backtop


Print 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, Princeton, N.J.
Dr. Richard Lindzen, Sloane Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT.
Dr. Frederick Seitz, former president, National Academy of Sciences.
Dr. Richard Gray, Meteorologist, Colorado State Univ.
Dr. Henrik Svensmark, Astrophysicist, Danish Space Research Institute
Dr. Nir Shariv, Astrophysicist, Univ. of Jerusalem
Dr. V.K. Raina, Glaciologist, Geologic Soc. of India
Patrick Michaels, State Climatologist Virginia
David Legates, State Climatologist Delaware
Dr. George Taylor, State Climatologist Oregon (fired just last month by the Governor for failing to toe the party line)
Dr. Ian D. Clark, hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, University of Ottawa
Dr. Tad Murty, professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa
Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University, Ottawa
Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science, Carleton University, Ottawa
Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.
Dr. Tim Ball, professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant
Dr. Andreas Prokoph, professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa
Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc, fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society
Dr. Christopher Essex, associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta
Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Dept. of Economics, University of Victoria
Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax
Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization.
Dr. Keith D. Hage, professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta
Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.
Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide; emeritus professor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia
Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology.
Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand
Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia
Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, Calif.
Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville
Dr. Al Pekarek, professor of geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minn.
Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon, France
Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Paris, France. Expert reviewer, IPCC.
Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist.
Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Dept. of Geography, University of Hull, U.K
Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of Kansas
Dr. August H. Auer, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand
Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC ..
Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of Connecticut
Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, Imperial College London, U.K.
Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service
Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and geophysics, Utrecht University; past president of the Royal Netherlands Geological & Mining Society
Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass.
Douglas Hoyt, NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland
Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, marine researcher, Geological Survey of Finland.
Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Calif.
Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.


RE: Clueless in Canberra
By johnnyMon on 2/21/2007 6:41:48 PM , Rating: 2
But there are many more for whom human-caused global warming is obvious. Still, what if these scientists who disagree have an 80% chance of being right. Do you want to bet the future of the world on 80/20 odds? Or what if it was 90/10? I'd rather lower my standard of living just a bit to make sure that 10% didn't happen.


RE: Clueless in Canberra
By masher2 (blog) on 2/21/2007 7:03:17 PM , Rating: 1
> "But there are many more for whom human-caused global warming is obvious."

Try to list them. You'll find there aren't nearly as many as are claimed. And even among those who do believe in human-induced warming, you'll find even fewer who consider it to be a serious crisis.

> " Do you want to bet the future of the world on 80/20 odds?"

Oops, you've bought into the hysteria. The "future of the world" isn't at stake. Global warming means slightly elevated temperatures primarily in the coolest parts of the planet. The tropics aren't warming at all. That's a good thing. It also means longer growing seasons and a generally more temperate planet.

Sea level rise? The UN IPCC's latest report is predicting 23 inches over the next 100 year. Not meters, or even feet. Inches. Thats 0.23 inches rise per year...or about the rate we've been experiencing the last 7,000 years.

More hurricanes? Much data exists to suggest global warming may reduce hurricane counts. Such storms are not driven by raw temperature, but rather temperature differentials between differing parts of the planet. Global warming decreases that differential.

All in all, there is a huge body of evidence to suggest global warming means a better, more habitable planet for all of us. The last time the planet warmed suddenly (the Medieval Climate Optimum) is just one example of this.

Don't believe the scare tactics. The sky is not falling. The end of the world isn't coming.


RE: Clueless in Canberra
By johnnyMon on 2/23/2007 12:05:33 PM , Rating: 2
You make some good arguments, masher2. I will consider them as I learn more about global warming.


RE: Clueless in Canberra
By Hoser McMoose on 2/23/2007 5:18:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sea level rise? The UN IPCC's latest report is predicting 23 inches over the next 100 year.


23" is actually the worst-case scenario listed by the IPCC 4th report. They list 6 possible models for climate change, each of which has an estimate range of temperature increase and sea level rise.

The most "pessimistic" (for lack of a better word) model has an estimated sea level increase of 0.26 to 0.59 meters (10-23 inches). The most "optimistic" model has a range of 0.18 to 0.38 meters (7 to 15 inches). As best as I can tell both all of these are a 90% confidence level (ie the model suggests a 5% chance of the increase being higher and a 5% chance of the increase being lower).

I do believe that humans ARE causing some global warming, but I'll agree with masher in a limited amount on this one, the sky is not falling.

Keep in mind that much of The Netherlands has survived below sea level for a LONG time. On the other hand, New Orleans is also below sea level.


RE: Clueless in Canberra
By Charlemain on 2/23/2007 10:04:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Try to list them


Let's start with the 1200 scientists and reviewers at the IPCC...and that's just working Group I. The total is 2-3000 scientists currently at the IPCC.
For the most recent report, listen to the Working Group I webcast (Working Group III is in May):
http://www.empreinte.com/richmediaevent/20070202/v...

quote:
The UN IPCC's latest report is predicting 23 inches over the next 100 year

It also predicts the loss of 30% of coastal industry in Africa alone by the end of the century, a drastic increase in droughts and Cyclones, and an average temp increase of 6 degrees Celsius (though this will be higher in the northern hemisphere and less in the southern). Imagine what happens to the snow (and hence the water supply) in areas like Colorado during the summer because of this...


RE: Clueless in Canberra
By RogueSpear on 2/21/2007 7:03:39 PM , Rating: 4
Disingenuous at best, fraudulent at worst. For all I know you pulled this list out of a hat. Going back to harp on an old example, some of the tobacco studies funded by tobacco companies employed professors from prominent universities as well.

I realize that this is a losing battle. There is nothing anybody could say, there is no scientific study that could ever be done, that would ever convince you otherwise. I can only hope that if you're still around when this does become an immediate issue for those living within 50 miles of a coastline, you're not proclaiming that knew about all of this the whole time and that you warned everyone but they wouldn't listen.

If it makes you sleep better at night, keep living your head in the sand.


RE: Clueless in Canberra
By masher2 (blog) on 2/21/2007 7:10:18 PM , Rating: 2
> "fraudulent at worst...I can only hope that if you're still around when this does become an immediate issue for those living within 50 miles of a coastline..."

You accuse me of fraud, then toss out this gem? Even the UN IPCC is only predicting a 23 inch rise in sea level, and that over the next century...and you're claiming anyone within "50 miles" of the sea is in danger? Does the word 'hypocrisy' mean nothing to you?

My list is easily verifiable. Pick any name, Google them, and read their own research, statements, and interviews. Point in fact, I didn't even list nearly all the scientists I could. Time was short, so I left off quite a few.


RE: Clueless in Canberra
By hubajube on 2/21/2007 7:11:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Disingenuous at best, fraudulent at worst. For all I know you pulled this list out of a hat.
So you have no facts to debate masher? C'mon dude. You're giving up way too easy.


RE: Clueless in Canberra
By hubajube on 2/21/2007 7:09:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Here's a few of the scientists who don't believe in global warming alarmism:
LMAO!!!! Nice one masher!!!! Actual PROOF that there IS a debate on this issue! I'll bet you $1000 that your post gets ignored.


RE: Clueless in Canberra
By TomZ on 2/21/2007 12:41:41 PM , Rating: 3
If those figures are right, then that is a 0.027% reduction for Austrailia. And what does that amount to globally? Probably a couple of orders of magnutude less.

Do you think that represents a compelling enough reduction in order to legislatively mandate their use? In other words, do you believe that citizens should be deprived of the ability to choose for themselves for that size of reduction?

In my view, laws should be passed when there is a compelling need. Laws should not be passed to make legislators "feel good" because they made some token effort in trying to solve a problem.


RE: Clueless in Canberra
By saratoga on 2/21/2007 12:42:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Natural sources of emissions in Australia: 14,125M tons.


Whats the net natural emission from Australia? Probably a lot smaller, though I suppose that'd depend on how much of the surrounding ocean you count as belonging to them. If you only include the territorial waters, it'll be higher.

I have an idea. Instead of making dishonest arguments about emissions, why not just point out that since the demand for energy is so high, this excess "savings" will simply be consumed elsewhere by other people.

I agree with you that this is pretty stupid and not going to make a difference. However, your reasoning is flawed at best. And honestly, you're smart enough to see why, so I don't even know why you posted that.


RE: Clueless in Canberra
By Donkeyshins on 2/21/2007 3:08:14 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Human sources of emissions in Australia: 565M tons.
Natural sources of emissions in Australia: 14,125M tons.

Please cite your sources for the 14,125M ton figure.


RE: Clueless in Canberra
By masher2 (blog) on 2/21/2007 3:39:21 PM , Rating: 2
Anthropogenic (human) sources are less than 4% of all GHG emissions. I was actually conservative in the calculation, as 4% is an upper cap, that has been steadily descending as research identifies new natural sources.


RE: Clueless in Canberra
By Donkeyshins on 2/21/2007 4:34:00 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you.


RE: Clueless in Canberra
By hubajube on 2/21/2007 7:06:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
> "the country will cut its annual production of greenhouse gasses from 565 million tons to 561 million tons...."

Human sources of emissions in Australia: 565M tons.
Natural sources of emissions in Australia: 14,125M tons.

Four tons out of of 15 billion. That's really going to make a difference. But at least it generates a nice warm and fuzzy feeling.

> "household power bills could be cut by up to an astonishing 66 percent..."

Only if someone doesn't use heating or air conditioning in their home, or much of anything else. 66% is a wildly inflated figure...like most of the hoopla surrounding global warming.
Reposting. This is valid info whether we like it or not.


Not worth it....
By MrPickins on 2/21/2007 10:39:58 AM , Rating: 3
I've been using compact fluorescent for 2 years or so in my home, and have had almost 50% failure rate in the tiny ballasts they have.

Now, I'm switching back to incandescent, and loving it. The lights come on instantly, don't need to warm up to achieve full brightness, and can actually be dimmed with a rheostat.




RE: Not worth it....
By jskirwin on 2/21/2007 11:06:58 AM , Rating: 3
I'm keen on saving $$$ too and began switching over last year. However I'm starting to realize that the change is more complicated than you would think - for a $*&#ing lightbulb.

First, no two brands are the same. I've bought whichever brand was on sale, and now I've got different types of lighting all over the house - often in the same room. Worse, the lights I've used in the kitchen must have been designed by vegans because they make meat look grey and disgusting.

Second, the light intensity is supposed to match that of an incandescent bulb - but that's not what I've found. Say I had a room with 2 100w and 1 75w incandescent. After replacing them with the equivalent CFL, the room is noticeably darker. So in order to match what I need in that room, I have to use stronger CFLs or add them. While this uses less electricity, I'm concerned about having to consume more in order to save. That goes against one third of the reduce/reuse/recycle mantra of being green.

Finally, I'm an amateur photographer and a bit more sensitive than others when it comes to color. However many CFLs give skin tones a jaundiced appearance which I have to filter out afterward in Photoshop. Even when not taking pics, I still prefer the warmer light on skin.

Does LED lighting have the same problems with color? I'd suppose color would be even worse with them.


RE: Not worth it....
By masher2 (blog) on 2/21/2007 11:17:04 AM , Rating: 2
> "Does LED lighting have the same problems with color? I'd suppose color would be even worse with them..."

For standard white LEDs, its even worse, yes. Those don't produce a spectrum at all...they produce monohromatic blue and yellow, which the eye interprets as white.

There's research going on to produce better light quality from LEDs, but most of those products haven't made it to the market yet.


RE: Not worth it....
By Oregonian2 on 2/21/2007 1:53:56 PM , Rating: 2
We use a fair number of fluorescent bulb "replacement" products. They are efficient but a few observations:

1) The fib quite a bit about brightness equivalence

2) The fib quite a bit about how long the bulb will last

3) Their color compared to sunlight-optimized halogens is
pathetic, even using the daylight-optimized fluorescents.
Living where it's overcast/rainy for 7~8 months a year, we
need good indoor lights to keep the syndromes away.

4) The brightness available for the high levels required for
things like reading (esp with older eyes) isn't good.

5) They take several minutes before coming up to their normal
brightness.

6) Because of that, and because their lifetimes are supposed to
drop when turned on/off a lot (they don't like that startup
cycle) one tends to leave them on when leaving a room so
some of the cost/power savings is lost because the lights
will be left on longer

7) So not thrilled about them for prime-location usage, but
they're great for secondary locations where "performance" doesn't
matter too much (hall lights, closet lights, pantry lights,
garage lights, etc).


RE: Not worth it....
By glennpratt on 2/21/2007 5:03:29 PM , Rating: 2
Incandescents don't last as long when power cycled either.

As for color, I don't see it. Of course I live in Texas, but if you buy fluorescents made for 'daylight' instead of the cheapest models, they produce a light very similar to daylight. I find daylight to be extremely hard on the eyes, so I don't understand why anyone would want to imitate that. Reading a book outside, even in the shade is very hard on my eyes.

I read books every night by a 7w CFL lamp and in my office with a 20w CFL light in a fixture.


RE: Not worth it....
By dever on 2/21/2007 5:56:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I find daylight to be extremely hard on the eyes, so I don't understand why anyone would want to imitate that.
That would have nothing to do with the "daylight" color that these bulb are trying to produce buy rather the orders of magnitude difference in brightness between artificial light and direct sunlight. Our eyes can adjust to some degree, but not completely. And, everyone's sensitivity is different.


RE: Not worth it....
By Oregonian2 on 2/21/2007 6:50:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Incandescents don't last as long when power cycled either.


It's often thought to be that way, but long ago when I was a young engineer, an old timer (who was a nationally famous engineer) told me that it just wasn't true and was a commonly thought falsehood caused by bulbs burning out when being turned on. Turns out that they would have failed soon thereafter anyway. We were building something that would turn high powered lights on and off (ones with relatively short lifetimes) so we built a test jig that mechanically turned a pile of them on and off, with a significant delay after the off to let them cool down first. Calculated the working time for a pile of bulbs, and the average time each bulb ran before burning out was about it's rated lifetime. So, no, I'd say that's not really true.

P.S. - If you go down to the store and look for "reading light" bulbs, they'll be 200~300 watts with a lot of lumens. Also depends how old you are too, and whether the reading requires concentration (small print, detailed photos, etc).


RE: Not worth it....
By TomZ on 2/21/2007 7:30:28 PM , Rating: 2
No, I don't buy it. Powering up a light bulb causes a rapid warm-up which stresses the assembly. That is why almost always, a light bulb burns out when it is first turned on. When was the last time you saw a light bulb burn out when it was already on?


RE: Not worth it....
By cheetah2k on 2/21/2007 10:57:14 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed, 9 times out of 10, the fillement in the incandecent bulb will fail during power on. However........

This doesn't account for power surges, and other electical anomolies, say for example, power surging during an electrical storm, particularilly in bulbs that have had greater use and are probably close to the end of their life span. I've seen this happen many times..


RE: Not worth it....
By Oregonian2 on 2/22/2007 6:37:44 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for proving what the older engineer had said was true!

It does burn out upon startup due to the stress put on the filament upon turn-on, but that doesn't CAUSE the wearing out of the bulb. It wears out such that a weak (thin) spot forms on the structure. That developed weak spot didn't get there BECAUSE of the turn-ons, it got there during run-time. The start-up is the straw that breaks the bulb's back so to speak, but it's not the CAUSE of the wearout and it does not significantly affect the lifetime of the bulb. I even proved that through actual measurements. Believe your own theories if you will, but your theory is in variance with both a technical expert in such things (the old-time engineer) as well as measured reality.

P.S. - I thought he was old then, he may have been younger than I am now. :-)


No Difference??
By SiN on 2/21/2007 10:47:12 AM , Rating: 3
I for one don't like the idea of being forced to change, but i can see the benifit for all. Oz lowers its CO2 output, home owners receive lower bills.
Working in lighing engineering, i think i can shed some "light" (lol) on this, and you should have noticed yourself anyways! The Fluorescent light bulbs takes a while to warm up and product the ammount of light that you see, so to say they are not as bright as Incandescent bulbs is utter rubbish. It just takes a while for it to get there. One reason i don't like the Fluoresent bulb (green light??? blue and red maybe, but not green) is because of the warm up, but its only a niggle, i have my home fitted out with these energy efficent bulbs.




RE: No Difference??
By SiN on 2/21/2007 10:55:45 AM , Rating: 2
*Update*
Forgot to mention that there are issues with dimming, but most dim switch's are not produced for Fluorescent lighting. They still work, but "knock" the lights off premetuerly once you dimm them too low. No effect on the bulb, it just can't produce the light at that level.


RE: No Difference??
By ProviaFan on 2/21/2007 1:02:24 PM , Rating: 2
You're being terribly haughty to dismiss off hand claims that CFLs are not as bright as the incandescents they supposedly replace. While trusting one's eyesight can be misleading, I have confirmed this with the CFLs at home using a light meter. Unless CFLs have a warm-up period measured in days, there are at least some brands that are not measured and specified honestly.

I suspect that the lower output in practice is due to the inefficient design. In larger spiral-shaped bulbs, a significant portion of the light emitted from the inner half of the tube is absorbed by the part of the tube directly across from it. That is why in my opinion CFLs are of limited usefulness for no-compromise energy saving; if you want the best of both worlds, traditional fluorescent fixtures get much better mileage out of the light emitted from the bulbs.

Also, common fluorescent lighting most certainly DOES have a noticeably green-biased spectrum. Again, from photography, this is easy to see when doing camera RAW conversions of fluorescent-lit scenes at neutral (5000K) white balance. Yes, bulbs come in different color balances, but the kind that almost everyone uses definitely has this green cast.


RE: No Difference??
By TomZ on 2/21/2007 1:11:37 PM , Rating: 2
I think this depends on the brand and type of bulb used, as you said. I have a light fixture over my home kitchen table that has 3 fluorescent and 2 incandescent bulbs in otherwise identical locations. I did this as an experiment to see if the family would notice, and the general consensus is that they are the same. The apparent quality and color of the light and the brightness of the light is the same. The only difference I can tell (besides the shape) is that the fluorescents do take a little time to get to full brightness (less than a minute, I think). But that is not noticable with normal daily use - you can only tell if you specifically pay attention to that and specifically compare it to incandescent.

I do realize that fluorescents do switch, but we're apparently not sensitive to that.


RE: No Difference??
By dever on 2/21/2007 5:24:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I did this as an experiment to see if the family would notice, and the general consensus is that they are the same.

Our minds have an amazing ability to white balance. Try an objective test. Set the white balance on your camera to a non-auto setting (such as tungston). Now take pictures using one type of bulb, then the other, retaining the same white balance setting. You'll see huge differences in the color casts in the picture, especially with skin tones.

You have to be aware of that when doing photography. If you have multiple types of light illuminating your subject, you probably won't even be able to fix it in Photoshop.


RE: No Difference??
By glennpratt on 2/21/2007 3:53:50 PM , Rating: 2
In my experience, 14w fluorescents are significantly brighter then the 75w incandescents they replaced in my house. And these are no where near the largest you can buy.


RE: No Difference??
By dever on 2/21/2007 5:57:22 PM , Rating: 2
Did you use a light meter too?


RE: No Difference??
By TomZ on 2/21/2007 9:18:53 PM , Rating: 2
You do realize that light meters are more sensitive to certain wavelengths than others?

Anyway, an end-user's perception of brightness is more important than any readings from a light meter.


RE: No Difference??
By Oregonian2 on 2/21/2007 1:59:59 PM , Rating: 2
But of course, as I recall, Fluorescent lights have a bit of mercury in them. So we're trading CO2 (which we all breathe out) for having more mercury in our homes. Good deal!

P.S. - Have they figured out how to eliminate the mercury? I still see warnings about getting rid of the tubes as if they were hazardous materials the last time I actually read the fine print.


How is this different?
By noreaga0221 on 2/21/2007 3:27:49 PM , Rating: 2
So how is this different than when Lead was phased gasoline for use in automobiles? Oh yea, the internet wasn't around for people to cry that the government was running our lives.




RE: How is this different?
By TomZ on 2/21/2007 3:38:44 PM , Rating: 2
Lead additives were proved to be a serious health risk, with direct ties to gasoline usage. Also, lead had to be removed from cars in order to enable the use of catalytic converters. In the case of lead, the need for a phaseout was compelling and thus warranted government action. In this case, the benefits are not compelling.


RE: How is this different?
By dever on 2/21/2007 6:13:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
for people to cry that the government was running our lives
The real cry is against the apathy of individuals who see no harm in the slow erosion of freedom.


RE: How is this different?
By noreaga0221 on 2/22/2007 10:55:50 AM , Rating: 2
Do you have any control over the emission devices on your automobile? Do you have any control over the regulations of the power industry? Do you actually want to waste energy? Being a new product (cfl), a push to up the volume is going to be great for price, longevity and better designs. I've done research on CFLs and also Green Architecture for college senior research projects. Why someone would not want to build today using these methods is just simply stupid.


RE: How is this different?
By TomZ on 2/22/2007 11:12:37 AM , Rating: 2
The question is not whether CFLs are good or bad; the issue is whether the benefits are so compelling that the government interferes with the market to effectively force consumers to use them. Government intervention should only be considered when you have a situation where the free market will reach some sitatuion that creates some significant problem. This is clearly not the case with CFLs vs. incandescent. The market can solve this on its own without government meddling.


power
By adam92682 on 2/21/2007 12:38:03 PM , Rating: 2
i switched to these bulbs long ago. now i dont feel so bad about having a 1000watt PSU




RE: power
By TomZ on 2/21/2007 12:50:52 PM , Rating: 3
LOL. I read somewhere that Austrailia is going to limit PCs to having no more than a 400W supply in order to reduce CO2. So, hopefully you don't live there.

Actually, I made that up. But it is just as unreasonable as passing a law making incandescent light bulbs illegal.

I can already see movies set in the future where ordinarily law-abiding citizens close their blinds tight, lock their doors, and then in total secret, take out of a drawer somewhere, put it into a fixture, and then turn on their illegal incandescent lightbulb, and bask in its warm glow. Oh, the guilty pleasure!


RE: power
By Oregonian2 on 2/21/2007 7:11:56 PM , Rating: 2
IMO that'd be silly. Just makes the PC industry design ways around it like having multiple supplies (with separate cords) or having people buy external disk drives that are individually powered (maybe that's where eSATA came from, they can be externally powered and not any slower). Etc. Just a way to make PCs cost more.


RE: power
By TomZ on 2/21/2007 7:32:14 PM , Rating: 2
You realize I was joking to make a point, right?


Edison is spinning at high rotation
By hellokeith on 2/21/2007 11:27:53 AM , Rating: 4
Edison is spinning at high rotation in his grave and wasting most of that on heat, just like his terribly inefficient incandescent design.

Nikolai Tesla is truly getting the last laugh at Edison, just one more fact that Tesla was a true genius while Edison was just an average inventor. Tesla, the father of radio (yes, Tesla not Marconi), the father of wireless communication and RF remote control, the father of electric brushless motors, the father of alternating current, and the father of fluorescent lighting.

I've been using CF bulbs for 5 years. Have them in my place, my parents house, and my two best friends's houses. No one complains about the light quality because they are plenty bright or complains about the cost because the things rarely fail.

Good for Australia, you make Tesla proud, and I hope more countries follow your example.




RE: Edison is spinning at high rotation
By TomZ on 2/21/2007 2:47:56 PM , Rating: 2
I don't understand why Tesla's accomplishments have to take away from Edison's. The fact remains that Edison was a very prolific inventor, and he also had a real knack for bringing inventions to reality. I don't know your definition of "genius," but when I review Edison's long list of accomplishments, the term "average inventor" is not exactly the thought that comes to mind.


By dever on 2/21/2007 5:16:20 PM , Rating: 2
Much more importantly, what does Tesla vs. Edison have to do with socialist policies, arrogant politicians and crippling the product refining capabilities of a free market?


By Ytsejamer1 on 2/21/2007 9:57:39 AM , Rating: 2
I think it's a great idea to move away from incandescent light bulbs. While I'm all for personal freedom, small changes such as this might help us contribute to the well-being of this planet we live on. I changed out every bulb in my house (not on a dimmer) to these new florescent bulbs. They were cheap, and I've not had to change any out in three years.

If we can all change a little bit by doing one or two things that will cut down on energy usage, I think we'll be surprised by how much of a difference it makes in the long run.




By masher2 (blog) on 2/21/2007 4:06:33 PM , Rating: 1
Downrate if you wish, but, if GCM models are correct, then cutting human emissions by 50% will only reduce world temperature by 0.8 degrees over the next 100 years.

A 50% reduction isn't a "few small changes". It means using half the electricity we do now. Eating half the meat. Using half the gasoline. Purchasing half the manufactured goods....and thats all assuming that the world population stops increasing, and that China, India, and other developing nations make the same cuts we do.


By dever on 2/21/2007 6:02:55 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, that statistic is severly under-reported.


By dever on 2/21/2007 1:35:40 PM , Rating: 2
I'm suprised by the number of people who are willing to continually let a few arrogant beaurocrats take away an increasing number of freedoms. I use CFLs in specific locations to save cost, but there are certain applications where they are not the best solution.

Don't pretend you are "all for personal freedom".


What about LED's?
By LiquidIce1337 on 2/21/2007 10:35:34 AM , Rating: 4
There was an article i think on DT a few weeks ago about a entire city converting to LED's, why not do that? They last longer, can be brighter, and they don't show every imperfection they way they project light. I know I hate fluorescent lights for the sheer fact when I wake up in the morning at my miserable college they have them everywhere and I look at the mirror and I think.. "F#$@! I'm a hideous man" you can see every imperfection in your face.. although the energy saving are good, I still think LED's are such a great choice.




Facts
By DeepBlue1975 on 2/21/2007 1:54:43 PM , Rating: 4
The said reduction goes as high as... 7%.
is something that yields a 7% better energy economy worth the hassle of "moving" an entire country towards that tech?
In my experience, fluorescents burn out so much quickly and cost so much more that I can't see such a replacement helping a household economy at all. (Ok, maybe I just had such a bad luck and everybody else gets better life out of fluos than incandescents)
I like the "whiter sensation" that fluos bring, though it's as cold toned that most brown things I own start looking... plain green :S
As for taking photos, they are'n the best lighting solution you can have... With not even a so fast shutter speed you can actually see the flickering, and you are potentially likely to get a striped pick if you like taking macros and try to use one of those near your cam (I tried yesterday, it happened 3 times in a row... Now all I want is an incandescent one to serve as a constant auxiliary backlight for macro pictures, a slave flash could be an option but for very small things I need the light to frame it well)

To Masher2:
Freedom of choice is a good thing, but it isn't too real in the economical market. You can only choose from what's available and you can't decide on that, at all. Governments can be very invasive in their manipulation of their local markets, and all the liberty you can have then is the one of importing those goods you can't locally find, and pay quite a heft for them :(

Not pretty at all, but that's how it always seems to work :(




Incandescent problems
By Oregonian2 on 2/21/2007 2:11:47 PM , Rating: 2
It's going to be interesting in Australia once people's oven lights burn out. Finding non-incandescent replacements will interesting. Ones that can take the heat.

I suspect the makers of LED flashlights may be behind all of it, most all flashlights (torches) may have to be thrown away.

It'll also be interesting to see the replacement bulbs in automobiles,which use a lot of incandescent bulbs, including the headlights. Just imagine how much it'll cost to buy an LED version of auto-headlight (which hopefully can be taken from car to car because it'll not take long before the headlights are worth more than the rest of the car). I can just see someone coming out and seeing that their headlights have been stolen. :-)




RE: Incandescent problems
By masher2 (blog) on 2/21/2007 4:01:12 PM , Rating: 2
It'll likely be just like Germany's support of Kyoto. Pass it with great fanfare and acclamation...then start repealing it bit by bit, when people start suffering the consequences. Germany just exempted their entire coal industry from the treaty a few months ago, when they realized who totally unrealistic the caps were.


LED would be better
By spindoc on 2/21/2007 7:02:15 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry if this is a duplicate post... I have no time to read 90 comments.

I'll agree that fluorescent uses less energy but what about the manufacturing process or more importantly the disposal. Fluorescent tubes are made with mercury gas ( I think).

On a more personal note, I can't stand waiting the one second that it takes for a fluorescent light to power up before turning on. Also, they are quite fragile compared with incandescent and LED. Consider these examples... my basement light switch is right at the top of my steps. With an incandescent bulb I walk past the switch, flip it on and continue down the stairs; or with a fluorescent tube I can flip on the switch, stop and wait until I can see the stairs and then walk down them. It's trivial, I know but I could only last about one month before changing back to incandescent.

I used a fluorescent in my trouble light in the garage and it broke the first time I dropped it.

I also broke one in my hand twisting it into the socket.

These may seem trivial or the rantings of an idiot... the point being; I don't like them. If I want to save money on electricity I'll just turn the lights off; and I do.

In closing, I say bring on LED tech.




RE: LED would be better
By TomZ on 2/21/2007 7:35:15 PM , Rating: 2
I would suggest you try some other light bulb brands. The ones I have here have no noticable turn-on delay, and I've had no problems with them being more fragile than a normal light bulb. The ones I bought were nothing special and weren't expensive.


Compact Flourescents
By psychobriggsy on 2/21/2007 11:06:28 AM , Rating: 3
These bulbs are quite popular in the UK these days due to the high cost of electricity over here. You really do notice the difference in your bills, if you're saving 80W over several bulbs for many hours a day (e.g., 5 bulbs * 10 hours * 10p/unit * 0.08kW * 365 = £146 saved out of £182).

You can also buy natural daylight compact flourescents for a bit more money - these ones do fix the weird light that standard CF bulbs emit (I find it slightly too yellow) and come in up to 40W (160W equivalent).

Here's hoping that LED lighting progresses in the next few years to be affordable as well, thus letting us all use our dimmer switches again!




ugh
By Moishe on 2/21/2007 1:08:50 PM , Rating: 2
So much for freedom.
Frankly, I already have half my home outfitted in CFL. I have no problem with them, EXCEPT I want to choose which lights to use. I use a few dimmers and incandescent lights are ideal for that. There are times when each type of lighting is appropriate. I want that choice.

I think people have and will automatically use CFLs once they're as cheap as regular bulbs.




Always amazed
By mackintire on 2/21/2007 1:09:17 PM , Rating: 2
I am always amazed by the misinformation that gets spread around.

First, You should always rate light bulb in Luminance. The Luminance of a bulb is usually given. Watts is a unit of power used. Watts is not a unit of brightness.

Fluorescent bulbs have a different kind of light spectrum, so do not expect things to look the same when using them. Typically the color red is not as prevalent and so red object often look orange.

The color temperature of the light is the center spectrum of the light and changes the general color of the light.

True sunlight's color temperature is approximately 6000 degree K.

As the color temperature number goes higher the color changes to a whiter more bluish hue.

CRI is another important number. It stands for Color Rendering Index. This number defines how true a color is represented under a given light. Sunlight is the reference at a CRI of 100
Incandescent bulbs's CRI is typically around 98.

Most fluorescent's bulbs are in the high 70's

Fluorescent bulbs CRI have been improving as they improve the design. The CRI is sometimes listed on the package.

Special expensive fluorescent bulbs have CRI's as high as 92.

The allergy of intolerace to fluorescent flicker is a true know phenomenon. The reason these people do not seem to have the problem with incandescent bulbs is that they have a glowing element that the brightness does not diminish quickly enough to bother the person.

With larger fluorescent tubes this problem is diminished due to the static internal charge that they maintain. LED lights do not have this problem as the power they use is DC.
This flicker would also not be a problem behind a think frosted ceiling light with 2 or more bulbs. The flicker would most pronouced if the bulb(s) were directly lighting the area in question, as opposed to indirect lighting.

Most home users prefer a fluorescent light in the 3200k color temp range for warm inviting living areas and a 4500k temp for the kitchen and brighter whiter looking areas.

My house is over 70% fluorescent. Most of the bulbs have a CRI of 82 or higher. My electric bills are 25% lower since we made the change. Other items that affect my electric bill include the plasma TV that consumes 400 watts. The 3 computers (One server with 10 HD's and two modern desktops). The 700 watt stereo and the electric dryer in the basement.




environmentalists... argh!
By Gooberslot on 2/21/2007 11:35:25 PM , Rating: 2
Environmentalists won't be happy until they manage to find a way to make every single person on this planet unhappy in some way. First the RoHS and now this...




By 299792458 on 2/22/2007 9:32:51 PM , Rating: 2
I get the impression that most of you think that fluorescent lights flickering is some kind of insurmountable technical problem which may be reduced slightly with better technology but can never be eliminated. Nothing is further from the truth.

The technology for flicker-free fluorescent lighting has existed for over a decade. And it isn't some far off theoretical tech, but something that is becoming increasingly common: electronic ballasts.

These days (where I live at least) most new commercial fluorescent light installations use electronic ballasts, and many older ones are retrofitting electronic ballasts as well. The reason for their increasing popularity has nothing to do with their lack of flickering, it is simply because in the long run they are cheaper. They are more efficient than standard magnetic ballasts and the lamps last much longer before they need to be replaced. Other benefits include:
- No buzzing or humming
- No start-up flickering, they simply "turn on" like standard incandescent.
- No end-of-life flickering, dead lamps simply turn off.
And finally they don't flicker at all.

The reason for this is that they drive the lamps with a high frequency (in the tens of kilohertz) square wave. You may be thinking that they still flicker, just too fast for the human eye to see, but the truth is that they really don’t flicker at all. The reason for this is that the “off” time at the crossover point for each half-cycle is so short that the discharge literally doesn’t get enough time to go out. It stays continuously lit. There is a slight ripple on the output but it is way too small for anyone to notice.

Don’t believe me? Look here: http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php... This guy actually measured the ripple of various light sources. You can see that the ripple on the fluorescent light (down the bottom) is extremely small and is actually LESS than a standard incandescent lamp. In fact it had the least ripple and smoothest light output of all the lights tested, including LEDs!

All modern compact fluorescent bulbs use electronic ballasts as well so they have all the advantages I mentioned above and shouldn’t flicker at all! Unfortunately the key word is shouldn’t. Because compact fluorescents are being built so cheaply the ballasts often have little or no filtering on the mains input to save a few cents which results in some of the 100/120Hz mains ripple getting to the output. So if you notice flicker with a CFL go out and buy another (quality) one rather than writing off all fluorescent technology as being hopelessly bad.

Due to the fact that flickering has long since been solved and electronic ballasts are becoming mainstream I find these suggestions of Germany “doing away with fluorescent lights” or Switzerland installing “frequency doublers” absurd in the extreme and I can’t possibly believe it.

Regarding Germany the only other viable alternative to fluorescent is metal halide which is even worse when it comes to flickering and light quality, leaving incandescent as the only other option which just isn’t practical for commercial lighting installations. They use 10 times the power and last 1/10th as long as fluorescent. Not only would the running costs of incandescent lighting be enormous, but due to the additional heat output air conditioning capacity would probably have to be at least doubled which would also be incredibly expensive. I also can’t believe that a country like Germany would be unaware of the existence of electronic ballasts, especially when one of the worlds leading lighting manufactures, Osram, is located there.

Regarding Switzerland, the idea of using “frequency doublers” when there is such a thing as electronic ballasts is also absurd. All the existing ballasts would have to be replaced with specially designed high frequency versions, and the electronics to double the frequency would significantly reduce the efficiency and be very expensive, especially in larger buildings. Retrofitting the existing lighting system with electronic ballasts would be far cheaper and more effective, frequency doublers are just plain stupid.




My Fluro Legs
By supercruiser on 2/23/2007 12:17:41 AM , Rating: 2
Might be ok for you to gripe on about the fact that you don't like using the fluro globes, but this country is getting fucked over with every one elses green house gasses (and our own), twenty years ago you could spend all day at the beach and not have to worry about a thing, now 20 minutes out in the sun and you can feel that puppy burning at your skin, I give it another 20 years and you'll be slapping the sunscreen on here in South Australia (thats the one with the big hole above it letting in the uv) with a trowel... Hence why I have two legs that look like a couple of Fluro lights, they don't see too much sun...




FLUORESCENT LIGHT SUX
By RW on 2/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: FLUORESCENT LIGHT SUX
By mark2ft on 2/21/2007 8:57:03 PM , Rating: 2
Let me elaborate a bit for RW.

RW does have a point when it comes to light quality. Incandescent lights still remain the best imitations of natural sunlight. This is because most of the light is blackbody radiation--i.e., light as a byproduct of heat. This is what the sun is. Fluorescent lights are generated by specific types of gaseous elements, whose electrons jump down from a higher to lower energy state. This results in only certain frequencies of light being created--unlike blackbody radiation that results in a broad, wide range of light frequencies.

I personally like incandescents better in terms of light quality. I can tell how fluorescent lightbulbs tend to flicker a little bit (they're getting better at correcting this but I can still notice it on the fluorescent bulb at my school classroom).


RE: FLUORESCENT LIGHT SUX
By UnFaZeD on 2/23/2007 1:36:47 AM , Rating: 2
Why is having to imitate sunlight a pre req for being a good quality light? some of may not be morning people...


"Nowadays you can buy a CPU cheaper than the CPU fan." -- Unnamed AMD executive

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki