Filament bulbs to disappear from the UK

Andy K · Sep 30, 2007

dslater said:
Andy,
The IPCC accounted for solar fluctuation and determined that it is not enough to account for the warming..

Scientists draft reports for the IPCC, but the IPCC are bureaucrats appointed by governments, many scientists who contribute to the reports disagree with the 'spin' that the IPCC and media put on their findings.
One report suggests that the next 100 years might see a temperature change of 6C yet a Lead Author for the IPCC (Dr John Christy UAH/NASA) has pointed out that the scenarios with the fastest warming rates were added to the report at a late stage, at the request of a few governments... in other words the scientists were told what to do by politicians.
There are nearly 18,000 signatures from scientists worldwide on a petition called The Oregon Petition which says that there is no evidence for man-made global warming theory nor for any impact from mankind's activities on climate.
Many scientists believe that the Kyoto agreement is a total waste of time and one of the biggest political scams ever perpetrated on the public ... as H L Mencken said "the fundamental aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary" ... the desire to save the world usually hides a desire to rule it.

Bob F. · Sep 30, 2007

In the real world, scientists, as everyone else, are driven by the need to earn a living: to feed their families by acquiring money and reputation. They will not do any of these things by bucking the system. They are not aesthete, saintly figures, in white robes dedicated to higher things...

Their money is supplied by research committees. Who sits on these committees? The establishment does. Who gives the committees their money? Government committees do. Who appoints people to the government committees? The politicians do. Who calls the tune? The person who pays the piper does. Always (and even more so when it is a control freak like all politicians happen to be)...

Getting back on topic, industrial FLs are widely recycled: indeed it is a criminal offence in many countries (including the UK) not to do so.

However, if all domestic lighting was switched to CFLs (never going to happen - 50-60%?) it would reduce the UK's domestic CO2 footprint by 2% and that is a simple figure based on simple power generation savings ignoring the contribution of tungsten light to reducing heating requirements (admittedly not a factor in warmer climes) and the extra carbon footprint of producing the things in the first place and energy requirements of recycling and the dangers from 3-8mg of mercury in each single one (there is hope that this can be reduced to under 1mg at some undefined point in the future - 1.4 to 2mg from Philips is the lowest available today). So that's 20 million households times 10 lights divided by say each lamp's 5 year life span (giving them the benefit of the doubt) = 40 million lamps per year times 0.0015g per lamp (benefit of the doubt again) = 60 kilograms of mercury per year to be safely recycled in a country that manages to currently recycle almost nothing... Yeah, that's going to work...

Whatever the causes of global warming, and they are not as "obvious" as some would like us to believe, CFLs are a move down a pointless road as even some "environmentalists" have observed. It's just politicians doing what they do best: the spreading of FUD.

Cheers, Bob.

BarryWilkinson · Sep 30, 2007

I can't argue with any of that Bob!

There's too much spin around and not enough facts.

Barry

Nick Zentena · Sep 30, 2007

dslater said:
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.

Not really.

You've got base load power plants that run 100% of the time. Nukes and Hydro I guess mostly. They take too long to start and stop.

You've got gas plants that can come on to provide extra power when needed.

Then you've got things like coal that you don't really want to turn on but can be in last resort.

By evening things out you can avoid having excess power when nobody wants it and turning on those expensive or dirty sources.

Around here "smart" meters are coming. It's not just for charging more for peak uses but it'll allow net metering if you installing solar panels or wind at your home.

Who pays? The consumer. OTOH it lets the market decide power prices. You want to use expensive peak power then you pay for it.

Andy K · Sep 30, 2007

Another point the Eco-Taliban conveniently ignore is that even if we covered the entire country in wind-turbines and every rooftop in solar panels we will always need coal fired, gas fired and nuclear power plants. Why? Because sometimes the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine.

digiconvert · Sep 30, 2007

And all I did was mention that filament bulbs may be in short supply in the future !

I feel like someone who mentioned in passing that maybe East Prussia should be joined to the rest of Germany --- see where that led !!!!

Can this be moved to the soapbox now please , seems to have drifted a little from the original thread

dslater · Sep 30, 2007

Andy K said:
Another point the Eco-Taliban conveniently ignore is that even if we covered the entire country in wind-turbines and every rooftop in solar panels we will always need coal fired, gas fired and nuclear power plants. Why? Because sometimes the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine.

That is true about windmills and solar - they're hardly the answer. However, there is a kind of nuclear power plant - a light water reactor - that can provide all the worlds power needs for hundreds of years without creating a nuclear waste problem. Current power plant designs are not viable as they produce spent fuel laced with plutonium that need to be sequestered for tens of thousands of years. In a light water reactor, that plutonium laced fuel is reused until all the plutonium is gone. They produce far less waste and that waste they produce only needs to be sequestered for a few hundred years - a much more viable option than current designs. The only objection people have to them is that since they're a type of breeder reactor, there are security concerns about terrorists obtaining fuel from one of these reactors and using it to build a bomb. Personally I believe this is a concern that can be effectively addressed. There was an article about these plants in Scientific American sometime in the last year - sorry I don't have the exact issue handy, but I was a cover story - shouldn't be hard to find if you're interested.
With such a power source, things like hydrogen and ethanol based fuels become more viable. For example, one of the primary criticisms of ethanol based fuels is that the production of ethanol creates more CO² than you save by using it - this critique is based on the assumption that the energy to produce ethanol comes from coal or oil fired plants - if the energy comes from clean nuclear power, then the argument goes away and ethanol becomes merely a storage medium for energy generated by nuclear power. I believe the same argument applies to hydrogen - though I'll freely admit that the jury's still out on the feasibility of hydrogen run cars.

dslater · Sep 30, 2007

Andy,
BTW I wanted to apologize for not responding directly to you yesterday. It was my intention to do so, but after I had written my reply to George, I realized I was out of time and had to take my son to his Tae Kwon Do class. By the time I got back, you had already responded. I never intended any slight.
Dan

Gary Holliday · Sep 30, 2007

dslater said:
Gary,
This is imply flat out wrong. You clearly have no idea of how scientific research works.

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.
QUOTE]

BobF summed up my answer to your first reply, so no need to say anything at length.

As for the second reply. It wasn't so long ago in the planet's history, when humans needed to live as far south as Spain to avoid the ice. If this happened again, involving a massive migration to a suitable climate, imagine the panic if this was predicted. Should we worry? Hardly.

Bob F. · Sep 30, 2007

1st rule of Internet forums: any thread that exceeds 6 posts will go off-topic. 2nd rule: any thread that exceeds 15 posts will go hopelessly off topic. You can lead a thread to water, but you can't make it stop splashing around in the shallows...

dslater · Sep 30, 2007

Bob F. said:
In the real world, scientists, as everyone else, are driven by the need to earn a living: to feed their families by acquiring money and reputation. They will not do any of these things by bucking the system. They are not aesthete, saintly figures, in white robes dedicated to higher things...

Their money is supplied by research committees. Who sits on these committees? The establishment does. Who gives the committees their money? Government committees do. Who appoints people to the government committees? The politicians do. Who calls the tune? The person who pays the piper does. Always (and even more so when it is a control freak like all politicians happen to be)...

In the real world, a scientist who allows his objectivity to be compromised will never be taken seriously again by his peers - as a result he will no longer be published, get funding or have a job - remember the mantra is "publish or perish"

BTW - I never presented scientists as saintly figures. What I said is that regardless of where their funding comes from, they are subjected to rigorous peer review by other scientists with no vested interest in the outcome. Indeed, scientific research is highly competitive and there is significant motivation for reviewers to poke holes in the papers they review.

Andy K · Sep 30, 2007

dslater said:
With such a power source, things like hydrogen and ethanol based fuels become more viable. For example, one of the primary criticisms of ethanol based fuels is that the production of ethanol creates more CO² than you save by using it - this critique is based on the assumption that the energy to produce ethanol comes from coal or oil fired plants - if the energy comes from clean nuclear power, then the argument goes away and ethanol becomes merely a storage medium for energy generated by nuclear power.

The Brazilians are already producing Ethanol in plants powered by electricity created from burning the biomass of the sugar cane. No fossil fuel is used at all in production. See this October's National Geographic.

digiconvert · Sep 30, 2007

Bob F. said:
1st rule of Internet forums: any thread that exceeds 6 posts will go off-topic. 2nd rule: any thread that exceeds 15 posts will go hopelessly off topic. You can lead a thread to water, but you can't make it stop splashing around in the shallows...

Add in a touch of dodgy science and accusations of a nanny state and things get really 'interesting',
Still I can go and teach Maths to disillusioned urban kids tomorrow so the quality of debate should improve

dslater · Sep 30, 2007

Gary Holliday said:
dslater said:

Gary,
This is imply flat out wrong. You clearly have no idea of how scientific research works.

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.
QUOTE]

BobF summed up my answer to your first reply, so no need to say anything at length.

As for the second reply. It wasn't so long ago in the planet's history, when humans needed to live as far south as Spain to avoid the ice. If this happened again, involving a massive migration to a suitable climate, imagine the panic if this was predicted. Should we worry? Hardly.

Click to expand...

Unlike the current warming trend, cooling trends that lead to ice ages happen over periods of tens of thousands or years. One of the primary concerns about the current warming trend and increase in CO² is not only the levels we're seeing, but also how fast the increase is occurring and it appears to be accelerating.

Bob F. · Sep 30, 2007

dslater said:
In the real world, a scientist who allows his objectivity to be compromised will never be taken seriously again by his peers - as a result he will no longer be published, get funding or have a job - remember the mantra is "publish or perish"

What you suggest is the way it is supposed to work and sometimes, in unimportant areas, probably does work, but important science is political.

Science is done by humans. Humans are, regrettably, flawed. Scientific papers are in any case rarely conclusive: there is always scope for argument, interpretation and reassessment. Reviewers are, by definition, established experts in that field - i.e. those with the most to lose if the current orthodoxy (their orthodoxy) is overthrown.

Dave Miller · Sep 30, 2007

Andy K said:
The Brazilians are already producing Ethanol in plants powered by electricity created from burning the biomass of the sugar cane. No fossil fuel is used at all in production. See this October's National Geographic.

Are these the same people that are burning down the rain forest to make room for growing cane?:confused:

dslater · Sep 30, 2007

Bob F. said:
What you suggest is the way it is supposed to work and sometimes, in unimportant areas, probably does work, but important science is political.

Science is done by humans. Humans are, regrettably, flawed. Scientific papers are in any case rarely conclusive: there is always scope for argument, interpretation and reassessment. Reviewers are, by definition, established experts in that field - i.e. those with the most to lose if the current orthodoxy (their orthodoxy) is overthrown.

Bob,
I simply think you're wrong here - scientific journals make their money from subscriptions - very expensive subscriptions at that. Also, the idea that global warming is the orthodoxy is a very strange one as well - as little as ten years ago, the "orthodoxy" was that global warming either didn't exist or we didn't have enough information to make any conclusions. These attitudes have been changing over time as more evidence comes in. Very few things in this life are conclusive - However, when a large number of climatologists claim that global warming is "very likely" caused by human activities, ignoring them is foolish. Finally, I find the idea that there is some kind of political conspiracy to support environmentalists simply doesn't pass my common sense test - after all, you are talking about people whose primary source of re-election funds comes from big oil and big business - do you really think they're going to turn around and support policies that go directly against the interests of their primary campaign contributors and lobbyists? Consider George Bush is about as far from an environmentalist as you get - he is himself an oil man. The idea that he would do anything to support the IPCC findings is simply ridiculous.

dslater · Sep 30, 2007

Andy K said:
The Brazilians are already producing Ethanol in plants powered by electricity created from burning the biomass of the sugar cane. No fossil fuel is used at all in production. See this October's National Geographic.

Hmm - very interesting. However, I believe I read somewhere that one of the problems with biomass like this as a source of energy is that if we use it to supply the energy needs of the world, there won't be enough arable land left for food production. I'm not certain if this applies to burning biomass. I do know it applies to producing ethanol from corn. Making ethanol a truly viable replacement for oil requires developing the technology to produce ethanol from cellulose. Current technology only uses the sugar laden corn kernels.

Andy K · Sep 30, 2007

'Very likely' is not definitive, it is nothing more than speculation.

As I said previously, the IPCC are bureaucrats not scientists.

dslater · Sep 30, 2007

Guys,
As has been pointed out we have strayed way OT from the OP and completely hijacked this thread. I think we're simply going to have to agree to disagree here. It's been a fun thread and has certainly kept me thinking. I'd like to thank you for your continued civility - This is a contentious topic and I have read many other threads on this subject that quickly degenerated into personal attacks. I think we can look on this thread as a testament to the APUG community.

Dan

Bob F. · Sep 30, 2007

dslater said:
Bob,
I simply think you're wrong here - scientific journals make their money from subscriptions - very expensive subscriptions at that. Also, the idea that global warming is the orthodoxy is a very strange one as well - as little as ten years ago, the "orthodoxy" was that global warming either didn't exist or we didn't have enough information to make any conclusions. These attitudes have been changing over time as more evidence comes in. Very few things in this life are conclusive - However, when a large number of climatologists claim that global warming is "very likely" caused by human activities, ignoring them is foolish. Finally, I find the idea that there is some kind of political conspiracy to support environmentalists simply doesn't pass my common sense test - after all, you are talking about people whose primary source of re-election funds comes from big oil and big business - do you really think they're going to turn around and support policies that go directly against the interests of their primary campaign contributors and lobbyists? Consider George Bush is about as far from an environmentalist as you get - he is himself an oil man. The idea that he would do anything to support the IPCC findings is simply ridiculous.

I have made made no claims about global warming or it's causes. Nor have I suggested any conspiracies; it does not require one: only peer-pressure.

I have restricted my observations to the narrow point that science does not work in the nice clean way that we would like and suggested a couple of areas where it falls short. Any look at the history of science will show that personal ambition, prestige and prejudice have often been an issue. Although science may get there in the end, and it is certainly the best tool we have, it does not always do so in as straight a line of pure intellect as we might hope.

Cheers, Bob.

Filament bulbs to disappear from the UK

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency