Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills

Interesting mail/press item today which suggested that wholesale changing to energy efficient lamps would save about the same/more as all the windmills that we have (or could have?) Did they add in tidal, too?

... and their saving would be 24/7 not just when the wind blows.

Perhaps, it's not so sexy having to go to the shop and buy new lamps :-)

Naffer

Reply to
naffer
Loading thread data ...

In message , naffer writes

er.. they are only going to *save* energy when you need them switched on.

I suspect there is some doubtful thinking when a government minister pontificates about how many power stations could be switched off if only we would stop leaving electronic equipment on standby. I'll bet they have forgotten that energy *wasted* is actually reducing space heating requirements during the Winter.

regards

Reply to
Tim Lamb

and forgot to factor in the energy used in going round switching stuff on and off all the time.

NT

Reply to
meow2222

Or the diminution of the service life of the tubes, along with the consequent below -par performance until they are replaced.

DG

Reply to
Derek ^

It is, but for a lot of the time you don't have the heating on, and, secondly, heat from electricity is reckoned to create twice the CO2 per kWh that mains gas does.

Reply to
Tony Bryer

I had to smile at the "scientific" figures given on energy savings by a well know presenter at the end of his recent series. It was like: If you do this you will save 30%, if you do that you will save 20% and so on. What was obvious was that each % given was the saving on your original energy consumption, as soon as you moved to 2nd option the saving would be lower as you would no longer be using as much energy. Of course they also took off the biggest first. You will note that when retailers give 2 discounts, say 20% then 10% the 10% is off the reduced not original price.

Reply to
Broadback

Surely energy-saving bulbs would last longer?

I must say, I was surprised to read somewhere that 20% of electricity output is used in lighting. That certainly suggests to me that wider use of energy-saving bulbs would have a significant effect.

I would have thought governments should subsidize these bulbs, if they are seriously interested in keeping their Kyoto promises.

Reply to
Timothy Murphy

yes

So they take our money then reduce the cost of the light bulbs to us with it. How handy. Dont forget all that wasted paperwork, regulation, accounting and so on - they'd end up costing us more not less. The price ticket would be less but we'd pay more than the difference in other taxes, so we'd pay more overall.

NT

Reply to
meow2222

As would simply eliminating 90% of street lights and all the other light pollution.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

Right. You are tightening up on factual precision but failing to make good sound bites for politicians. You could include *no standby waste* when kit is in use.

If they were serious surely legislation could prohibit the sale of equipment fitted with standby mode. Otherwise it is waste verbiage.

regards

Reply to
Tim Lamb

Digressing even further.... I hate mixed statistics in the news media such as *targeted saving of 10%* led to a reduction of 53! Unless you know the original number or what %age 53 represents, the statement is meaningless.

regards

Reply to
Tim Lamb

Then lots more stuff would be left fully on... They ought to insist that

*everything* goes to standby after say 3hrs of "no use". I doubt that many videos, set top boxes, TV's, computer systems etc that are actually in use don't get some user input every 3 hrs or less.
Reply to
Dave Liquorice

This seems to me absurdly pessimistic. Governments have promised (in effect) to reduce energy consumption, so it is up to them to work out how to do it. This seems to me a very simple way to make a non-negligible impact.

At the minimum, VAT could be removed on energy-saving bulbs. Also, the government could insist on energy-saving bulbs being used in institutions it controls or has influence over.

Reply to
Timothy Murphy

I agree there are other approaches, but any price subsidy only costs us more not less. Why folks arent taught that at age 8 I dont know.

The problem with this government, and the British people, is they seem to think that forcing others to do things they wont themselves is the way to go. It seems obvious there are at least 2 problems with this model. Taxing filament bulbs would be a better option, and still leaves everyone the optoin of doing as they choose instead of being frogmarched by the semi-competents that think they know best and think they have some kind of mandate to force us to live by their half baked rules. Like part P. And the same will be happening to plumbing and gas soon.

NT

Reply to
meow2222

Tryng to force everyone into one-third-considered solutions is no solution. Thats the kind of thinking that brought us part P.

A better solution would be to require info tags for new electrical goods. These would state the annual use cost with stated conditions so buyers suddenly have an incentive to buy more efficient goods. They could also state estimated product life, though there would inevitably be argument there. Items with tags saying 'no information' would be permitted, but this is effectively admitting the worst, so many mfrs would want to rate and declare their goods.

Since tag information is all optional, you can still buy whatever you want if you like. It will create a market for energy efficiency. And importantly, it avoids forcing a hypothesised and expensive solution on everyone, it allows manufacturers, sellers and buyers to say no to the scheme, it allows for the scheme to not work if thats how it turns out without a load of new costs and obligations being lumbered on everyone.

NT

Reply to
meow2222

TBH it was energy saving bulbs I had in mind (I did mention tubes) . Their life is shortened and light output diminished by more frequent switching on and off.

The only filament lamps I have in the house are inside the oven, microwave, fridge etc.

Around 1961 I was taken on a school trip around the local power station. They told us they used up 10% of their own output internally, mostly in lighting up the station yard and the coal heaps.

Some of them are already dirt cheap.

But they come from China where the cost of energy produced by burning brown coal is a lot less than the UK, so that can not necessarily be taken as an indication that they are really much better for the environment.

Some low quality specimens have a very short life, this is very wasteful of carbon use.

DG

Reply to
Derek ^

You can't make people reduce their electricity usage: "Up to 3 low energy lamp fittings had been specified in the original proposals for the dwellings in the sample. The fittings had generally been installed in hallways, landings and some bedrooms, but few remained in the completed and occupied dwellings. Most had been removed by the occupants, and occupants expressed their intention to replace soon those few that remained." BRE Survey 2004

formatting link
(PDF)

That will only make a difference if the selling price reflects the cost of production rather than being based on an assessment of what the market will bear,

Reply to
Tony Bryer

I also think it would be too little difference to sway anyone. So heres another scheme to increase cfl use - this work by addressing the problem:

create a British standard (voluntary) for cfl lamps that meet all the following criteria:

CCT = 2700k CRI = >/ 85% - exact number open to discussoin but must be good quality, there are too many that arent Stated equivalent wattage figure is realistic (almost none today are) Total ownership cost is under half that of filament bulbs (rules out overpriced) Tip to base dimension printed on package or bulb Mean Life >/ 5000 hrs

Why? There are good cfls, not very good ones and bad. Most people dont even know theres any difference. This BS mark on a bulb would ensure its a quality one.

NT

Reply to
meow2222

I found an EU survey on adoption a year or so back, which broadly agreed. Number one reason given for not using them was not fitting in lampshades/lightfittings people want to use or already have.

Not helped by the EU slapping import duty on them, so price has stayed artificially high in the EU for some time (not sure if this is still the case, as I've seen cheaper ones recently).

Reply to
Andrew Gabriel

On 02 Jul 2006 23:13:10 GMT someone who may be snipped-for-privacy@cucumber.demon.co.uk (Andrew Gabriel) wrote this:-

Lamps like the following are much the same size as GLS lamps

formatting link
are also candle bulbs and spotlights
formatting link
?var=3680In the past energy saving lamps would not fit in some fittings, but I doubt if there are many such fittings now. I recently helped a member of the family fit them in bulkhead lights which wouldn't take any styles of compact fluorescent bulbs before.

Reply to
David Hansen

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.