CRTs with poor Graphic Card. If you look at any diagonal line or any line not straight up or down and there are Jaggies. Jaggies are not possible with Film projectors.

I agree, just another push for something the industry wants the general population to believe is better. It's not. What it is, is New Technology to replace old technology. That all. Not necessarily better technology.
I agree 100%! DLP should be left out of the theatres. I can see why they want it though - you just have to load up a hard drive and display a movie just like I do at home. Simple. Film is also expensive and prone to degrading quality over time.

DLP / LCD / Plasma all have one thing in common - Poor picture quality. This stems from poor black levels (this part stems from backlighting), set resolutions (off resolutions = bad picture), poor color representation (part of this stems from backlighting again), and rise and fall times.

As you might have guessed, I have no desire to replace my CRT based TV's which are superior in every respect to the current crop of garbage out there. The dithering alone on DLP's and Plasma / LCD's makes it hard to concentrate for me. All I see is ugly picture.

There is one bad thing about CRT's though - I can hear them and they are loud when in operation. somewhere around the 16 khz range.

-S

PS. Maybe movie companies should look at the next generation of equipment on the way out - Laser projection. Laser projection should fix the poor black levels associated with the current generation of video equipment.

PPS. I'm still on the hunt for my Loewe Aconda 40" widescreen CRT as mentioned in a thread a while back - I can't find it yet and I've pretty much given up.

PPPS. One thing that irks me - They bill this to us as a 'better' technology. Quite the contrary.

[GSpector]

Good points. New technology is not always better, it's sometimes just new.

DLP would look better if they used FSAA :rotfl:

The New Bulbs would be better if they dropped the price by half that way the so called savings would be easier to see.:hmm:

[The Avon Lady]

Let's hope for newer and better technology:

The Auto X Prize (http://auto.xprize.org/).

Step right up, folks. There's $25,000,000 in the pot. :yep: