Filament bulbs to disappear from the UK

[Kilgallb]

Universal Plug and Play (UPnP) appliances already made by Samsung and others can talk to each other over your power lines. Even the toaster and the Kettle. The system might turn off the compressor to your refridgerator while your electric stove is running. It might shut off your dryer while you are cooking during the electricity rush hour in the evening. This will reduce demand and the power companies will give you a lower rate for using the system. A substantially lower rate. Govenrments may well give tax incentives to peoplel who buy such appliances.

This is not futuristic. Parts of Italy already charge more for high demand in the evenings.

 

[dslater]

Hmm - well that sounds interesting - who pays for the new meters that make this work? Even so, this just evens out demand - it doesn't necessarily reduce total consumption.

 

[copake_ham]

Hmm - well that sounds interesting - who pays for the new meters that make this work? Even so, this just evens out demand - it doesn't necessarily reduce total consumption.

The meters are cheap; the technology commonplace.

Improved efficiency is the primary step to reducing total consumption from current levels - which BTW, was the core point of the original argument in favor of switching to CF bulbs.

But you seem more intent on proving a point, whether correct or not, than learning from others.

Kind of common here - now what was your complaint about Andy?

'Nuff said - leaving thread.....

 

[Andy K]

DSlater, not everyone gets their electricity from coal fired power plants. I also find your thinking extremely flawed, 'Some power plants produce mercury, so that makes it ok to put a fragile, easily broken, mercury containing appliance in every room, in every home on the planet.' Also these bulbs contain electronics, so they have a highly polluting manufacturing process using extremely toxic processes. The old incandescent bulbs were glass and metal, no toxins, and far less polluting to produce.

Yeah, lets swap one pollutant, CO2 which does not hurt human health, for one which can enter the food chain very easily and has a cumulative and permanent effect.

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/en...f-energy-saving-bulbs.html?feedId=earth_rss20

The law is that if you spill mercury you have to inform the authorities and get it properly cleaned up. Of course not everyone does because of the costs, so what do you think will happen when people break CFL bulbs? Thats right, they'll just be tossed in the bin to go to landfill. The mercury will accumulate and enter the food chain.

Way to go Eco-Taliban, they really thought this one out, eh? :rolleyes:

Hmm - well I see a couple of problems with this - varying the price of electricity based on the time of day would be a bit difficult - consider how your electric meter works. Even if you could do that, all you would achieve is evening out demand throughout the day - you wouldn't reduce total consumption.

Many homes in Britain have what is known as a Day/Night meter. It gives two readings, so usage of cheap nighttime 'off-peak' electricity and more expensive daytime electricity can be measured. So people will run their electric storage heating at night ready to use during the following day. I think it is known as Economy 7 and Economy 10.


Oh and George, you're damned right I'll keep beating the drum on this. I think avoiding mercury in the food chain is more important than CO2. If you want to be sucked into the Eco-Taliban's lies and propaganda thats up to you.

 

[Gary Holliday]

I share your scepticism on the ecology debate Andy, however in the short term, coal power plants are the main spource of energy production, so banning incandescents are the quickest, cheapest and easiest options.

I share your views on incorrect disposal, I live in apartments where bottles for recycling are still lying at the bins for a year, people are bone idol and selfish.

I am in no rush to put mercury energy bulbs in my home as they are expensive, dim and an ugly light source. I would like to see some tests, but is it more energy efficient to leave these CFL bulbs on? Turning them on all the time uses a lot of energy to ignite? I spend half my day turning lights off!

Anyway, the real eco warriors are the termite pest control workers. Methane is much more of a hazard to the planet and termites are responsible for a lot of the production!

 

[dslater]

The meters are cheap; the technology commonplace.

Improved efficiency is the primary step to reducing total consumption from current levels - which BTW, was the core point of the original argument in favor of switching to CF bulbs.

But you seem more intent on proving a point, whether correct or not, than learning from others.

Kind of common here - now what was your complaint about Andy?

'Nuff said - leaving thread.....

You know George, I have never seen the meters you speak of so I asked a simple question. I am also well aware of the OP's point and in fact agree with it. You still haven't explained how evening out power consumption throughout the day reduces total consumption. Seems to me that improving the efficiency of our electrical devices is a separate issue from evening out demand.
The only points I was trying to make were that 1) I don't believe pure market forces are enough to get people to adopt CF bulbs and 2) even if they do adopt CF bulbs, the energy savings won't really amount to much many household devices draw a lot more power than light bulbs.
My complaint with Andy is that I believe he greatly exaggerates the dangers of CF bulbs. At the same time he seems to have bought into the propaganda being spewed by organizations funded by oil companies who are trying to claim global warming is nothing to be worried about.

 

[Gary Holliday]

Economy 7 and 10 meters are a waste of time. You pay less for using electricity during off peak times, but actually pay a higher rate for your daytime use. Unless your a night shift worker, who starts their washing and cooking at 1230am each day, go ahead and have that meter installed. They are not going to save the planet though.

 

[Andy K]

I have not bought into any propaganda. I have made up my own mind. I do not believe climate change is caused by man, for these reasons:

1. The total volume of atmospheric CO2 makes up 0.054% of the atmosphere. Of that 0.054% human activities contribute less than 1%. So restricting our choices, forcing us to use poisonous appliances, raising taxes in the name of the environment will have no effect on climate change. You might as well tell Amazonian natives not to piss in the Amazon in case they make it flood.

2. Atmospheric CO2 is a result of global warming, not a cause of global warming. The temperature rises and then the amount of atmospheric CO2 rises. If it was the other way round global temperatures would have risen steadily throughout the 20th century, but they didn't. In fact from 1940 to the late 70s global temperatures fell, for four consecutive decades and all the talk was of a coming ice age.

3. The green movement is no longer about the environment, it is about removing freedom of choice from the majority. It is about the politics of envy and spite. When I call them the Eco-Taliban I do so because that is exactly what they have become, a Taliban who will brook no disagreement against their great god Seotu, and who will vilify anyone who disputes their propaganda.

 

[Andy K]

Economy 7 and 10 meters are a waste of time. You pay less for using electricity during off peak times, but actually pay a higher rate for your daytime use. Unless your a night shift worker, who starts their washing and cooking at 1230am each day, go ahead and have that meter installed. They are not going to save the planet though.

I don't have a Day/Night meter, I was just pointing out that they are common over here.

 

[Daud]

http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/

 

[Gary Holliday]

I don't have a Day/Night meter, I was just pointing out that they are common over here.

The great thing about quotes is that it further highlights my grammatical errors.

 

[dslater]

I have not bought into any propaganda. I have made up my own mind. I do not believe climate change is caused by man, for these reasons:

1. The total volume of atmospheric CO2 makes up 0.054% of the atmosphere. Of that 0.054% human activities contribute less than 1%. So restricting our choices, forcing us to use poisonous appliances, raising taxes in the name of the environment will have no effect on climate change. You might as well tell Amazonian natives not to piss in the Amazon in case they make it flood.

2. Atmospheric CO2 is a result of global warming, not a cause of global warming. The temperature rises and then the amount of atmospheric CO2 rises. If it was the other way round global temperatures would have risen steadily throughout the 20th century, but they didn't. In fact from 1940 to the late 70s global temperatures fell, for four consecutive decades and all the talk was of a coming ice age.

3. The green movement is no longer about the environment, it is about removing freedom of choice from the majority. It is about the politics of envy and spite. When I call them the Eco-Taliban I do so because that is exactly what they have become, a Taliban who will brook no disagreement against their great god Seotu, and who will vilify anyone who disputes their propaganda.

Can you back these statements up? Can you reference any scientific papers or journals? The so called global cooling in the 70's was a myth propagated by a bunch of pseudo scientists and based on inaccurate measurements. I remember the books on global cooling they were on the same bookshelves as books on UFO's and ESP. I would refer you to the IPCC fourth assessment report from 2007:

Changes in the atmosphere

Carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide are all long-lived greenhouse gases.

* "Carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values."
* The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in 2005 (379 ppm) exceeds by far the natural range of the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm).
* The amount of methane in the atmosphere in 2005 (1774 ppb) exceeds by far the natural range of the last 650,000 years (320 to 790 ppb).
* The primary source of the increase in carbon dioxide is fossil fuel use, but land-use changes also make a contribution.
* The primary source of the increase in methane is very likely to be a combination of human agricultural activities and fossil fuel use. How much each contributes is not well determined.
* Nitrous oxide concentrations have risen from a pre-industrial value of 270 ppb to a 2005 value of 319 ppb. More than a third of this rise is due to human activity, primarily agriculture.

[edit] Warming of the planet

Cold days, cold nights, and frost events have become less frequent. Hot days, hot nights, and heat waves have become more frequent. Additionally:

* Eleven of the twelve years in the period (1995-2006) rank among the top 12 warmest years in the instrumental record (since 1850).
* Warming in the last 100 years has caused about a 0.74 °C increase in global average temperature. This is up from the 0.6 °C increase in the 100 years prior to the Third Assessment Report.
* Urban heat island effects were determined to have negligible influence (less than 0.0006 °C per decade over land and zero over oceans) on these measurements.
* Observations since 1961 show that the ocean has been absorbing more than 80% of the heat added to the climate system, and that ocean temperatures have increased to depths of at least 3000m (9800 ft).
* "Average Arctic temperatures increased at almost twice the global average rate in the past 100 years."
* It is likely that greenhouse gases would have caused more warming than we have observed if not for the cooling effects of volcanic and human-caused aerosols. See global dimming.
* Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were very likely higher than during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely the highest in at least the past 1300 years.

 

[Andy K]

Will NASA's figures do? Heres a graph of land ocean temperatures over the last 120 odd years. See the dip from 1940 to the late 70s? Thats the myth you refer to.

Lots of use of the word 'likely' in your piece I see.

I don't dispute the climate is warming a little, but I do dispute the argument that it is man made.

Global warming debunked.

 

[dslater]

Will NASA's figures do? Heres a graph of land ocean temperatures over the last 120 odd years. See the dip from 1940 to the late 70s? Thats the myth you refer to.

Lots of use of the word 'likely' in your piece I see.

I don't dispute the climate is warming a little, but I do dispute the argument that it is man made.

Global warming debunked.

Hmm - well Andy, that looks to me like a random short term fluctuation superimposed on a generally upward trend. Heres a longer term graph:

Notice the sharp upward trend starting right about the start of the Industrial revolution? Do you really believe that this is just a remarkable coincidence?

Anyway consider this. The reality is that we are not certain about the causes of global warming. Most climatologists believe it is caused by human activities, but they indeed could turn out to be wrong. So, the question now becomes: what do you do in the face of uncertainty? I propose that you examine the ramifications of being wrong about global warming. So lets suppose you're correct and global warming is not caused by human activities. What happens if we respond to it as if we are responsible and are wrong? Well, we get clean energy, clean cars, no smog, no more strip mining for coal or drilling for oil. Basically, we get a cleaner environment with less pollution. The downside is we probably have to accept a lower standard of living due to the increased costs and our generation will probably see little benefit. - Not that bad an outcome really - and frankly we are going to be forced to find alternatives to fossil fuels at some point when they run out.
On the flip side, suppose we assume global warming is not due to human activities and we're wrong about that - what happens then? Well, then we get increasing pollution, a warming climate, extinction of northern flora and fauna and probably a greatly lowered standard of living.

So which outcome do you see as the better risk?

 

[Andy K]

'Most climatologists believe it is caused by human activities' but they don't know for certain do they?
In the meantime the Third World is being denied the chance to industrialise because the Eco-Taliban have made 'clean' manufacturing too expensive for them. So half the world continues to live in squalor thanks to the greens. Also billions of mercury containing lightbulbs are about to be forced into use, putting mercury pollution into the food chain on a global scale.

Here's another nail in the coffin of manmade global warming: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article1368920.ece

Dr Svensmark suggests that the Sun, at a historically high level of activity, is deflecting many of the cosmic rays away from Earth and thus reducing the cloud cover.

 

[Andy K]

And another nail...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml

 

[Gary Holliday]

Whichever side you believe in, it's hard to trust any scientist. They will write any old paper for whatever political agenda as long as they secure some funding to keep themselves in a temporary job.

With a planet waxing and waning out of ice ages long before humans appeared on the planet and something as colossal as the sun fluctuating in temperature, exploding massive energy towards our planet and a neighbouring planet which turned to red dust, it seems ridiculous that tiny creatures from termites to humans have been blamed for such spectacular events.

 

[Dave Wooten]

I like Hillary - and will likely vote for her in our NYS primary and, if she gets the nomination, in the general election in November 2008.

But, as one can see, she is a "lightening rod" for a lot of folk - including Dave. Sadly, over the next fourteen months certain folk will blame Hillary for everything and anything including their pet that gets run over and the rain that spoils their Sunday picnic! :rolleyes:

Goodness no....I am waiting for Al to throw his hat in the ring.

 

[dslater]

And another nail...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml

Andy,
The IPCC accounted for solar fluctuation and determined that it is not enough to account for the warming. The cosmic ray article I simply do not give much credence. As for the Third World industrializing, regardless of the global warming issue, our ecosystem can't withstand the Third World industrializing the way we did. The correct answer to this problem is that the developed world needs to assist the Third World with clean industrialization.

 

[rusty71]

Whichever side you believe in, it's hard to trust any scientist. They will write any old paper for whatever political agenda as long as they secure some funding to keep themselves in a temporary job.

With a planet waxing and waning out of ice ages long before humans appeared on the planet and something as colossal as the sun fluctuating in temperature, exploding massive energy towards our planet and a neighbouring planet which turned to red dust, it seems ridiculous that tiny creatures from termites to humans have been blamed for such spectacular events.

Amen to that! Anyone in academia knows you get patted on the back for going with the flock, and your hand slapped for independent thought. This is all such tripe. As we're coming out of an ice age, no one knows just how warm the planet should be. And the recent rash of solar flares when the eggheads thought the sun at solar minimum is proof that the "experts" are lucky to hit one in ten of their predictions.

Good lord, as if one light bulb makes any difference. Seems that the old addage "Better to light one candle than curse the darkness" would be snuffed out by the Eco Terrorists for contributing to global warming!

 

[dslater]

Whichever side you believe in, it's hard to trust any scientist. They will write any old paper for whatever political agenda as long as they secure some funding to keep themselves in a temporary job.

Gary,
This is imply flat out wrong. You clearly have no idea of how scientific research works. Scientific papers are subject to rigorous peer review by other scientists with no vested interest in the outcome. Then after the paper is published, other scientists will attempt to reproduce the results and they can't will publish that result and discredit the first paper. Furthermore, a scientist who does not do good unbiased research tarnishes the reputation of the university he works for and will quickly find himself out of a job.

With a planet waxing and waning out of ice ages long before humans appeared on the planet and something as colossal as the sun fluctuating in temperature, exploding massive energy towards our planet and a neighbouring planet which turned to red dust, it seems ridiculous that tiny creatures from termites to humans have been blamed for such spectacular events.

The thing is that the decline in average temperature that causes an ice age is in fact less than the rise in average over the past 150 years or so. As to the suns output, it is in fact extremely stable - significant fluctuations in the suns output happen over the course of millions to tens of millions of years.
We simply are not a tiny as you seem to think - consider at current rates, all the rain forests in the world will be gone by 2060. We are nearly exhausting all the worlds oil reserves and all that carbon that makes them up originally came from the atmosphere.

 

[dslater]

'Most climatologists believe it is caused by human activities' but they don't know for certain do they?
In the meantime the Third World is being denied the chance to industrialise because the Eco-Taliban have made 'clean' manufacturing too expensive for them. So half the world continues to live in squalor thanks to the greens. Also billions of mercury containing lightbulbs are about to be forced into use, putting mercury pollution into the food chain on a global scale.

Here's another nail in the coffin of manmade global warming: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article1368920.ece

Dr Svensmark suggests that the Sun, at a historically high level of activity, is deflecting many of the cosmic rays away from Earth and thus reducing the cloud cover.

One other thing, you keep harping on the CF bulbs - what about all those florescent tubes office buildings have been using for years?

 

[Flotsam]

Just one among the incomprehensible horrors of 9/11 is considering the countless number of florescent bulbs that were pulverized into dust in a moment's time.

 

[Daud]

Ha… I knew this was a new religion all along – bring back the lions!

 

[fschifano]

I have not bought into any propaganda. I have made up my own mind. I do not believe climate change is caused by man, for these reasons:

1. The total volume of atmospheric CO2 makes up 0.054% of the atmosphere. Of that 0.054% human activities contribute less than 1%. So restricting our choices, forcing us to use poisonous appliances, raising taxes in the name of the environment will have no effect on climate change. You might as well tell Amazonian natives not to piss in the Amazon in case they make it flood.

2. Atmospheric CO2 is a result of global warming, not a cause of global warming. The temperature rises and then the amount of atmospheric CO2 rises. If it was the other way round global temperatures would have risen steadily throughout the 20th century, but they didn't. In fact from 1940 to the late 70s global temperatures fell, for four consecutive decades and all the talk was of a coming ice age.

3. The green movement is no longer about the environment, it is about removing freedom of choice from the majority. It is about the politics of envy and spite. When I call them the Eco-Taliban I do so because that is exactly what they have become, a Taliban who will brook no disagreement against their great god Seotu, and who will vilify anyone who disputes their propaganda.

Finally, someone thinking for himself. Kudos to you.