backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 151 comment(s) - last by dever.. on Mar 3 at 11:19 AM

Image courtesy Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
Australia's switch to fluorescents could curbs its yearly greenhouse emissions by 5 million tons

Whereas Raleigh, NC is looking to rid the city of traditional incandescent light bulbs for street lights, pedestrian walkways and traffic lights, Australia is making a move ot completely do away with incandescents. Australia will instead fully transition to compact fluorescent lighting.

According to Australian Environment Minister Malcom Turnbull, all incandescent light bulbs will be phased out by the end of 2009. "You simply won’t be able to buy incandescent light bulbs, because they won’t meet the energy standard," said Turnbull.

"These more efficient lights use around 20 percent of the electricity to produce the same amount of light," Turnbull continued. "While they may be more expensive to buy upfront, they can pay for themselves in lower power bills within a year."

Research has shown that if Australia makes a full switch to florescent lighting, the country will cut its annual production of greenhouse gasses from 565 million tons to 561 million tons. 4 million tons may not seem like a lot in the grand scheme of things, but household power bills could be cut by up to an astonishing 66 percent according to Turnbull.

Similar measures have been brought to the floor in California and New Jersey, but so far nothing has been set in motion with regards to making a switch to fluorescent lighting.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
great
By mjz on 2/21/2007 9:52:25 AM , Rating: 3
any savings, even 1 dollar is great. Not only are you saving, your helping the environment. Its a WIN WIN situation. this should be done in all developing countries




RE: great
By masher2 (blog) on 2/21/2007 10:00:52 AM , Rating: 1
What about all the people whose eyes react badly to fluorescent lighting? A few hours of fluorescents and my wife's eyes are red and running. We'd use more energy driving her to the pharmacy and the doctor than we'd save on lighting...not to mention lost time from work and a total disruption of her standard of living.

Why not pass a law requiring people to set their thermostat on 80 in the summer, and 65 in the winter? Or one that limits them to red meat once per week? Or requires government approval before using gas on "unneeded trips". Where does it stop?

If there was any real benefit to forcing people to do this, one could argue the point. But there isn't...and this will have zero effect.


RE: great
By rtrski on 2/21/2007 10:49:23 AM , Rating: 3
Fluorescent isn't the only cheaper option. LEDs exist too.

I'd be interested to hear the medical basis of a 'fluorescent lighting allergy'.... Not intending to sound mocking. Just curious. The spectrum is definitely different - is it excessive UV or something that bothers her?


RE: great
By masher2 (blog) on 2/21/2007 10:58:36 AM , Rating: 2
I can only assume it's the flicker rate. They don't affect me in the least.


RE: great
By BPB on 2/21/2007 11:18:31 AM , Rating: 2
My wife also can't stand the newer bulbs. I have purchased many with the happy hope we'd save money and do good. But she will not allow me to place them in areas where she will be effected (ie: the living room). I can use them in my office, maybe the basement, but that's about it. They really do trouble her eyes. I am going to try using the ones with a wrap around them to give them a more yellowish tone. Maybe that will help.

On another note, I wonder how this will effect people with digital cameras. Many cameras don't care for this type of light unless adjusted.


RE: great
By Wolfpup on 2/21/2007 12:41:28 PM , Rating: 3
I've been wondering about health/eye effects too.

Another (possible?)issue-I was going to buy a pack a few months back, and on the packaging read that they contain mercury. How are you supposed to get rid of them then?

And do the environmental effects of just dumping mercury into landfills counter the energy savings?

I honestly have no idea. In THEORY this is a really cool move, but there may be some issues...

Hopefully LEDs won't have the same problems and will be available soon.


RE: great
By kevinkreiser on 2/21/2007 1:01:38 PM , Rating: 2
I've also been wondering if these things affect peoples eyes. I would love to use them because of the benefits, but I'm very sensitive to fluorescent lighting and I start to feel sick and irritated after a few hours in it. So can anyone confirm whether or not these are like the traditional fluorescent lights?


RE: great
By ninjit on 2/21/2007 1:30:49 PM , Rating: 3
I think it's more of a problem with stimulating the brain at certain frequencies (kinda like epilepsy), rather than it actually affecting the eye directly.

I get the same problem with regular fluorescent tubes, the flickering bothers the hell out of me, but CFLs for the most part have been fine, I've only come across a couple that have had noticeable flicker for me.

Maybe they manufacturers should have a flicker rating on their bulbs. I assume better phosphor coatings with a more gradual emission rate would help reduce the effects of flicker.


RE: great
By dever on 2/21/2007 2:08:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Its a WIN WIN situation!

Warning, Spongebob Squarepants has entered the forum.

Maybe they should outlaw selling candles first. They produce much more pollutants than most other forms of lighting. If they don't people would waste tons of money on candles and may get burned. Just to make sure everyone is in compliance, after they ban candles, they'll need to make sure to ban selling matches, lighters, stoves, fire crackers, volcanic eruptions, home and car heaters, flint, fireplaces, campfires at boyscount outings, Sony batteries, magnifying glasses, electricity and sticks sold in pairs.

Those politicians are so clever. After they pass that, would they have time to father my wife's next baby?


RE: great
By hubajube on 2/21/2007 6:45:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just to make sure everyone is in compliance, after they ban candles, they'll need to make sure to ban selling matches, lighters, stoves, fire crackers, volcanic eruptions, home and car heaters, flint, fireplaces, campfires at boyscount outings, Sony batteries, magnifying glasses, electricity and sticks sold in pairs.
LMFAO!!!! "I don't care who you are, that there is funny!"


RE: great
By tgc2100 on 2/21/2007 5:20:44 PM , Rating: 3
It is a matter of refresh rate, and brightness. I myself suffer from photophobia. Yes, that's what it's called. It's not a matter of being "affraid" of the lights either. I'm allergic to bright lights, fluorescent lights, and slower refresh rates on CRTs. A lot of people don't know that most headaches in the office are caused from the CRT monitors being set at 75 or below. Being in IT I go around and change people's monitors and they are so amazed at the differences. The same is with the lighting. Countries like Germany are doing away with fluorescent lights just because of the health factor.

PS. Been a long time reader of these news postings and I learn a lot from reading people's opinions as well. Today I just had to sign up just so I could put my two cents in about the lighting since it is a big problem that a lot of people are unaware of. A more common issue with the lights and medical reasons would be pointing out people that have Lupus.


RE: great
By glennpratt on 2/21/2007 3:44:33 PM , Rating: 2
Try covers/closed fixtures and try multiple bulbs, perhaps the flicker can overlap. Just some guesses here.


RE: great
By jconan on 2/21/2007 9:43:13 PM , Rating: 3
Some manufacturers have different light qualities varying from soft white, bright white to day light (as bright as day). You could also add a polarizer to reduce glare like 3M's polarizing task light and use soft white fluorescent light bulbs. I agree most fluorescent bulbs are very glaring.

As for the flickering most new compact fluorescent light bulbs use electronic ballasts rather than magnetic ballasts so there shouldn't be any flickering noticeable in the 40kHz to 120 kHz range unless you are using a magnetic ballast with your fluorescent lights. Are you using a 50hz or 60hz?


RE: great
By Chernobyl68 on 2/21/2007 6:08:06 PM , Rating: 2
anybody know what australia's power distribution freq. is? 60 or 50 hz?


RE: great
By Ajax9000 on 2/21/2007 7:31:41 PM , Rating: 2
50Hz, 240V


RE: great
By lemonadesoda on 2/21/2007 4:44:19 PM , Rating: 2
I'm unfortunately one of those people that suffer from the flickering light condition. It's not a form of "epilepsy", but an irritation that is distracting and tiring. The problem became more obvious when I was a teenager... and I still have it 20 years later.

1./ I could not watch TV. It flickered too much.
2./ I cannot work under fluorescent lights. I was good for about an hour... and then would be tired, irritated and productivity hit the floor.
3./ However, stobe lighting (disco) did not cause a problem (much lower frequency like 10-20Hz)
4./ Apparently cats and dogs also have a higher sensitivity to flicker than the human "average". This is a key point... that on average the human eye is not supposed to see a flicker or 50Hz or faster. Some people are above the average, some below. I must be 2 sigma above the average.
5./ Sublimial messaging on TV (screen flickers) lasts for only 1/50 of a second and is, apparently, supposed to work! So a bit of a contradiction from the scientists here compared with point 4

SOLUTION

As other posters have mentioned... Experience shows that incandescent doesn't cause this problem... so people who are sensitive to the flicker INSIST on old fashioned light blubs.

In Scandanavian countries, and Switzerland... this is a recognised problem and identified as one of the "sick building" syndromes. They have a solution: i) office desks cannot be more than a maximum distance from a window, and ii) frequency doublers in fluorescent lighting so that the flicker is now 100Hz not 50Hz. I've been in offices with these doublers. They really work! Coupled with a "real light" tube, and twice the frequency, they are much better.

I was working in Singapore in an office with incandescents only. I was REALLY STRUGGLING. I bought two desk lights with regular bulbs for my desk. Problem solved.

For TV... well now I have a nice big TFT flatscreen. No flicker. Can watch for hours!


RE: great
By Captain Orgazmo on 2/21/2007 6:29:51 PM , Rating: 2
Fluorescent lighting causes many people problems. I personally have to backlight my computer desk with an incandescent lamp because I would get terrible eyestrain with a fluorescent. LEDs are the future: a 3W star luxeon LED will produce the equivalent light of a 60W incan. or 13W fluor. However one of those LEDs costs about $30-$50 US.


RE: great
By masher2 (blog) on 2/21/2007 6:48:27 PM , Rating: 3
> "LEDs are the future: a 3W star luxeon LED will produce the equivalent light of a 60W incan. or 13W fluorescent..."

No. LED lighting is currently more efficient than incandescent, but less efficient than fluoresecent. White LEDs are currently running ~40-60 lumens/watt, whereas a good fluorescent can hit 100 lumens/watt.

Sodium lights can break 200 lumens/watt...but their light quality is absolutely abysmal.


RE: great
By masher2 (blog) on 2/21/2007 6:52:38 PM , Rating: 2
Oops, just fact-checked myself...my figures were a bit too low for LEDs. Some units are reaching 75 lumens/watt now, which is still worse than a standard fluorescent bulb, but better than a compact fluorescent.


RE: great
By Captain Orgazmo on 2/21/2007 10:00:33 PM , Rating: 2
You are right, I misread something... I thought I saw 120 lumens per watt, but it was 120 lumens per LED on a page (heck of a bright LED mind you... but it used 4 watts to generate that). Anyways, the advantage of LED lighting is that there is no flicker whatsoever. As well, the new super bright white ones don't have as much of that nasty blue tone to them. More advantages: 50-100,000 hour life, virtually unbreakable, and no mercury or nasty phosphors that can contain other heavy elements (unlike fluorescents).

Amazing how much discussion this article has created.


RE: great
By Charlemain on 2/23/2007 8:54:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Fluorescent isn't the only cheaper option. LEDs exist too


Not just LEDs, but OLEDs...Universal Display is currently under a Phase II contract with the USDOE for many types of white lighting.
http://www.universaldisplay.com/press-2005-09-27.h...


RE: great
By OrSin on 2/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: great
By masher2 (blog) on 2/21/2007 12:32:36 PM , Rating: 2
> "Your just complainnng because this line might be draw somewhere that you dont wont it."

On the contrary, I complain about all unwarranted government intervention in private life. Even for activities I personally could care less about.


RE: great
By johnsonx on 2/21/2007 12:37:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Next let all drug be legal


We can hope for an end to this silly 'drug war', but it isn't going to happen.


RE: great
By goz314 on 2/21/2007 1:03:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If there was any real benefit to forcing people to do this, one could argue the point. But there isn't...and this will have zero effect.


Don't you read? The benefit of using fluorescent lighting is realized through reduced energy consumption. The research and testing on this technology has been completed, published, reviewed, and verified for quite some time now - decades, in fact. Sure, there are downsides to using fluorecent lighting, but that won't change the fact that it uses less electricity to output a given amount of light vs. incandecent lighting. This is because more of the input energy is converted to light and less is lost or wasted as heat. Shall I go on, or haven't you heard this before? It's not a difficult concept to grasp, even from physical first principles.

Also no one is forcing people to do anything with this legislation. The government isn't saying that consumers will have to buy fluorescents. People always have the option to not purchase them if they so choose. There may one less choice available to consumers at the end of the day, but the law doesn't force them to buy light bulbs.


RE: great
By masher2 (blog) on 2/21/2007 1:21:51 PM , Rating: 2
> "Don't you read? ...the government isn't saying that consumers will have to buy fluorescents..."

I guess you didn't read...this article at least. The government is saying just that. Incandescents won't be available any more, forcing consumers to buy fluorescent...or sit in the dark.

> "The research and testing on this technology has been completed...for quite some time now - decades, in fact..."

And yet, their use in residential locations still isn't commonplace. Why do you think that is? Because people just enjoy wasting money? Or perhaps its because the slight energy savings (slight in comparison to the total energy used by the home) doesn't outweigh all the disadvantages?

Not only can I can read, but I can also think. And the choice over quality of life and freedom of choice compared to a "warm and fuzzy" feeling of helping the environment when you're really not-- is what we thinkers call a "no brainer".


RE: great
By goz314 on 2/21/2007 4:29:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
...or sit in the dark.


That's one option, but not the only option. :) Again, I stand by my comment. The government is not saying you, average Joe consumer, have to go out and purchase a bunch of compact fluorescents. They are just removing the option to buy incandesent bulbs. There is a difference between saying you have to do one thing vs. you may not do another. The only reason the one is considered to be the corollary of the other in this case is because the only other widely available lighting technology available to consumers right now is fluorescent or compact fluorescent. That does not mean that will always be the case, and it also doesn't mean that the Aussies will have to go back to using gaslight either. Other consumer grade lighting technology will and still can be developed regardless.

The main reasons I think fluorescent and compact fluoresent technology has not completely replaced incandescent lighting in residences is due to the aesthetics of the light they produce and initial bulb cost - that's it. Physiological reasons are less significant across the entire population and most people don't sit down and do a hypothetical cost benefit analysis of using fluoresents in lieu of incandecents. As you know, most businesses almost exclusively use fluorescent lighting for their generic office and storefront use. Why? Because it's cheaper and more efficient to do so -plain and simple.

My argument here is not about quality of life "warm and fuzzies," a contribution of savings comparison, or a percieved relevance to aiding the environment in some way - comments which are BS newspeak detractors that avoid the real point. It's about economics and the cost benefit that one lighting technology can bring over another. You can't argue against that fact because historically it's already been proven to be the case. Trying to generalize this point by saying that, in essence, "it doesn't really matter in the big scheme of things" is pretty lame when it comes down to it because almost anything can be reduced by association with larger contexts in the same manner. That still won't change facts at hand -even if we dislike the results or try to diminish their impact through continual point and counterpoint.


RE: great
By copiedright on 2/21/2007 4:43:04 PM , Rating: 2
Goz,

The government is giving huge incentives for power saving devices. I have never purchased a compact fluro, and yet my house has all CFL.

My government is even giving them out for free! And masher will say its not free because you pay taxes. Well the government is supplying an additional service it doesn't have to, for no direct charge.

Anyways, with CFL free when we get energy saving packs why would anybody buy standard light bulbs when they actually will cost more. The light bulbs will always remain, but there use will go from standard lighting, to small lamps and mood lighting.

NB, I actually have a CF in my lamp in my bedroom because I prefer the softer lighting.
AND
Dont base your hate of CFs on crappy ones. Try out good ones and there is a huge difference!


RE: great
By goz314 on 2/21/2007 7:37:46 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for enlightening us (pun intended) on some of the background behind what the Australian government is doing. I didn't know that this was part of a larger program to promote the use of energy efficient devices, but it makes sense that it would be.


RE: great
By masher2 (blog) on 2/21/2007 4:50:50 PM , Rating: 3
> "I stand by my comment..."

If the government bans incandescent bulbs, they're compelling you to buy something else. What would you consider being "forced" to buy fluorescent? Nothing less than goverment agents physically dragging you to the store, pulling out your wallet for you, and strongarming you into scanning the merchandise?

> "The main reasons I think [fluorescent] has not completely replaced incandescent [is] bulb cost..."

I'm glad you brought up bulb cost. CFLs cost a lot more, as they incorporate far more material. Not only a bulb, but a complex ballast as well. Far more material...some of it highly toxic....not to mention the extra energy needed to manufacture all those extra parts. Mercury. Phosphor powder. A small transformer and/or magnetic inductor. Etc, etc.

When an incandescent bulb dies, you throw away a tiny amount of glass (sand, essentially) and tungsten. When a CFL bulb dies, though (or its ballast) you throw away both.

Certainly there's an energy savings from CFL bulbs. But is there an environmental benefit? The situation is rather different for standard fluorescents, which separate the ballast from the bulb. CFLs are, though, much more wasteful.

> "It's about economics and the cost benefit that one lighting technology can bring over another..."

I thought it was supposed to be about global warming? Now its about costs and economics?


RE: great
By goz314 on 2/21/2007 5:30:57 PM , Rating: 2
Dude, calm down. It's going to be ok. Really, it is.

It sounds like someone isn't reading again. :)

My argument never cited global warming as the rationale for supporting fluorecent lighting. I don't even think I mentioned it once. You certainly mentioned it a couple of times, but I think the notion is pretty far fetched. The main article itself made an allusion to reducing greenhouse gases, but I think the main thrust is still about efficiency and energy savings.


RE: great
By TomZ on 2/21/2007 6:03:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The main article itself made an allusion to reducing greenhouse gases, but I think the main thrust is still about efficiency and energy savings.


Absolutely wrong. Did you read the article?

Australia's switch to fluorescents could curbs its yearly greenhouse emissions by 5 million tons

Research has shown that if Australia makes a full switch to florescent lighting, the country will cut its annual production of greenhouse gasses from 565 million tons to 561 million tons. 4 million tons may not seem like a lot in the grand scheme of things


RE: great
By goz314 on 2/21/2007 7:16:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"These more efficient lights use around 20 percent of the electricity to produce the same amount of light," Turnbull continued. "While they may be more expensive to buy upfront, they can pay for themselves in lower power bills within a year."


Hmmm, I wonder what this paragraph was all about then?


RE: great
By masher2 (blog) on 2/21/2007 7:26:08 PM , Rating: 2
> "Hmmm, I wonder what this paragraph was all about then? "

Considering that quote is from the Australian Environment Minister, your continuing to claim this isn't being fronted as an enviromental benefit is just making you look silly.


RE: great
By goz314 on 2/21/2007 7:56:46 PM , Rating: 2
I guess I'll just have to repeat myself for your benefit then.

...

The main article itself made an allusion to reducing greenhouse gases, but I think the main thrust is still about efficiency and energy savings.


RE: great
By TomZ on 2/21/2007 8:10:50 PM , Rating: 2
It's hard to admit when you're wrong. Here, I fixed your statement for you:

The main article itself made an allusion to efficiency and energy savings, but I think the main thrust is still about reducing greenhouse gases.


RE: great
By goz314 on 2/21/2007 8:25:01 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, it is isn't it. One more time. This is what I said.

The main article itself made an allusion to reducing greenhouse gases, but I think the main thrust is still about efficiency and energy savings.

Would you like it quoted back to you a third time? a fourth?


RE: great
By masher2 (blog) on 2/21/2007 9:02:12 PM , Rating: 2
Repeat all you want, you're still obviously incorrect. The legislation was announced by Australia's Environment Minister, and he himself billed it as "Australia slashes greenhouse gases from inefficient lighting". He prattles on a good while about emission reduction, and even specifically mentions the "threat" of climate change. The "main thrust" of the legislation is global warming, not cost savings.


RE: great
By gt1911 on 2/22/2007 12:37:40 AM , Rating: 2
You guys never cease to amaze me with the amount of time and energy you spend bickering and arguing over things on this site. I don't know how much free time masher has, but he certainly invests a massive amount of time posting!

This argument is all over an article about light globes! In Australia! I'm in Australia and even I don't care that much!

Lighten up and enjoy a relaxing read of the news!


RE: great
By goz314 on 2/22/2007 1:42:20 PM , Rating: 2
I'm with you on this one. Honestly, I am. :)

To tell you the truth, I just post to piss masher and his kindred spirits off. Every post he feels compelled to make in response to any commentary whatsoever is just more of his time wasted. Personally, I don't give a sh!@. I post so infrequently on these message boards that it's no skin off my back, and no one takes these things seriously, anyways. It's just fun to argue and get thrown into the fray once in a blue moon.


RE: great
By copiedright on 2/21/2007 6:03:18 PM , Rating: 2
Listen, I'm Aussie,

The truth is Australia is the most pollutant nation per capita because our power generation is still primarily coal based!
This means even a slight power usage drop has quite large effects on our environment.

Now to the cost side of things...
Australia is having a bit of a power infrastructure problem. Brown outs are not uncommon, and air conditioning installations are higher than ever!

The government is using the green spin for publicity, but the main reason is to save costs. One other poster below said that with me receiving compact fluro's for free from the government is "stealing". When in fact it goes towards saving the government from investing in further power infrastructure in the short term.

The government is not going to ban light bulbs!
They will just make the incentive for compact fluro's so high (eg free) that why would anybody want to buy light bulbs.

Other power saving incentives include:
*Free water saving shower heads.
*Rebates on solar hot water installations.


RE: great
By Chernobyl68 on 2/21/2007 6:16:15 PM , Rating: 2
it sounds to me like they're not banning incandescent bulbs explicitly, ie "you can't buy make or sell these" but raising the energy standard so high that an incandescent bulb can't meet it. I can see Australia 5 years from now...

"psstt..hey man, got any 60 watt GE soft whites?"


RE: great
By masher2 (blog) on 2/21/2007 6:27:21 PM , Rating: 2
> "The government is using the green spin for publicity, but the main reason is to save costs..."

So you admit your government is misrepresenting the situation and the benefits, simply to coerce a desired action?

> "The government is not going to ban light bulbs!"

The article says otherwise. Are you saying its all a lie?


RE: great
By copiedright on 2/21/2007 7:17:10 PM , Rating: 2
Firstly, of course the government is using green spin for publicity, its the real world! But the benefits are real. And as for the need for coercion.... the Liberals hold both of the houses, so they don't need public support at all for this to pass.

Secondly, the article is misrepresenting the facts. The cheap light bulbs that are inefficient are going to be banned. While higher quality light bulbs will remain.

Additionally I would have no problem with the banning of standard household light bulbs for fluros. The government is there to make legislation, if you dont like, you vote them out. And take note that this is an election year for Australia's Federal Government.

Also Australian politics is very different from the United States. We may have similar forms of separation, but the style in which things are run is very different.


RE: great
By masher2 (blog) on 2/21/2007 7:24:04 PM , Rating: 3
> "But the benefits are real..."

So are the disadvantages.

> "the article is misrepresenting the facts. The cheap light bulbs that are inefficient are going to be banned. While higher quality light bulbs will remain..."

The article specifically says the standards will be set above what an incandescent can meet. There are no such thing as "high quality" incandescents that substantially change their efficiency. They all run 12-20 lumens/watt.

> "The government is there to make legislation, if you don't like, you vote them out..."

The government exists to protect the rights of the people as well. What if 51% of the population voted to enslave the other 49%? Is that valid, simply because of mob rule?


RE: great
By copiedright on 2/21/2007 9:04:37 PM , Rating: 2
OK then, the article is incorrect.
Quality incandescent globes will not be removed.

And as I said before, Australian politics is different to United States politics. We don't have a bill of rights.

Your right, 51% does out vote 49%. THAT'S DEMOCRACY! and that's not mob rule, that minority suppression.
But if that were to happen, there would be intervention by the UN, and probably civil war.

But Australians are smarter than that, we have never had a civil war.


RE: great
By masher2 (blog) on 2/22/2007 8:41:20 AM , Rating: 1
> "OK then, the article is incorrect. Quality incandescent globes will not be removed."

I call BS. Australia is banning incandescents; that's the same story hundreds of media outlets have reported. Given there's no difference in efficiency between a "quality" incan. and a standard one, your statement makes no sense whatsoever.

There are some high-temperature incandescents that are a bit more efficient...but these aren't used for residential lighting at all. They're speciality bulbs, used for projectors and the like.


RE: great
By copiedright on 2/22/2007 4:45:51 PM , Rating: 2
Quality light bulbs will still be around for many many applications from medical, theatre, automotive, engineering, to scientific.

What Malcom Turnbull said is that "you simply wouldn't be able to buy [cheap incandescents]" because legislation will stop all the cheap ones from being bought in the shop. More expensive ones will always remain, but they are not being sold anywhere the common daily consumer will find them.

You must understand that this is a popular decision by our Government. We don't consider it an erosion of our rights, but a more effective and efficient way of doing things. I encourage all countries to do this, as anyone with any electrical knowledge will easily agree that the new phosphorous compact fluoros cannot be beat.

Don't base your hatred on the old designed fluoro lighting, the new ones are amazingly bright, with zero flicker and even come in an assortment of different tones for different applications.

Also the Government is there to legislate for the better of the country. For many years they have tightened emission legislation for cars, making cars cleaner, why can't they do that for the home as well.

This is a piece of legislation that benefits everyone!

For all you United States citizens complaining about the erosion of rights, this is Australia, not the US, things are different here. For starters we don't lock citizens up for 5 years without trial!

Please understand, I'm not a 'greeny', or a liberal for that matter. But every person I have talked to about this legislation has supported it, and I have yet to hear of one source from inside Australia say the contrary!


RE: great
By TomZ on 2/22/2007 4:56:39 PM , Rating: 1
I guess I just don't get why Austrailian citizens would cheer such legislation. I mean, if fluorescents are so obviously superior, wouldn't they be side-by-side on shop shelves for a while during a transition period, and after a while nobody would buy incandescents at all? Especially if the government subsidizes or gives away fluorescents?

I mean, if the demand for incandescents is zero as you imply, then why does legislation have to be passed in the first place? The only practical point in having legislation like this is to deprive certain people from being able to choose incandescents. Doesn't anybody there care about the government making choices for them?


RE: great
By Ringold on 2/21/2007 7:31:24 PM , Rating: 2
High AC installation rates?

Brown outs?

Congratulations, Australia. No longer a third world country? At least, that's what high AC installation rates and a power grid big enough to have brown-outs means to me..

To be honest, what your electrical grid needs is some deregulation. A free market wouldnt allow for brown-outs; if supply isn't meeting demand, that's lost profit opportunity.

And I'm afraid your government has you duped on the pollution per capita number. I don't doubt it's true, but there are much bigger fish to fry (just to Australia's immediate North as a matter of fact) than your people using any particular type of light bulb. They've whipped you guys up in to an environmentalist frenzy, and it's worked.

You'd all be doing the world a much bigger favor by invading Indonesia and stopping the destruction of the rain forest and the peat fires (or asking them nicely) making way for biofuel crops. If I'm not mistaken, it's pushed that third-world country from 14th in emissions to 3rd for the balance of 2006.


RE: great
By Ajax9000 on 2/21/2007 7:49:52 PM , Rating: 2
Our electricity grid was deregulated (at least in part ... ) in the 1990's (see http://www.dpmc.gov.au/publications/energy_future/... for some details).
Was deregulation a sucess? Hmmm ... not sure :-)


RE: great
By goz314 on 2/21/2007 8:08:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
To be honest, what your electrical grid needs is some deregulation. A free market wouldnt allow for brown-outs; if supply isn't meeting demand, that's lost profit opportunity.


Just like the power crisis in California in recent years. The twisted form of de-regulation instituted there did wonders for the quality of service to customers.


RE: great
By masher2 (blog) on 2/21/2007 8:18:29 PM , Rating: 2
> "Just like the power crisis in California in recent years. The twisted form of de-regulation instituted there did wonders for the quality of service to customers..."

Of course, we all know that California never deregulated the power industry or anything close to it, even though they called it "deregulation". The problem was they tried to get a free lunch...they actually thought they could circumvent the laws of supply and demand with government legislation.


RE: great
By dever on 2/21/2007 5:42:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The main reasons I think fluorescent and compact fluoresent technology has not completely replaced incandescent lighting in residences is due to the aesthetics of the light they produce and initial bulb cost - that's it.


If that the only reason, then the market will validate you. However, if there are other reasons (such as additional manufacturing cost, which by the way equates to pollution, or toxins or additional waste products in CFLs) then the market will take that into account as well.

To take the choice away from the individual, and replace it with your choice is to say that you are superior. It is to emphatically denounce the ability of others to reason while lifting up your own (those small minded people just won't buy the right bulbs, damn them all to a cold-colored hell). This is the real issue... the arrogance of socialists such as yourself to assume that the rest of the population is not capable of making rational choices.

Your disregard for the freedoms others have paid dearly for is sickening.


RE: great
By dever on 2/21/2007 1:48:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also no one is forcing people to do anything with this legislation.

Wow, there is some serious contortion of logic, or more accurately, lack thereof.

Many will be forced to change their behavior. Starting with those who make and sell incandescent lights. Or are you one of those people that assume a large corporation is just a faceless entity that contains no people.

Also, this type of legislation decreases the incentives for those who produce alternative forms of lighting (such as CFLs) to improve their product and reduce the "downsides" you mentioned. So this seemingly "helpful" legislation is in fact harmful in the long run to both consumers and potential reduction of energy usage . Why, because consumers will pick the best product when the product is truly the best. Interfering with market forces always brings unforeseen and undesireable consequences. But the consequences seem to be the most "unforeseen" by those arrogant enough to want to control the market and limit human freedom.

And yes, I use CFLs. But, I still have uses for incandescents as well.


RE: great
By copiedright on 2/21/2007 3:59:19 PM , Rating: 3
I'm an Aussie, and I have never bought a single CFL. How? because the Australian Government gives them out for FREE!


RE: great
By masher2 (blog) on 2/21/2007 4:01:59 PM , Rating: 2
> "I'm an Aussie, and I have never bought a single CFL..."

If you pay taxes, you're buying those bulbs. You just don't seem to realize it.


RE: great
By copiedright on 2/21/2007 4:22:51 PM , Rating: 3
I'm currently an unemployed student.
So I don't pay taxes, so I have gotten my lights for free!


RE: great
By dever on 2/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: great
By copiedright on 2/21/2007 6:12:21 PM , Rating: 4
Dever, wake up!
quote:
All tax money comes from individuals.

What about imports / exports, company tax, etc?

quote:
There is no free.

Actually yes there is. Obviously your parents didn't love you!

quote:
Benefiting from other's contributions without contributing yourself, is called stealing.

Under that analogy, every person starving in poor nations are stealing the food given to them by the UN, care, etc.

quote:
Of course, this is what all re-distribution of wealth really is.

Actually, that is the shift in wealth between social classes. This is me receiving an energy saving package so that both the government and my family can save costs!


RE: great
By masher2 (blog) on 2/21/2007 6:22:52 PM , Rating: 2
> "What about imports / exports, company tax, etc?"

What about them? Import taxes result in higher prices for individuals who buy the products. Corporate taxes result in lower profits, which are paid for the company's shareholders in the form of lower share prices or dividends.

All taxes are ultimately paid by individuals. Do people still not understand this?


RE: great
By hubajube on 2/21/2007 7:03:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
All taxes are ultimately paid by individuals. Do people still not understand this?
Most people don't understand or do not know this. I didn't learn it until I went to college. It's unfortunate because politicians sure DO know this and use it to their advantage.


RE: great
By dever on 3/3/2007 11:19:52 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
What about imports / exports, company tax, etc?
The ultimate source is still individuals.
quote:
Actually yes there is[free]. Obviously your parents didn't love you!
I've got incredible parents, who love me dearly. However, early in life I learned that everything they give me costs them. If they contributed to a toy, computer, education, they had worked hard to earn the money to buy it. They loved me dearly and proved it every day by inconveniencing themselves by offering instruction, love, guidance, even discipline. These, of course, are worth more than the many tangible gifts they gave. Notice here the use of the word "worth". If it were truly free, there would be no worth. My parents loved me so much, they gave me things of real value. Things that cost. Which is why as an adult I try to repay them as much as I can (an admitedly futile effort).
quote:
Under that analogy, every person starving in poor nations are stealing the food given to them by the UN, care, etc.
Again, there is nothing free. A greater gift would be to give them freedom from oppression that prevents them from taking care of themselves... something deep in the heart of every individual.
quote:
Actually, that is the shift in wealth between social classes. This is me receiving an energy saving package so that both the government and my family can save costs!
But, if you were able to follow a simple chain of logic, you'd realize that the money from the free CFL is coming from somewhere. And the crushing of free markets has impacts way beyond the initial industry that is destroyed and affects all freedom-loving individuals (ie all individuals) negatively.


RE: great
By TheLiberal on 2/21/2007 4:45:23 PM , Rating: 4
Oh wow...amazing. A global warming denier, interestingly, has a problem with bulbs that save energy and reduces carbon emissions.
Right. I believe you. /sarcasm


RE: great
By Captain Orgazmo on 2/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: great
By hubajube on 2/21/2007 6:43:03 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
What about all the people whose eyes react badly to fluorescent lighting? A few hours of fluorescents and my wife's eyes are red and running. We'd use more energy driving her to the pharmacy and the doctor than we'd save on lighting...not to mention lost time from work and a total disruption of her standard of living.
I guess since you got downrated that no one cares about the possible physical aspects of switching over. But that's not surprising considering that many "environmentalists" feel that skewing facts and even lying is acceptable to get you to do what they want you to do.


RE: great
By nosleep on 2/21/2007 10:23:01 AM , Rating: 2
I'd rather take the greenhouse gases compared to the amount of mercury these bulbs are going to introduce into the environment when consumers don't recycle them :(


RE: great
By Scorpion on 2/21/2007 12:08:04 PM , Rating: 2
That's just what I was thinking... Sure Fluorescents may be more efficient in energy consumption, therefore cutting energy production, therefore reducing greenhouse emissions. However, isn't this also offset by the more pollutant waste they introduce when they are thrown away?

Unless I'm missing something and they're also coming up with a way to deal with this problem, this is once again a shortsighted idea introduced by politicians.


RE: great
By glennpratt on 2/21/2007 5:13:05 PM , Rating: 2
It's not totally offset, actually, I saw a bit in the paper where burning coal to power an incandescent bulb made a truck load more mercury then would be in the CFL plus the power used in it over an average lifetime. And coal makes a whole lot of power in the US.

Now if the bulbs are properly recycled, it becomes a moot point.


RE: great
By TomZ on 2/21/2007 6:09:33 PM , Rating: 1
I doubt an assembly that is that small, that complex, and containing so many different compounds could reasonably or economically be recycled. In addition, there is currently zero infrastructure in place for large-scale collection and recycling of these bulbs, which means that they will all end up in the landfill.


RE: great
By Chernobyl68 on 2/21/2007 6:20:31 PM , Rating: 2
not yet, but I bet when they're the only thing you can buy some young businessman will make his first million doing exactly that...


RE: great
By Ringold on 2/21/2007 7:44:43 PM , Rating: 2
I was at a recycling plant doing a little odd job as a favor a couple weekends ago.

Trust me.. that type of discrimination between elements might be possible in a lab in a university, but if this place is any indication then beyond scrap metal and rough paper products recycling has light years to go. Much more efficient to just throw these bulbs in a land fill.


RE: great
By masher2 (blog) on 2/21/2007 8:21:44 PM , Rating: 2
> "Much more efficient to just throw these bulbs in a land fill..."

Very true. For decades, I've told people that the most efficient way to recycle paper was simply to throw it on the ground and wait. In a few years, it'll be a tree again.

Of course, some things like aluminum cans make sense...but when something costs more to recycle than it does to make the product new, thats a good clue that it may actually be more efficient to skip the recycling entirely.


RE: great
By subhajit on 2/21/2007 10:44:02 AM , Rating: 2
I developing countries like India, we have been using fluorescent lamps for a long time now. I have been seeing them all my life. That is the Primary light source for household purposes.


RE: great
By Hare on 2/21/2007 4:18:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
this should be done in all developing countries

It's currently -22C° outside (I live in Scandinavia). Since energy never disappears I'm not wasting any money or energy. It doesn't matter if the heat comes from the radiators or my light bulbs. During spring etc the situation is of course different.


Clueless in Canberra
By masher2 (blog) on 2/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: Clueless in Canberra
By TomZ on 2/21/2007 9:53:11 AM , Rating: 1
Not to mention the personal liberty side of the story. In other words, if I decide that I prefer incandescent lights for whatever reason, don't I have a right to use them if I wish? This is no different than other kinds of decisions like my home thermostat temperature, what kind of car I drive, etc.

BTW, I don't like incandescent lights and I don't like wasting energy, but I do value freedom, and I don't like other people telling me how I should live.


RE: Clueless in Canberra
By Chudilo on 2/21/2007 10:17:03 AM , Rating: 2
I don't like fluorescent lights because of the light they produce. Even though the bulb may say that it makes as much light as a 100 Watt incandescent they must be measuring it wrong.
Yes it may produce the same amount of candle light but how much of it can I actually see. I don't know about you , but no matter what the bulb says if the same space that was lighted by a 75Watt bulb is now lighted by what supposed to be equal to a 100Watt bulb and it's still looks only half as bright is not OK with me.
In addition incandescents create a nice pretty light that is pleasant to be around. Fluorescents make everything look green.
Office lights do light everything well, but it is not the type of light that you'd want to relax in.
I'm all for using more efficient incandescents though. All the halogen and xenon filled lights are great.


RE: Clueless in Canberra
By Hoser McMoose on 2/23/2007 4:54:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't like fluorescent lights because of the light they produce. Even though the bulb may say that it makes as much light as a 100 Watt incandescent they must be measuring it wrong.


I'll second that. I use fluorescent bulbs pretty extensively, but I always find that I need a higher "equivalent" rating on the CFL as compared to the incandescent that it replaced. In my experience the difference is usually about 50%! ie to replace a 100W incandescent light bulb I needed a "150W" equivalent CFL. Of course, the CFL still uses only something like 40W of actual power, so I'm still coming out ahead.

Personally I'm hoping that LED lights will offer a better solution to either incandescent or fluorescent lights, but it looks like we've got a couple years to wait before they're widely available.


RE: Clueless in Canberra
By RogueSpear on 2/21/2007 12:26:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Four tons out of of 15 billion

Nice try with the "typo", but it was 4 million tons and nobody ever claimed the CFL or LED lighting would singlehandedly wipe out CO2 emissions.

From previous posts, if I remember correct, you don't believe that any sort of global warming or global climate change is a direct result of human activity. And that nuclear waste is safe. There were also a lot of people who believed the Phillip Morris funded studies showing cigarette smoking wasn't harmful to human health.

And the holocaust never happened, man never set foot on the moon, the check is in the mail, etc.


RE: Clueless in Canberra
By masher2 (blog) on 2/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: Clueless in Canberra
By RogueSpear on 2/21/2007 12:52:08 PM , Rating: 3
Link to one study that was not funded by an energy interest or a right leaning think tank that says humans have no impact on global warming or climate change.

I don't even believe this is really even a debatable issue anymore. Believe what you will, but denial can only go on for so long. What's debatable perhaps is what can be done at what cost.


RE: Clueless in Canberra
By slawless on 2/21/2007 1:24:52 PM , Rating: 2
the corillary to your statement is: show me a study by a left wing group that says we are not affecting the climate. you wont find them either. the govenment is only interresed if proving we are affecting the climate and nothing else. and they fund any climate work. this is law not science. in science you searceh or the truth. in law you try to convince others you have the truth. the truths derived from each can be very different.


RE: Clueless in Canberra
By TomZ on 2/21/2007 1:28:08 PM , Rating: 1
perfect reply, just change "law" -> "politics"

Politicians wouldn't be needed as much if there weren't urgent problems that need to be solved. If you can't get any traction at solving real problems, just make some up, and then work on fixing them! Works like a charm, especially around election time.


RE: Clueless in Canberra
By masher2 (blog) on 2/21/2007 1:49:22 PM , Rating: 2
> "I don't even believe this is really even a debatable issue anymore..."

Probably because you only read major media, as opposed to actual climatology research papers. The "debate" is still alive and well, despite what CNN and MSNBC would have you believe.

Here's a few of the scientists who don't believe in global warming alarmism:

Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeto