Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills

[<me9]

I would have thought the telescope guru could do it for a lot less than £100.

[Helen Deborah Vecht]

typed

The telescope guru is best left to low-voltage work in the observatory.

[Tony Bryer]

I don't know how you do your arithmetic, but (a) I'm paying about three times as much for electricity as for gas; (b) for a good bit of the heating season the boiler isn't actually running as other heat sources (TV, computer, cooking, me) are providing the required heat; and (c) as I live in a single storey home, heat from lights goes up and makes the ceiling warmer, with minimal effect on the room temperature.

[Guy King]

The message from contains these words:

HA!

[Andy Hall]

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 12:53:56 +0100, David Hansen wrote (in article ):

All of which basically says that in comparison with other issues that can easily be controlled in a building, any saving by CFL lighting isn't worth having - one of my points in the first place.

Third order effect. Third rate light. Not even a third world benefit.

[Andy Hall]

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 13:45:14 +0100, Tony Bryer wrote (in article ):

Agreed

Of which the lighting can be one.

However, if you add up all the other non boiler energy contributors, they come to a lot more than the contribution even from tungsten lighting.

There is an argument that if you take a proportion of the heat contribution from lighting out of the equation it will be replaced by gas contributed heat, but that's a low order effect in the overall scheme.

Hmm.. OK, except that there are many other forms of lighting than those which go in the ceiling.

[Andy Hall]

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 12:34:37 +0100, David Hansen wrote (in article ):

Rubbish.

By investing reasonably in generating capacity, France now produces more than

75% of its electricity requirement with nuclear plant and is able to export to the UK which now only has around 15% of power generated in this way and a heavy dependency on fossil fuels.

Not on anything that has the remotest chance of generating the amount of electricity likely to meet the energy requirements needed in the future.

[David Hansen]

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 14:55:38 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:-

Excellent, proof by assertion.

France is a county where nationalised and semi-nationalised industries are operated without exposure to the "real world". That certainly includes electricity generation, where it is partly a cover for the nuclear weapons lobby.

They have yet to work out what to do with the crap they their nuclear "industry" produces. Suggest an nuclear waste dump in any French village and see what the reaction is.

An old refrain, but still far from correct. As various reports have demonstrated the UK is the Saudi Arabia of sustainable electricity generation. Instead of developing things like Salter's Duck party politicians and officials have instead pissed money away on an imported fuel, with all the dangers that entails. For those who don't understand the reference, there are no uranium mines in the UK.

[David Hansen]

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 14:33:08 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:-

Nice try. However, as one of the supermarkets is keen to say, every little helps.

Even at ten pounds a go compact fluorescent bulbs were a worthwhile investment. The price is now half to a third of that for most bulbs. That certainly makes it worthwhile replacing the handful of fittings that cannot take some designs of bulb with something that can. The figures are very persuasive.

The "arguments" of the antis are so unpersuasive that I have just bought two 11W GE Extra Mini bulbs for six pounds each. They will fit in some bulkhead lights that were designed only to take GLS bulbs.

[Andy Hall]

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 15:15:37 +0100, David Hansen wrote (in article ):

Bogus connection.

As it is in any country with a nuclear industry, regardless of the ownership status of them. The issue of whether there is a relationship or not with nuclear weapons is not a reason not to have nuclear power generation. After all, one does not avoid producing rocket fuel because it could be used in missiles.

Again, not a reason not to have nuclear power generation.

One would have to be quackers to think that things like Salter's Duck are commercially and acceptably going to produce the quantities of electricity needed. If one looks at the energy production of industrialised nations, the percentage figures for these technologies are minuscule.

Most industrialised nations have a situation where many natural resources needed for their economy have to be imported. That has always been the case and is likely to remain so. Uranium compounds are simply yet another commodity with the economic risks and opportunities implied in that.

[Andy Hall]

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 15:24:43 +0100, David Hansen wrote (in article ):

That's a very weak argument for anything when the overall context is orders of magnitude larger

They might persuade you, but they certainly don't persuade me.

The savings are marginal and in the overall context of the energy requirements for a house, are negligible.

If you want to waste your money, that's up to you.

For me, the main issue is not the marginal cost benefit anyway.

- It is that the bulbs themselves are ugly - either they are fat, have stupid spiral shapes or loops.

- The light quality is appalling.

[Helen Deborah Vecht]

Andy Hall typed

Anyway, my lightbulbs are rather cheaper from Screwfix.

Since all my lights are shaded, the shape is irrelevant apart from the need to fit into pre-existing holders, which is where they fail.

Agreed.

Maybe some people are unaffected by light quality. I am. Each to his own.

[The Natural Philosopher]

25% according to the governments white paper.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Here is another thought...what is the comparative heat of a 17" Samsung monitor versus a 1200 by whatever 17" LCD?

Would be nice to feel it would pay for itself in 6 years or so..

[Timothy Murphy]

I didn't understand this, on two grounds.

(1) Why do you need to replace your lamp fitting? I thought energy-saving bulbs normally use the same fitting.

(2) If in fact it is very difficult for you to replace your hall lamps, I would have thought that was a very strong argument for using energy-saving bulbs, which last much longer.

[Timothy Murphy]

Another argument for CFLs, which I haven't seen mentioned, as that they must significantly reduce the fire danger. (We had a bad fire caused by the fact that someone left clothes to dry over a wall-light. Actually, the person who left the clothes switched off the light, but someone else unkowingly switched it on again.)

[Helen Deborah Vecht]

Timothy Murphy typed

It uses mini globe bulbs. These are shorter than any cfls. Even David Hansen says I'd have to replace it if I wanted to use cfls.

My partner changes the lightbulbs (which he does not enjoy).

Unfortunately the cfls will not fit...

[The Natural Philosopher]

That is the best argument for fitting CFLs which have a FAR longer service life, even if it does mean a new fitting. The fact that you are unlikely to have to change them very frequently.

Even I do not like changing the bulb at the head of my stairwell, with about 3 meters t fall, that needs a ladder to reach it.

[Andy Hall]

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 17:30:13 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote (in article ):

I found it here

the situation would seem to worsen with the end of life of existing nuclear generating plant. This would suggest a higher dependency on imported electricity in the medium term or increased natural gas generation.

[Derek ^]

If there are I'd like to know what they are, I'd have an application for them at work.

Even in conventional linear fluorescents daylight tubes 6,300K are not stocked in DIY sheds or retail lighting shops.

Not so, light from daylight fluorescent tubes, even if you can get them, has a completely different spectrum from natural daylight. Peaks in the emission spectrum of the tube may/may not co-incide with peaks or troughs in the spectral reflectance of the coloured components of the cloth. Giving completely different subjective results.

This is without taking into consideration the different responses of different people's eyesight.

Thats why when choosing gents suit materials it was normal to take the book of samples out into the dayight.

DG