Toshiba TV29C90 problem; Image fades to black...

[Jim Yanik]

"Arfa Daily" <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote in
news:3sveq.9442$BK4.3901@newsfe22.ams2:

BTW: The discussion also involves LEDs. IMO, CFLs are an interim
step. They have far too many drawbacks to be a long term solution.
Incandescents are, of course, no solution at all.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au


But actually, what exactly is the problem that we're trying to find a
solution to ? I saw some figures a few weeks ago that said that if
every single light bulb in the UK was changed to a CFL, the total
saving in energy would amount to the output of one small power
station. I suppose that you could argue that any saving is worth
having, but I sometimes think that this religion of 'green' has
completely overtaken common sense, and in some cases, the
disadvantages of a substitute technology such as CFLs, needs to be
weighed against the perceived disadvantages of what it's trying to
replace. The problem with green technology is that its advocators are
often zealots, who seek to portray the alternatives that they are
pedaling as the only solution to a problem which often, only they see.
They never tell the full story behind these technologies, being
selective in the extreme. CFLs are a good example of this, where the
*only* aspects that have been promoted, are the fact that they consume
less energy for the same amount of light output as an 'equivalent'
incandescent - and therein lies a can of worms before we start - and
that they are supposedly longer lived. The huge amounts of
manufacturing processes, and shipping energy for all the component
parts, and all the other hidden energy inputs, are politely ignored.
Not to mention the true disposal costs, if this is done properly. No
one really understands the real manufacturing costs either, because
governments are making sure that the true price is subsidised by
collecting additional 'green' taxes via the energy companies, from the
likes of you and I. If ever these subsidies are removed, CFLs will
become a major expense to a household, unless they use really crappy
quality Chinese imports that give poor light quality and poor starting
characteristics, and are much shorter lived than people are currently
being persuaded is the case.

Arfa

the manufacture of CFLs produces much more pollution than making
incandescent lamps. it probably outweighs any savings from the use of CFLs
over I-lamps.
you don't need -any- mercury in making I-lamps,nor do you need phosphors.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

 

[josephkk]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 02:39:42 +0200, Sjouke Burry
<burryNULNULFOUR@PPLLAANNEETT.NNLL> wrote:

Arfa Daily wrote:

"Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:9dsttbF2n3U1@mid.individual.net...
"Arfa Daily"
"Trevor Wilson"
snip
* LEDs use a miniscule amount of silicon.
* Incandescent lamps use a very large amount of silicon
Whereabouts ?

** The TW charlatan is being a real clever dick.

Glass is about 23% silicon by weight.


So is that *all* glass ? I can't find any reference anywhere to silicon
being a component of bog-standard glass. Is it just naturally in there, and
if so, in what form ? Or is it put in there for some reason, and for what
purpose if so ?



Got NOTHING to do with the very nasty polluting and carcinogenic
processes involved in making silicon semiconductors.



Yes, where the silicon has been extracted from whatever ore it occurs in,
and then refined


.... Phil


Arfa

Silicon and oxygen together make sand.
Glass is made from sand and a few other simple things.
No pollution,grind the glass, and (RE-)use it as sand.
Semiconducters on the other hand, have quite dirty production
methods,and eating globs of energy during the refining
stage(zone melting).

Zone melting is no longer used (it was popular in the early Germanium
days). Today they react sand with Chlorine to get SiCl4 or with Hydrogen
to get SiH4 (silane). Then they use distillation to get to parts per
trillion purity. Maybe a dopant is added at this point. Then react it
back to pure metal. That then goes into a Cockrozski crystal puller.
Slice the boule into wafers and now the nasty chemicals start. Buffered
HF, arsine, borane and worse. And along the way a lot of energy.

See the news about the solar cell factory(s) in China which have been
closed down....

Also, I bet there is more glass in a cfl, then in an incandescent.

The cfl's which failed me, all had the big capacitor burn out,except
one, where the tube shattered.

Last, hot semiconductors have the nasty habit of failing quickly,
so I kind of do not believe those stories about the very long lifetimes
for cfl an leds, heat kills quickly.
Once they are able to produce a lightsource which stays cool,
and is efficient, I will start believing those long lifetimes.

 

[josephkk]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 10:17:15 +0100, "Arfa Daily" <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com>
wrote:

"Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:9dsu8kF52lU1@mid.individual.net...

"Sylvia Else"
Arfa Daily wrote:


I was given to understand that the colour of an incandescent bulb is
what humans are comfortable with, because it closely matches the colour
and spectrum of our sun.

The sun's effective temperature (the blackbody temperature that gives
approximately the same spectrum) is about 5800K, which is a lot higher
than the colour temperature of an incandescent.

** Daylight has no particular colour temp.

It varies from 11,000K on a overcasts day to less than 2000K at dawn and
dusk.

However, daylight ( like incandescent light ) has a smooth spectrum and
the human eye adjusts to the varying colour temps almost perfectly.



As an interesting example, my son-in-law is currently working on an old Mini
on my drive. The other day, it was raining, so he rigged a 'tent' over the
front, from a blue plastic tarp. When I first went under there with him,
everything had a very blue caste, as you would expect. I didn't notice any
adjustment / compensation going on in my brain, but it must have been,
because when I stepped out from under there a few minutes later, the whole
world was bright yellow. A few minutes later, all was back to normal. The
strange thing is that I don't seem to be able to adjust to CFL light in the
same way. It continues to have a sort of 'sick' quality for me. Even more
curious though, is that linear fluorescents don't seem to affect me in the
same way. I work under them all day, without issue.


Arfa

Some of the early CFL had/have an excess of green in their spectrum. Not
so much of a problem today.

 

[Arfa Daily]

"Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote in message
news:Xns9F687D4CB4E17jyaniklocalnetcom@216.168.3.44...

"Arfa Daily" <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote in
news:b6veq.4435$4%.1004@newsfe18.ams2:



"Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:9dsttbF2n3U1@mid.individual.net...

"Arfa Daily"
"Trevor Wilson"

snip

* LEDs use a miniscule amount of silicon.
* Incandescent lamps use a very large amount of silicon

Whereabouts ?


** The TW charlatan is being a real clever dick.

Glass is about 23% silicon by weight.

glass is ~75% silicon dioxide.

compare a lamp envelope to a LED silicon substrate,and there's no doubt
about which has more silicon. At least to the rational folks.


So is that *all* glass ? I can't find any reference anywhere to
silicon being a component of bog-standard glass. Is it just naturally
in there, and if so, in what form ? Or is it put in there for some
reason, and for what purpose if so ?

Wiki is your friend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon




Got NOTHING to do with the very nasty polluting and carcinogenic
processes involved in making silicon semiconductors.



Yes, where the silicon has been extracted from whatever ore it occurs
in, and then refined

from Wiki;
Silicon is commercially prepared by the reaction of high-purity silica
with
wood, charcoal, and coal, in an electric arc furnace using carbon
electrodes. At temperatures over 1,900 °C (3,450 °F), the carbon reduces
the silica to silicon according to the following chemical equation:

(not semiconductor-grade Si,that uses trichlorosilane.)


.... Phil


Arfa

--
Jim Yanik

Ah. OK. I never was much of a chemist at school. I didn't realise that
silica sand was was basically silicon dioxide. Although I suppose the name
is a bit of a giveaway, with hindsight ...

Still, even so with that being the case, it's a bit of a distortion to liken
this compounded silicon which is there naturally, to the pure silicon that
has been processed out of the sand, for use in semiconductors.

Arfa

 

[Arfa Daily]

"Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote in message
news:Xns9F687DFAFBEA7jyaniklocalnetcom@216.168.3.44...

"Arfa Daily" <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote in
news:3sveq.9442$BK4.3901@newsfe22.ams2:



BTW: The discussion also involves LEDs. IMO, CFLs are an interim
step. They have far too many drawbacks to be a long term solution.
Incandescents are, of course, no solution at all.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au


But actually, what exactly is the problem that we're trying to find a
solution to ? I saw some figures a few weeks ago that said that if
every single light bulb in the UK was changed to a CFL, the total
saving in energy would amount to the output of one small power
station. I suppose that you could argue that any saving is worth
having, but I sometimes think that this religion of 'green' has
completely overtaken common sense, and in some cases, the
disadvantages of a substitute technology such as CFLs, needs to be
weighed against the perceived disadvantages of what it's trying to
replace. The problem with green technology is that its advocators are
often zealots, who seek to portray the alternatives that they are
pedaling as the only solution to a problem which often, only they see.
They never tell the full story behind these technologies, being
selective in the extreme. CFLs are a good example of this, where the
*only* aspects that have been promoted, are the fact that they consume
less energy for the same amount of light output as an 'equivalent'
incandescent - and therein lies a can of worms before we start - and
that they are supposedly longer lived. The huge amounts of
manufacturing processes, and shipping energy for all the component
parts, and all the other hidden energy inputs, are politely ignored.
Not to mention the true disposal costs, if this is done properly. No
one really understands the real manufacturing costs either, because
governments are making sure that the true price is subsidised by
collecting additional 'green' taxes via the energy companies, from the
likes of you and I. If ever these subsidies are removed, CFLs will
become a major expense to a household, unless they use really crappy
quality Chinese imports that give poor light quality and poor starting
characteristics, and are much shorter lived than people are currently
being persuaded is the case.

Arfa



the manufacture of CFLs produces much more pollution than making
incandescent lamps. it probably outweighs any savings from the use of CFLs
over I-lamps.
you don't need -any- mercury in making I-lamps,nor do you need phosphors.


--
Jim Yanik

Yes. This is kind of my point. And when I was saying that 'background' items
like shipping costs are politely ignored, I was referring to the multiple
shipping operations that are required for the many components in a CFL, and
the many raw materials contained in those components, just to get all the
bits and pieces from the individual specialist manufacturers, to the places
where the lamps are assembled. In the case of an incandescent lamp, we are
talking a few components, simply made from a few raw materials. With a CFL,
we are talking semiconductors comprising silicon, dopant chemicals, plastic,
metal. Capacitors comprising metal foil, plastic, rubber, maybe paper, metal
leads and other chemicals in the electros. Coils comprising processed iron
powder, copper wire, insulation, copper foil, epoxy adhesive, steel
leadouts. Then there's the complex glass tube, and the chemical phosphors
and mercury vapour inside it. Tungsten electrodes. Then the pcb material
that its all mounted on. Lots of soldered joints. And then the plastic
enclosure for the ballast. And then the 'normal' bits that an incandescent
has anyway. Every single one of those components, and the manufacturing
processes for *their* component parts, involves energy input for the
process. They all need workers who have to be moved from their homes and
back again each day, They have to be heated / cooled, fed and watered, and
then lit as well. And when they've made their bits of the lamp, these have
to be shipped on somewhere else. These are the energy costs that the general
public are never made aware of. If they were, they might start to question
the perceived wisdom that they've been fed, that these things are actually
'green'.

If people want to use CFLs in the belief - mistaken in my opinion - that
they are in some way helping the world to use less energy, then that's fine.
If it's really the case, then CFLs will win out the day in the end. But I
think that it is utterly wrong that the existing technology has been banned
completely on thin evidence and a less than truthful declaration of the
energy required to make and dispose of the things, the only factor being
pushed, being the lower energy consumption when they are in use, as though
this is the be-all and end-all of their right to exist, and to be forced on
us.

The point that Trevor makes about aircon to mitigate the heat output of
incandescents, holds no water here in Northern Europe. Unlike in Australia,
it seldom becomes hot enough up here for more than a few days a year, that
aircon is needed. And that is only in the summer, when it's light for 16
hours of the day anyway, so there's not much lighting being used. OTOH, for
much of the year, it is cool or cold enough to require heating in houses,
and in this case, the complete opposite of Trevor's premise, is true, in
that the heat output from the incandescent light bulbs, serves to mitigate
heat input requirement, from the central heating system.

Arfa

 

[Phil Allison]

"Arfa Daily"

The point that Trevor makes about aircon to mitigate the heat output of
incandescents, holds no water here in Northern Europe.

** Or in Australia.

Householders do not turn their air con on because lamps are heating the
house up!!

Fraid the sun is the culprit in that crime.

Commercial buildings that have large amounts of lighting and air con ALL use
high efficiency lighting and have for decades.

The ONLY reason for banning incandescents is rabid green lunatics wanting to
stamp their tiny feet and make a point, forcing others to carry out their
mad ideas.

Same goes for effectively banning the use of iron core transformers in AC
adaptors.

In both cases, the lunatics legislated energy efficiency levels ( plus off
load consumptions ) such as to JUST eliminate the offending products and
allow ones a tiny bit more efficient to continue on sale.

No consideration was given to far more important issues that were involved
in the banning of such long proven and inherently safe products.

Purest lunacy.



..... Phil

 

[Trevor Wilson]

Arfa Daily wrote:

"Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote in message
news:Xns9F687DFAFBEA7jyaniklocalnetcom@216.168.3.44...
"Arfa Daily" <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote in
news:3sveq.9442$BK4.3901@newsfe22.ams2:



BTW: The discussion also involves LEDs. IMO, CFLs are an interim
step. They have far too many drawbacks to be a long term solution.
Incandescents are, of course, no solution at all.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au


But actually, what exactly is the problem that we're trying to find
a solution to ? I saw some figures a few weeks ago that said that if
every single light bulb in the UK was changed to a CFL, the total
saving in energy would amount to the output of one small power
station. I suppose that you could argue that any saving is worth
having, but I sometimes think that this religion of 'green' has
completely overtaken common sense, and in some cases, the
disadvantages of a substitute technology such as CFLs, needs to be
weighed against the perceived disadvantages of what it's trying to
replace. The problem with green technology is that its advocators
are often zealots, who seek to portray the alternatives that they
are pedaling as the only solution to a problem which often, only
they see. They never tell the full story behind these technologies,
being selective in the extreme. CFLs are a good example of this,
where the *only* aspects that have been promoted, are the fact that
they consume less energy for the same amount of light output as an
'equivalent' incandescent - and therein lies a can of worms before
we start - and that they are supposedly longer lived. The huge
amounts of manufacturing processes, and shipping energy for all the
component parts, and all the other hidden energy inputs, are
politely ignored. Not to mention the true disposal costs, if this
is done properly. No one really understands the real manufacturing
costs either, because governments are making sure that the true
price is subsidised by collecting additional 'green' taxes via the
energy companies, from the likes of you and I. If ever these
subsidies are removed, CFLs will become a major expense to a
household, unless they use really crappy quality Chinese imports
that give poor light quality and poor starting characteristics, and
are much shorter lived than people are currently being persuaded is
the case. Arfa



the manufacture of CFLs produces much more pollution than making
incandescent lamps. it probably outweighs any savings from the use
of CFLs over I-lamps.
you don't need -any- mercury in making I-lamps,nor do you need
phosphors. --
Jim Yanik


Yes. This is kind of my point. And when I was saying that
'background' items like shipping costs are politely ignored, I was
referring to the multiple shipping operations that are required for
the many components in a CFL, and the many raw materials contained in
those components, just to get all the bits and pieces from the
individual specialist manufacturers, to the places where the lamps
are assembled. In the case of an incandescent lamp, we are talking a
few components, simply made from a few raw materials. With a CFL, we
are talking semiconductors comprising silicon, dopant chemicals,
plastic, metal. Capacitors comprising metal foil, plastic, rubber,
maybe paper, metal leads and other chemicals in the electros. Coils
comprising processed iron powder, copper wire, insulation, copper
foil, epoxy adhesive, steel leadouts. Then there's the complex glass
tube, and the chemical phosphors and mercury vapour inside it.
Tungsten electrodes. Then the pcb material that its all mounted on.
Lots of soldered joints. And then the plastic enclosure for the
ballast. And then the 'normal' bits that an incandescent has anyway.
Every single one of those components, and the manufacturing processes
for *their* component parts, involves energy input for the process.
They all need workers who have to be moved from their homes and back
again each day, They have to be heated / cooled, fed and watered, and
then lit as well. And when they've made their bits of the lamp, these
have to be shipped on somewhere else. These are the energy costs that
the general public are never made aware of. If they were, they might
start to question the perceived wisdom that they've been fed, that
these things are actually 'green'.

**Indeed. I just did a little research and found that some of these issues
HAVE been examined. The total manufacturing energy input for a typical CFL
is around 1.7kWhr. The total manufacturing energy input for a typical
incandescent is around 0.3kWhr. Considerably less. Or is it?

Let's put that into some kind of perspective:

A typical 100 Watt IC lasts for 1,000 hours (at best).
A typical 15 Watt CFL lasts for 5,000 hours (I've certainly exceeding that
figure quite comfortably).

Over 5,000 hours of use, the CFL has consumed 75kWhr + 1.7kWhr = 76.7kWhr.
IOW: The energy cost of manufacture is almost insignificant, even though is
a little higher than 5 incandescents.

Over 5,000 hours, the IC lamp has consumed 500kWhr + 1.5kWhr = 501.5kWhr.

I would argue that the energy cost of manufacture is a spurious argument.

The pollution cost is another matter entirely. During operation, coal fired
generators (like those here in Australia) emit mercury. A typical 100 Watt
lamp will cause the emission of around 10mg of mercury over it's life. 5
lamps (5,000 hours) will cause the release of 50mg or mercury. By
comparison, CFLs will cause the release of around 7.5mg of mercury + 4mg of
mercury contained within the envelope. If the lamp is disposed of correctly,
then the total mercury release will be 7.5mg. Far less than that of IC
lamps. Other nations, that employ different power generation schemes will
see different results.

And this does not take into pollution created at the point of manufacture.
That is an issue that should be dealt with locally.

If people want to use CFLs in the belief - mistaken in my opinion -
that they are in some way helping the world to use less energy, then
that's fine.

**It's not a mistaken belief. It's a fact. CFLs use FAR less energy than
incandescents. From cradle to grave. Vastly, hugely less energy.

If it's really the case, then CFLs will win out the day

in the end.

**By a massive margin, in fact.

But I think that it is utterly wrong that the existing

technology has been banned completely on thin evidence and a less
than truthful declaration of the energy required to make and dispose
of the things, the only factor being pushed, being the lower energy
consumption when they are in use, as though this is the be-all and
end-all of their right to exist, and to be forced on us.

**Your opinion is duly noted. That comment is a political issue. I recall
EXACTLY the same arguments were made, here in Australia, when leaded petrol
was legislated out of existence. I susepct that, in 20 years, when we look
back at this whole discussion, it will appear to be a non-event. More
efficient lighting will be the standard, incandescents will be relegated to
specialised applications (oven lighting, etc) and the whole issue will be
viewed for what it really is - a storm in a teacup.

The point that Trevor makes about aircon to mitigate the heat output
of incandescents, holds no water here in Northern Europe. Unlike in
Australia, it seldom becomes hot enough up here for more than a few
days a year, that aircon is needed. And that is only in the summer,
when it's light for 16 hours of the day anyway, so there's not much
lighting being used. OTOH, for much of the year, it is cool or cold
enough to require heating in houses, and in this case, the complete
opposite of Trevor's premise, is true, in that the heat output from
the incandescent light bulbs, serves to mitigate heat input
requirement, from the central heating system.

**So? Northern Europe is not the whole world. Vast swathes of this planet
consume vast amounts of energy for air conditioning. Northern Europe is a
small player in that respect. Worse, CO2 emissions from Northern Europe
impact on those regions where a small amount of warming will lead to serious
problems. We only have one place that we can all live. We all need to work
together.

And, just to reinforce the point: I do not consider lighting to be a major
problem in power consumption (and, therefore, CO2 emissions). Nor do I
consider appliances that use auxiliary power to be a major issue either.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Phil Allison]

"Trevor Wilson"

Let's put that into some kind of perspective:

** Translation = a fictitious pack of lies.

A typical 100 Watt IC lasts for 1,000 hours (at best).

** Might also last 25 years in a low use app.

A typical 15 Watt CFL lasts for 5,000 hours

** No way is the light from a 15W CFL the same as a 100W lamp.

Try a 27 watt CFL.

Over 5,000 hours of use,

** In average domestic us, the life is more lie 2000 hrs at best before the
output falls too much and it has to be replaced.


the CFL has consumed 75kWhr + 1.7kWhr = 76.7kWhr.


** CFL = 54 kWh, 100W lamp = 200 kWh.

IOW: The energy cost of manufacture is almost insignificant, even though
is a little higher than 5 incandescents.

** A made up number.

The real number is more like 50 times.

**It's not a mistaken belief. It's a fact. CFLs use FAR less energy than
incandescents. From cradle to grave. Vastly, hugely less energy.

** Bollocks.

Reducing domestic lighting consumption has NO effect on the amount of coal
being burned in power stations.

Cos the domestic lighting load is all at night time when the coal powered
generators have excess capacity - in NSW much of that excess is sent to the
Snowy to pump water up hill to help with peaks loads during the day. In that
process up to 60% of the power generated is lost in transmission lines and
pumping.



..... Phil

 

[Arfa Daily]

Yes. This is kind of my point. And when I was saying that
'background' items like shipping costs are politely ignored, I was
referring to the multiple shipping operations that are required for
the many components in a CFL, and the many raw materials contained in
those components, just to get all the bits and pieces from the
individual specialist manufacturers, to the places where the lamps
are assembled. In the case of an incandescent lamp, we are talking a
few components, simply made from a few raw materials. With a CFL, we
are talking semiconductors comprising silicon, dopant chemicals,
plastic, metal. Capacitors comprising metal foil, plastic, rubber,
maybe paper, metal leads and other chemicals in the electros. Coils
comprising processed iron powder, copper wire, insulation, copper
foil, epoxy adhesive, steel leadouts. Then there's the complex glass
tube, and the chemical phosphors and mercury vapour inside it.
Tungsten electrodes. Then the pcb material that its all mounted on.
Lots of soldered joints. And then the plastic enclosure for the
ballast. And then the 'normal' bits that an incandescent has anyway.
Every single one of those components, and the manufacturing processes
for *their* component parts, involves energy input for the process.
They all need workers who have to be moved from their homes and back
again each day, They have to be heated / cooled, fed and watered, and
then lit as well. And when they've made their bits of the lamp, these
have to be shipped on somewhere else. These are the energy costs that
the general public are never made aware of. If they were, they might
start to question the perceived wisdom that they've been fed, that
these things are actually 'green'.


**Indeed. I just did a little research and found that some of these issues
HAVE been examined. The total manufacturing energy input for a typical CFL
is around 1.7kWhr. The total manufacturing energy input for a typical
incandescent is around 0.3kWhr. Considerably less. Or is it?

The thing is, there are so many components to a CFL, and so many processes
to make those components, and so many processes to extracting, refining and
making appropriate the constituents *of* those components, that I think it
is probably an impossible task to analyse the total energy budget of making
one of these things, with any accuracy. There will probably also be a degree
of deliberate distortion downwards to those figures by the greenies that
would produce them, to make them look better. On the other hand, an
incandescent bulb uses - what - seven, eight maybe components, each of which
could be totally accurately pinned down on their production energy costs.
Bear in mind that the processes to produce the components are also very
simple and straightforward, unlike the processes required to make the
components of a CFL.

Let's put that into some kind of perspective:

A typical 100 Watt IC lasts for 1,000 hours (at best).
A typical 15 Watt CFL lasts for 5,000 hours (I've certainly exceeding that
figure quite comfortably).

I have to say that in my experience, you have been extremely lucky to get
that sort of life from CFLs. I have used all sorts over the years, from
cheap to expensive, and have never obtained anything like that length of
service from any of them, with the exception of some very early ones that I
installed in a day nursery that we once owned. They were Dulux globe CFLs
and very expensive. We owned that nursery for twelve years, and most of them
were still going when we sold it, so I don't dispute that it is possible to
make long-lasting CFLs. I just don't think that overall, taken across the
whole raft of qualities and costs, they are doing it any more. However, I
have a lot of low voltage halogen downlighters in my house, that I put in
more than ten years ago. Of the eight located above the stairwell, and the
further five along the upstairs corridor, only one has failed in all that
time, and that was only a few months ago. Maybe, like you with your CFLs, I
have been lucky with these halogens. Here in the UK, there have been
governmental drives to push CFLs, by heavily subsidising the cost of them,
and in some cases, almost giving them away in supermarkets, and in others
*actually* giving them away. With the best will in the world, these are
cheap crap, so that is what the general public are having foisted on them as
a result of the drive to try to get people to actually want them, and is
probably why the general experience is that they don't last anything like as
long as the figures that they would try to have us believe. Also, those
figures are only good - if at all- when the ballast is properly cooled,
which means having the lamp in service the 'right' way up. Unfortunately,
many lamp fixtures that they go in, don't do this, and luminaires enclose
them completely. Incandescents didn't care about this, of course.

Over 5,000 hours of use, the CFL has consumed 75kWhr + 1.7kWhr = 76.7kWhr.
IOW: The energy cost of manufacture is almost insignificant, even though
is a little higher than 5 incandescents.

Over 5,000 hours, the IC lamp has consumed 500kWhr + 1.5kWhr = 501.5kWhr.

I would argue that the energy cost of manufacture is a spurious argument.

Only possibly, if you feel you are able to trust the figures for
manufacturing energy budget. As I have said, I do not because of the
complexity of arriving at a figure. Plus you also need to factor in the full
energy cost of recycling the toxins contained within it at the end of its
service life. There is zero cost for this with an incandescent, as it does
not contain anything potentially harmful to the environment.

The pollution cost is another matter entirely. During operation, coal
fired generators (like those here in Australia) emit mercury. A typical
100 Watt lamp will cause the emission of around 10mg of mercury over it's
life. 5 lamps (5,000 hours) will cause the release of 50mg or mercury. By
comparison, CFLs will cause the release of around 7.5mg of mercury + 4mg
of mercury contained within the envelope. If the lamp is disposed of
correctly, then the total mercury release will be 7.5mg. Far less than
that of IC lamps. Other nations, that employ different power generation
schemes will see different results.

Again, these figures are only meaningful if you genuinely achieve a figure
of 5000 hours across the board. And that is the important thing. *All* CFLs
need to achieve that figure for the calculations to be valid, and that ain't
never gonna happen, as long as there are cheapo Chinese ones flooding the
market. In any case, in Europe, coal fired power stations have been on the
decline for many years. Most are now gas or nuclear

And this does not take into pollution created at the point of manufacture.
That is an issue that should be dealt with locally.


If people want to use CFLs in the belief - mistaken in my opinion -
that they are in some way helping the world to use less energy, then
that's fine.

**It's not a mistaken belief. It's a fact. CFLs use FAR less energy than
incandescents. From cradle to grave. Vastly, hugely less energy.

On the face of it, they appear to, and as I said before, that is the *only*
angle that's been exploited by the greenies, to try to gain them widespread
acceptance. Personally, I believe that the situation is far less clear than
this rather simplistic assumption, when you factor in the *true* costs.
Almost certainly, they use less energy if you accept the simple picture, get
the projected life from them, and believe the equivalence figures for light
output, that they put on the boxes. And again, on this score, I understand
that they are now trying to legislate over here, to mark the boxes in lumens
or some such, probably because users are starting to doubt the quoted
equivalence figures. In reality, if you have a genuine like for like in
terms of light output, factor in the *real* costs of producing,
transporting, and disposing of properly at the end, and get the more typical
average service life of 2000 hours from them, then the saving becomes much
less significant, and for me, insufficient reason to ban me from using
incandescents.

If it's really the case, then CFLs will win out the day
in the end.

**By a massive margin, in fact.

Distorted by the fact that CFLs are effectively government sponsored, and
that I cannot buy the bulbs I want any more, because they have banned them
to make sure that I can't. If it was still incandescents vs CFLs on a level
playing field, the take up of CFLs would be much less, which was the reason
in the first place that they found it necessary to legislate to force people
to use them.

But I think that it is utterly wrong that the existing
technology has been banned completely on thin evidence and a less
than truthful declaration of the energy required to make and dispose
of the things, the only factor being pushed, being the lower energy
consumption when they are in use, as though this is the be-all and
end-all of their right to exist, and to be forced on us.

**Your opinion is duly noted. That comment is a political issue. I recall
EXACTLY the same arguments were made, here in Australia, when leaded
petrol was legislated out of existence. I susepct that, in 20 years, when
we look back at this whole discussion, it will appear to be a non-event.
More efficient lighting will be the standard, incandescents will be
relegated to specialised applications (oven lighting, etc) and the whole
issue will be viewed for what it really is - a storm in a teacup.

I fail to see how you equate leaded petrol to the situation with CFLs. It is
a different issue entirely, with very clear motives and outcomes. You would
have to be brain dead not to understand that putting huge quantities of lead
into the atmosphere at ground level and in a form that people could breathe,
is bad in every way. Removing lead from petrol had little if any impact on
the general public, because it was already possible to build engines that
had no requirement for lead in their fuel, without compromising performance.
It was, unlike CFLs, a classic example of a genuine *replacement*
technology, which suffered no disadvantages over the technology that it was
replacing. There was not even any need to challenge this bit of legislation,
because the advantages were very clear to see in large cities the world
over. Even if you clung on to your car that needed leaded petrol, this was
still available at the pumps for some years after unleaded came in, and
after it was finally removed from sale, there was still LRP (lead
replacement petrol) available for some long time after that. Finally, if you
still wanted to run your vintage engine, this could be achieved in most
cases by the simple expedient of altering the ignition timing, and in the
worst case, reducing the compression ratio a little, by fitting a thicker
head gasket. CFLs are nothing like this. They are a substitute technology
which is unable to replace incandescents in a number of areas - such as
decorative light fittings - and having many other shortcomings in comparison
to incandescents, in exchange for the dubious possibility that they in some
way help to save the planet.

The point that Trevor makes about aircon to mitigate the heat output
of incandescents, holds no water here in Northern Europe. Unlike in
Australia, it seldom becomes hot enough up here for more than a few
days a year, that aircon is needed. And that is only in the summer,
when it's light for 16 hours of the day anyway, so there's not much
lighting being used. OTOH, for much of the year, it is cool or cold
enough to require heating in houses, and in this case, the complete
opposite of Trevor's premise, is true, in that the heat output from
the incandescent light bulbs, serves to mitigate heat input
requirement, from the central heating system.

**So? Northern Europe is not the whole world. Vast swathes of this planet
consume vast amounts of energy for air conditioning. Northern Europe is a
small player in that respect. Worse, CO2 emissions from Northern Europe
impact on those regions where a small amount of warming will lead to
serious problems. We only have one place that we can all live. We all need
to work together.

I'm having a bit of trouble picking the bones out of that one, Trevor. You
made a very clear statement that a disadvantage of incandescents was that
they generated heat that needed the use of aircon plant to remove. I merely
stated that this is not the case in Northern Europe, where aircon is not
common in the first place, and where the exact opposite of what you contend,
is true. In the case of what you are stating, we are talking a double whammy
in that the lights waste energy in producing heat, and then your
energy-thirsty aircon plant has to be used to waste a bit more removing that
heat. Here, the heat is not 'wasted' for much of the year, as it partially
mitigates the required heating input from the central heating. 50 watts of
heat pouring off a lightbulb into my living room, is 50 watts that my
heating system has not got to put into my radiators. I fail to see what your
point is regarding Northern Europe against 'vast swathes of the planet etc'.
The population density of Northern Europe is much higher overall than that
of many of these vast swathes that you refer to, so the fact that we don't
use huge amounts of energy for aircon, equates to a much lower energy
requirement per person, taken overall.

And, just to reinforce the point: I do not consider lighting to be a major
problem in power consumption (and, therefore, CO2 emissions). Nor do I
consider appliances that use auxiliary power to be a major issue either.

So why do you support the banning of a proven simple technology, which did
the job of providing even-intensity pleasing-quality light, to everyone's
satisfaction ??


Arfa

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 11:21:50 -0500, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov>
wrote:

the manufacture of CFLs produces much more pollution than making
incandescent lamps. it probably outweighs any savings from the use of CFLs
over I-lamps.
you don't need -any- mercury in making I-lamps,nor do you need phosphors.

True. Dumping 4 tons of mercury into landfills every year is not a
good thing. However, to put that in perspective, the coal that we use
to generate most of our electricity has an estimated 75 tons of
mercury mixed in, each year, two thirds of which is belched into the
atmosphere. If you include the mercury emissions from generating the
power needed to run an incandescent lamp, the CFL lamp dumps 1/4th the
mercury into the environment as the incandescent.
<http://www.cflknowhow.org/cfl-mercury-information.html>

Permit me to point out that US domestic and commerical electricity
consumption has been increasing quite constantly at the rate of about
1.5%/year. If there were any energy savings from the existing CFL
lamps in service, it would have appeared as a drop in the consumption
trend. It's a bit tricky to use, but you can dig the history and
trends out of:
<http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/tablebrowser/#release=AEO2011>

Tungsten, as used in incandescent lamps, may not be all that
environmentally correct:
<http://pubs.acs.org/cen/science/87/8703sci2.html>
There's not much known about the effects of tungsten in the
environment, but it is becoming yet another thing to worry about.

I wouldn't worry much about phosphorus as we're scheduled to run out
in 50-100 years.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_phosphorus>

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Russell Tavek, AUK Vote W]

On Sep 24, 1:59 am, Meat Plow <mhywa...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On 2011-09-22 23:08:38 +0000, Emmett BADASS Gulley said:

Who got run out of what?  And for what? Anonymous posts from another
'usenet asshole' who can't
grow the balls to post with acountability? LMFAO!

Let's stick to the traditional terms like convict. Something Emmett
wants to be so badly again. And I will help him be what he wants. And
it wont be that hard judging by his posts of late.

Meathead! Glad to see you're back! I was afraid you'd gone away and
you wouldn't be keeping up the good fight for your Pickett's Charge
Trophy. Silly me: I should have known that the same dogged
persistence you showed in fighting for Emmett's food stamps would
bring you back here for another round as AUK's new favorite spankboi.

So tell us: are you going to be sending Emmett back to prison before
or after you pay off those credit card judgments, Wifekiller?

 

[Russell Tavek, AUK Vote W]

On Sep 24, 2:36 am, Meat Plow <mhywa...@yahoo.com> wrote:

You're such a brave little man, "Russell".

Yep such a brave little obsesso. But not even as brave as Emmett. If I
had to come up with one modicum  of respect for Emmett it would be in
the bravery department howver missplaced it is it outshines
chicken-shit Taveck.

I am protected by anonymity: Emmett is protected by poverty (although
I suppose that won't stop you from further threats to garnish his food
stamps). This keeps both of us safe from having to engage in $750
acts of public humiliation like this:

*****
I am the poster known as "Meat Plow." It has come to my attention
that I have made several statements in the preceding years which have
produced harm to various individuals, and which I now regret.
In particular, I caused to be re-published certain libelous and
damaging comments regarding the attorney, Charles Novins, Esq.
Additionally, many of my words evinced disrespect and disdain for Mr.
Novins, all of which was unjustified.

Unfortunately, I and several other participants in these groups lost
sight of the original purposes, mostly entertainment. Instead, as
the online invective grew more bitter, I (and others) got caught up
in the group dynamic, and the lack of accountability engendered by
anonymity caused me to post personal attacks on others that I never
would have made outside the unique environment of the internet,
which allows posters to cast aspersions upon others without having
to do so to their face .

Having communicated with Mr. Novins via counsel, and having obtained
true information about him and his firm, I deeply regret having
participated in threads which disparaged him or his firm. In fact,
Mr. Novins is an excellent attorney as far as I can determine.
Attacks made upon his staff were similarly reprehensible and false.
In the past, I should have ignored all such conversations which
portrayed the Novins Law firm in a negative light, and I will do
so in the future. I should have spoken out against the people
trying to damage him, and I am doing so now. As I personally
pointed out in a years-old post, there was never any reason or
justification for the malicious attacks

I explicitly regret any words I might have posted suggesting that I
approved of any other individual that attacked Novins. I am sorry
I ever associated with any such person.

These are my true sentiments, and a careful review of my postings
will reveal several other instances where I vouched for Mr. Novins's
integrity. Although I did also state negative facts and opinions
about Mr. Novins, I now realize they were stated in anger and in
error. That's because I now have factual information, and I
understand that the anger was unjustified.

****

So how much of your ham radio and guitar equipment went to the pawn
shop in order to pay Ridder for assisting you in that display of
public groveling? Or did you just go with hat in hand to the more
successful members of your family -- which means pretty much all of
them?

 

[Arfa Daily]

"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in message
news:cofq77href6m5ud4mp64bp5vbqh5o6uglf@4ax.com...

On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 11:21:50 -0500, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov
wrote:

the manufacture of CFLs produces much more pollution than making
incandescent lamps. it probably outweighs any savings from the use of CFLs
over I-lamps.
you don't need -any- mercury in making I-lamps,nor do you need phosphors.

True. Dumping 4 tons of mercury into landfills every year is not a
good thing. However, to put that in perspective, the coal that we use
to generate most of our electricity has an estimated 75 tons of
mercury mixed in, each year, two thirds of which is belched into the
atmosphere. If you include the mercury emissions from generating the
power needed to run an incandescent lamp, the CFL lamp dumps 1/4th the
mercury into the environment as the incandescent.
http://www.cflknowhow.org/cfl-mercury-information.html

Permit me to point out that US domestic and commerical electricity
consumption has been increasing quite constantly at the rate of about
1.5%/year. If there were any energy savings from the existing CFL
lamps in service, it would have appeared as a drop in the consumption
trend. It's a bit tricky to use, but you can dig the history and
trends out of:
http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/tablebrowser/#release=AEO2011

Tungsten, as used in incandescent lamps, may not be all that
environmentally correct:
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/science/87/8703sci2.html
There's not much known about the effects of tungsten in the
environment, but it is becoming yet another thing to worry about.

I wouldn't worry much about phosphorus as we're scheduled to run out
in 50-100 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_phosphorus

--
Jeff Liebermann

But as I said, coal fired plants have been declining over the years in
Europe - for instance, we operate just 14 here in the UK now. France has
none, I believe. Apparently, the vast majority of increase in CO2 emissions,
and use of coal to fire power plants, is coming from India and China. These
are both technologically competent nations, who are ignoring any
responsibility they might have to reduce emissions. So why does that mean
that I have to suffer a 'pissing into the wind' replacement for technology
that I am happy with, so they can carry on regardless ?

http://www.engineerlive.com/Power-Engineer/Focus_on_Coal/Coal-fired_power_plants_capacity_to_grow_by_35_per_cent_in_next_10_years/21600/

Arfa

 

[Trevor Wilson]

Arfa Daily wrote:

Yes. This is kind of my point. And when I was saying that
'background' items like shipping costs are politely ignored, I was
referring to the multiple shipping operations that are required for
the many components in a CFL, and the many raw materials contained
in those components, just to get all the bits and pieces from the
individual specialist manufacturers, to the places where the lamps
are assembled. In the case of an incandescent lamp, we are talking a
few components, simply made from a few raw materials. With a CFL, we
are talking semiconductors comprising silicon, dopant chemicals,
plastic, metal. Capacitors comprising metal foil, plastic, rubber,
maybe paper, metal leads and other chemicals in the electros. Coils
comprising processed iron powder, copper wire, insulation, copper
foil, epoxy adhesive, steel leadouts. Then there's the complex glass
tube, and the chemical phosphors and mercury vapour inside it.
Tungsten electrodes. Then the pcb material that its all mounted on.
Lots of soldered joints. And then the plastic enclosure for the
ballast. And then the 'normal' bits that an incandescent has anyway.
Every single one of those components, and the manufacturing
processes for *their* component parts, involves energy input for
the process. They all need workers who have to be moved from their
homes and back again each day, They have to be heated / cooled, fed
and watered, and then lit as well. And when they've made their bits
of the lamp, these have to be shipped on somewhere else. These are
the energy costs that the general public are never made aware of.
If they were, they might start to question the perceived wisdom
that they've been fed, that these things are actually 'green'.


**Indeed. I just did a little research and found that some of these
issues HAVE been examined. The total manufacturing energy input for
a typical CFL is around 1.7kWhr. The total manufacturing energy
input for a typical incandescent is around 0.3kWhr. Considerably
less. Or is it?


The thing is, there are so many components to a CFL, and so many
processes to make those components, and so many processes to
extracting, refining and making appropriate the constituents *of*
those components, that I think it is probably an impossible task to
analyse the total energy budget of making one of these things, with
any accuracy.

**I believe that may well be an over-statement. At some point, we have to be
able to place some trust in those who do their investigations into such
things. Anyway, let's assume that the investigators have made an error
amounting to 100%. Even with such an error, CFLs leave ICs in their dust.
Let's assume that the investigators are completely inept and they have made
an error amounting to 1,000%. Even with an energy input figure of 17kW, CFLs
leave ICs for dead.


There will probably also be a degree of deliberate

distortion downwards to those figures by the greenies that would
produce them, to make them look better.

**You're making the assumption that those who have investigated the matter,
have an axe to grind either way. Bad assumption. If you can supply your
alternate data, please feel free to do so. Here is my reference:

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Compact_Fluorescent_Lighting_(CFL)_Downsides


On the other hand, an

incandescent bulb uses - what - seven, eight maybe components, each
of which could be totally accurately pinned down on their production
energy costs. Bear in mind that the processes to produce the
components are also very simple and straightforward, unlike the
processes required to make the components of a CFL.

**Your point being?

It's not impossible to pin down the cost of manufacturing the relatively
small number of components in a CFL. Car manufacturers routinely do just
that, for what is a dramatically more complex device.

Let's put that into some kind of perspective:

A typical 100 Watt IC lasts for 1,000 hours (at best).
A typical 15 Watt CFL lasts for 5,000 hours (I've certainly
exceeding that figure quite comfortably).

I have to say that in my experience, you have been extremely lucky to
get that sort of life from CFLs.

**Luck has nothing to do with it. I only buy quality CFLs and I have 19 of
the suckers in service. If I had (say) 2 in service and not experienced a
failure, then I might agree with you. I have NINETEEN of them in and around
my home. And, FWIW: several of them are not installed according to
manufacturer's instructions. They are surviving nicely.

I have used all sorts over the

years, from cheap to expensive, and have never obtained anything like
that length of service from any of them, with the exception of some
very early ones that I installed in a day nursery that we once owned.
They were Dulux globe CFLs and very expensive. We owned that nursery
for twelve years, and most of them were still going when we sold it,
so I don't dispute that it is possible to make long-lasting CFLs. I
just don't think that overall, taken across the whole raft of
qualities and costs, they are doing it any more.

**I confess that I have not purchased a CFL for several years, so I can't
confirm. The damned things are so incredibly long lasting that I simply have
not had to purchase replacements. In fact, I fully expect LEDs to be
appropriately priced by the time I need to make any changes.

However, I have a

lot of low voltage halogen downlighters in my house, that I put in
more than ten years ago. Of the eight located above the stairwell,
and the further five along the upstairs corridor, only one has failed
in all that time, and that was only a few months ago. Maybe, like you
with your CFLs, I have been lucky with these halogens.

**Perhaps. I swapped out all my iron transformers for SMPS some years ago,
to increase efficiency. The SMPS seem to deliver a pretty accurate Voltage,
so I doubt that is an issue. As an aside, my mother has a number of 12 Volt
halogens in her kitchen. I receive at least 2 calls per year to replace
blown lamps. I believe that low Voltage halogen downlights are an utterly
evil blight on society. They are OK for directing light into specific areas,
but are hopeless at lighting a space, relatively inneficient and they don't
last very long.

Here in the

UK, there have been governmental drives to push CFLs, by heavily
subsidising the cost of them, and in some cases, almost giving them
away in supermarkets, and in others *actually* giving them away.

**There are no subsidies in Australia for CFls, though the government did
give the things away for a couple of years. I snagged a few, but found the
colour temperature horrible and the lamps were clearly cheap rubbish. The
Philips lamps I buy are regularly sold for around $5.00 each. That's for a
23 Watt lamp, that, IME, has a life of AT LEAST 3,500 hours (I expect at
least double that figure) and, after 6 years of operation, is registering
less than a 5% fall in light output. Whichever way you slice it, that is
exceptional value for money.

With

the best will in the world, these are cheap crap, so that is what the
general public are having foisted on them as a result of the drive to
try to get people to actually want them, and is probably why the
general experience is that they don't last anything like as long as
the figures that they would try to have us believe. Also, those
figures are only good - if at all- when the ballast is properly
cooled, which means having the lamp in service the 'right' way up.
Unfortunately, many lamp fixtures that they go in, don't do this, and
luminaires enclose them completely. Incandescents didn't care about
this, of course.

**Perhaps. In my last home, I used a 150 Watt IC lamp and managed to do
serious damage to the plaster ceiling in the process. The fitting survived
fine, as it was designed to cope. The plaster was not. A CFL solved the
problem.

Over 5,000 hours of use, the CFL has consumed 75kWhr + 1.7kWhr =
76.7kWhr. IOW: The energy cost of manufacture is almost
insignificant, even though is a little higher than 5 incandescents.

Over 5,000 hours, the IC lamp has consumed 500kWhr + 1.5kWhr =
501.5kWhr. I would argue that the energy cost of manufacture is a
spurious
argument.

Only possibly, if you feel you are able to trust the figures for
manufacturing energy budget.

**Do the math with a figure of 17kWhr. The CFL is STILL ahead by a country
kilometre.

As I have said, I do not because of the

complexity of arriving at a figure. Plus you also need to factor in
the full energy cost of recycling the toxins contained within it at
the end of its service life. There is zero cost for this with an
incandescent, as it does not contain anything potentially harmful to
the environment.

**Not entirely true, but you point is well made. CFLs MUST be properly
disposed of. Again, this is not an impossibly costly exercise. Thos whacky
Swedes managed 75% recycling back in 2007.

http://www.enerlin.enea.it/outcomes/rep_recycling.pdf

Like all such things, the rates of recylcing will increase and the cost will
decrease over time.

The pollution cost is another matter entirely. During operation, coal
fired generators (like those here in Australia) emit mercury. A
typical 100 Watt lamp will cause the emission of around 10mg of
mercury over it's life. 5 lamps (5,000 hours) will cause the release
of 50mg or mercury. By comparison, CFLs will cause the release of
around 7.5mg of mercury + 4mg of mercury contained within the
envelope. If the lamp is disposed of correctly, then the total
mercury release will be 7.5mg. Far less than that of IC lamps. Other
nations, that employ different power generation schemes will see
different results.

Again, these figures are only meaningful if you genuinely achieve a
figure of 5000 hours across the board. And that is the important
thing. *All* CFLs need to achieve that figure for the calculations to
be valid, and that ain't never gonna happen, as long as there are
cheapo Chinese ones flooding the market. In any case, in Europe, coal
fired power stations have been on the decline for many years. Most
are now gas or nuclear

**Philips cite 6,000 hours for their lamps. Most manufacturers of IC lamps
cite an average of 750 - 1,000 hours for their standard IC lamps. These can
be made to last longer, but at the cost of efficiency. Fundamentally,
however, I take issue with your constant reference to cheap, crappy lamps. I
have CONSISTENTLY stated that I refer only to quality lamps (like Philips).
It would be like you trying to argue that automobiles are fundamentally
unsafe, unreliable and uneconomical, by using ONLY Tata automobiles as your
reference. You should be using Toyota, Honda, Mecedes, Hyundai and the
others as part of your reference.

No more talk of cheap, shitty lamps please. Whilst they are are available
and fools will buy them, they are not representative of state of the art in
quality or longevity.

And this does not take into pollution created at the point of
manufacture. That is an issue that should be dealt with locally.


If people want to use CFLs in the belief - mistaken in my opinion -
that they are in some way helping the world to use less energy, then
that's fine.

**It's not a mistaken belief. It's a fact. CFLs use FAR less energy
than incandescents. From cradle to grave. Vastly, hugely less energy.


On the face of it, they appear to, and as I said before, that is the
*only* angle that's been exploited by the greenies, to try to gain
them widespread acceptance.

**Incorrect. ALL green groups have expressed reservations about the proper
disposal of CFLs.


Personally, I believe that the situation

is far less clear than this rather simplistic assumption, when you
factor in the *true* costs.

**Fair enough. Cite these "true" costs you speak of. Numbers please.

Almost certainly, they use less energy if

you accept the simple picture, get the projected life from them, and
believe the equivalence figures for light output, that they put on
the boxes. And again, on this score, I understand that they are now
trying to legislate over here, to mark the boxes in lumens or some
such, probably because users are starting to doubt the quoted
equivalence figures. In reality, if you have a genuine like for like
in terms of light output, factor in the *real* costs of producing,
transporting, and disposing of properly at the end, and get the more
typical average service life of 2000 hours from them, then the saving
becomes much less significant, and for me, insufficient reason to ban
me from using incandescents.

**My CFLs are averaging far more than 2,000 hours. Do you have any data to
supplort your notion that QUALITY CFLs manage an average of 2,000 hours? Are
you aware of any consumer legal action against Philips? After Philips cite a
6,000 hour life for their product. Here in Australia, the penalties are
severe for companies engaged in misleading advertising of that nature.
Recently, LG was penalised several hundred thousand Dollars for making
misleading claims about the efficiency of their refrigerators. I'm certain
the legislators would be happy to tackle Philips, if you can supply solid
supporting evidence to back your claims (about QUALITY CFLs).

If it's really the case, then CFLs will win out the day
in the end.

**By a massive margin, in fact.


Distorted by the fact that CFLs are effectively government sponsored,

**Not in Australia. They compete in the market, like any other product. They
cost approximately 5 times as much as an equivalent IC lamp. They last 5
times longer and use 1/5th as much energy.

his might prove an intgeresting read for you:

http://www.choice.com.au/consumer-action/sustainability/energy-efficiency/compact-fluorescent-lightbulbs.aspx

and that I cannot buy the bulbs I want any more, because they have
banned them to make sure that I can't. If it was still incandescents
vs CFLs on a level playing field, the take up of CFLs would be much
less, which was the reason in the first place that they found it
necessary to legislate to force people to use them.

**I agree with that. Most people are, fundamentally, greedy, self-serving,
fools. They'll choose the cheapest, upfront solution, without regard to
longevity or running costs.

But I think that it is utterly wrong that the existing
technology has been banned completely on thin evidence and a less
than truthful declaration of the energy required to make and dispose
of the things, the only factor being pushed, being the lower energy
consumption when they are in use, as though this is the be-all and
end-all of their right to exist, and to be forced on us.

**Your opinion is duly noted. That comment is a political issue. I
recall EXACTLY the same arguments were made, here in Australia, when
leaded petrol was legislated out of existence. I susepct that, in 20
years, when we look back at this whole discussion, it will appear to
be a non-event. More efficient lighting will be the standard,
incandescents will be relegated to specialised applications (oven
lighting, etc) and the whole issue will be viewed for what it really
is - a storm in a teacup.


I fail to see how you equate leaded petrol to the situation with
CFLs. It is a different issue entirely, with very clear motives and
outcomes. You would have to be brain dead not to understand that
putting huge quantities of lead into the atmosphere at ground level
and in a form that people could breathe, is bad in every way.

**As is feeding excessive CO2 into the atmosphere. Too much CO2 is causing
excessive warming of this planet.

Removing lead from petrol had little if any impact on the general
public, because it was already possible to build engines that had no
requirement for lead in their fuel, without compromising performance.

**That was not the case here in Australia. Manufacturers had to alter their
production systems, costing millions of Dollars to cope. Most automobiles
suffered a performance fall when switched to unleaded fuel. Those who
retained their leaded fuel autos have to use expensive additives to
compensate.

It was, unlike CFLs, a classic example of a genuine *replacement*
technology, which suffered no disadvantages over the technology that
it was replacing.

**Not here in Australia. Costs rose for buyers.

There was not even any need to challenge this bit

of legislation, because the advantages were very clear to see in
large cities the world over. Even if you clung on to your car that
needed leaded petrol, this was still available at the pumps for some
years after unleaded came in, and after it was finally removed from
sale, there was still LRP (lead replacement petrol) available for
some long time after that. Finally, if you still wanted to run your
vintage engine, this could be achieved in most cases by the simple
expedient of altering the ignition timing, and in the worst case,
reducing the compression ratio a little, by fitting a thicker head
gasket.

**Incorrect. Leaded fuel vehicles require an additive to allow correct
operation of valves (seats). The simple expedient of altering timing is only
for making up for differences in octane, not lead.

CFLs are nothing like this. They are a substitute technology

which is unable to replace incandescents in a number of areas - such
as decorative light fittings - and having many other shortcomings in
comparison to incandescents, in exchange for the dubious possibility
that they in some way help to save the planet.

**Specialised IC lamps are still available in Australia. I don't know about
Europe. Fancy lamps, oven lamps and others are still available. For those
who refuse to change, halogen replacements are still available.

The point that Trevor makes about aircon to mitigate the heat output
of incandescents, holds no water here in Northern Europe. Unlike in
Australia, it seldom becomes hot enough up here for more than a few
days a year, that aircon is needed. And that is only in the summer,
when it's light for 16 hours of the day anyway, so there's not much
lighting being used. OTOH, for much of the year, it is cool or cold
enough to require heating in houses, and in this case, the complete
opposite of Trevor's premise, is true, in that the heat output from
the incandescent light bulbs, serves to mitigate heat input
requirement, from the central heating system.

**So? Northern Europe is not the whole world. Vast swathes of this
planet consume vast amounts of energy for air conditioning. Northern
Europe is a small player in that respect. Worse, CO2 emissions from
Northern Europe impact on those regions where a small amount of
warming will lead to serious problems. We only have one place that
we can all live. We all need to work together.



I'm having a bit of trouble picking the bones out of that one,
Trevor. You made a very clear statement that a disadvantage of
incandescents was that they generated heat that needed the use of
aircon plant to remove. I merely stated that this is not the case in
Northern Europe, where aircon is not common in the first place, and
where the exact opposite of what you contend, is true. In the case of
what you are stating, we are talking a double whammy in that the
lights waste energy in producing heat, and then your energy-thirsty
aircon plant has to be used to waste a bit more removing that heat.
Here, the heat is not 'wasted' for much of the year, as it partially
mitigates the required heating input from the central heating. 50
watts of heat pouring off a lightbulb into my living room, is 50
watts that my heating system has not got to put into my radiators. I
fail to see what your point is regarding Northern Europe against
'vast swathes of the planet etc'. The population density of Northern
Europe is much higher overall than that of many of these vast swathes
that you refer to, so the fact that we don't use huge amounts of
energy for aircon, equates to a much lower energy requirement per
person, taken overall.

**Apart from those places where geo-thermal energy is common, or
temperatures are too low, heat pumps (aka: air conditioners) are a far more
efficient method of heating a home than resistive heating.

And, just to reinforce the point: I do not consider lighting to be a
major problem in power consumption (and, therefore, CO2 emissions).
Nor do I consider appliances that use auxiliary power to be a major
issue either.


So why do you support the banning of a proven simple technology,
which did the job of providing even-intensity pleasing-quality light,
to everyone's satisfaction ??

**Points:

* IC lamps are NOT to everyone's satisfaction. I have ONLY used fluoro
lighting in my workshop for the last 40 years.
* IC lamps are unreliable and wasteful of energy.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Arfa Daily]

<snip>

On the other hand, an
incandescent bulb uses - what - seven, eight maybe components, each
of which could be totally accurately pinned down on their production
energy costs. Bear in mind that the processes to produce the
components are also very simple and straightforward, unlike the
processes required to make the components of a CFL.

**Your point being?

It's not impossible to pin down the cost of manufacturing the relatively
small number of components in a CFL. Car manufacturers routinely do just
that, for what is a dramatically more complex device.

But we're not talking cost here. We're talking energy budgets and planetary
pollution from industrial processes. Any fool can say "this transistor costs
us 20 cents. This capacitor costs us 5 cents" and so on. But it's an awful
lot more complex to start looking into the energy budget for refining the
silicon. For turning the silicon into P and N types. For refining the
plastic from the oil. For getting the oil out of the ground. For getting the
iron ore out of the ground. For refining the iron out of the ore, and then
converting it to steel. Transporting all the constituents. Manufacturing
them into a transistor. Then shipping that transistor to the CFL maker. And
on and on. And that's just one component out of a considerable number - see

http://www.pavouk.org/hw/lamp/en_index.html

My point obviously being that in comparison, an incandescent has a very few
constituent parts, all of which are simple, and have simple well defined
manufacturing processes, that could easily be energy budgeted.

Let's put that into some kind of perspective:

A typical 100 Watt IC lasts for 1,000 hours (at best).
A typical 15 Watt CFL lasts for 5,000 hours (I've certainly
exceeding that figure quite comfortably).

I have to say that in my experience, you have been extremely lucky to
get that sort of life from CFLs.

**Luck has nothing to do with it. I only buy quality CFLs and I have 19 of
the suckers in service. If I had (say) 2 in service and not experienced a
failure, then I might agree with you. I have NINETEEN of them in and
around my home. And, FWIW: several of them are not installed according to
manufacturer's instructions. They are surviving nicely.

I have used all sorts over the
years, from cheap to expensive, and have never obtained anything like
that length of service from any of them, with the exception of some
very early ones that I installed in a day nursery that we once owned.
They were Dulux globe CFLs and very expensive. We owned that nursery
for twelve years, and most of them were still going when we sold it,
so I don't dispute that it is possible to make long-lasting CFLs. I
just don't think that overall, taken across the whole raft of
qualities and costs, they are doing it any more.

**I confess that I have not purchased a CFL for several years, so I can't
confirm. The damned things are so incredibly long lasting that I simply
have not had to purchase replacements. In fact, I fully expect LEDs to be
appropriately priced by the time I need to make any changes.

Well, good luck with that one. As long as they have to keep putting any kind
of control electronics in them to make them run from AC line voltage, then
as long as they are not subsidised, they are never going to get as cheap as
incandescents, or have as low an energy budget to produce. Whilst there have
been some major advances in recent years in the light output and efficiency
of LEDs , they still have relatively poor colour rendition qualities for
home use, and still struggle to produce even omni-directional light as is
required for general lighting, due to the fact that the light is produced at
a flat surface. As to not experiencing the same longevity as you with my
CFLs, I thought that I carefully explained that I have purchased all
qualities of the things, and have not found the expensive 'quality' names to
be any longer lived than the cheapos. This seems to be the findings of
others on here, as well.

<snip>

are now gas or nuclear

**Philips cite 6,000 hours for their lamps. Most manufacturers of IC lamps
cite an average of 750 - 1,000 hours for their standard IC lamps. These
can be made to last longer, but at the cost of efficiency. Fundamentally,
however, I take issue with your constant reference to cheap, crappy lamps.
I have CONSISTENTLY stated that I refer only to quality lamps (like
Philips). It would be like you trying to argue that automobiles are
fundamentally unsafe, unreliable and uneconomical, by using ONLY Tata
automobiles as your reference. You should be using Toyota, Honda, Mecedes,
Hyundai and the others as part of your reference.

No more talk of cheap, shitty lamps please. Whilst they are are available
and fools will buy them, they are not representative of state of the art
in quality or longevity.

Well no. That is an unfair slant in favour of the CFL argument. As long as
cheap crappy ones are available, *most* people - not just "fools" as you so
disparagingly refer to them - will buy them over the expensive quality ones,
because they don't understand the difference, as we do. It's human nature to
buy cheap, which is why the Chinese are doing so well on the back of
world-wide sales of cheap - and often crap quality - electronic goods,
offered for sale through all our nations' supermarkets. This is where the
whole thing breaks down as an argument about the eco validity of any of this
technology. The manufacturers of the cheap CFLs are in it purely to make
money. They have no concern at all for the 'green' credentials of their
products, except in as much as they will sell in their millions,
irrespective of their quality, just because the *are* CFLs. So whilst it is
true what you say in that the cheapo ones are not representative of the
state of the art, unfortunately, they *are* representative of what is being
sold in quantity to the general public, and their contribution to the
validity of the discussion, cannot be ignored until *all* CFLs that are
offered for sale, are indeed representative of the state of the art. I'm
sorry if that offends your sensibilities, but it *is* part of the overall
equation. In fact, your analogy with the cars, is self-defeating, because
you could look at it from the other angle, and say that if you take say BMW
as your reference, then all other cheaper makes are invalid because they are
not 'state of the art', and people who buy them are fools. The cheaper makes
will always be bought by the general public, because not everyone can afford
the safety and performance of a BMW, just like not everyone can afford to
pay Ł5 or whatever for a bulb to replace an incandescent that they are used
to paying 50 pence for. If there is a CFL costing 50 pence on the shelf
alongside the Ł5 one, you tell me, which one are most uninformed people
going to buy ? And it is for precisely this reason that the whole CFL thing,
taken on a world-wide basis, falls apart.

And this does not take into pollution created at the point of
manufacture. That is an issue that should be dealt with locally.


If people want to use CFLs in the belief - mistaken in my opinion -
that they are in some way helping the world to use less energy, then
that's fine.

**It's not a mistaken belief. It's a fact. CFLs use FAR less energy
than incandescents. From cradle to grave. Vastly, hugely less energy.


On the face of it, they appear to, and as I said before, that is the
*only* angle that's been exploited by the greenies, to try to gain
them widespread acceptance.

**Incorrect. ALL green groups have expressed reservations about the proper
disposal of CFLs.

But that is actually another comparatively minor issue. Important from the
pollution point of view, yes, but insignificant compared to the
manufacturing energy budgets and pollution-causing manufacturing processes,
that are NEVER mentioned by these groups, because they never even consider
these 'hidden' aspects.

Personally, I believe that the situation
is far less clear than this rather simplistic assumption, when you
factor in the *true* costs.

**Fair enough. Cite these "true" costs you speak of. Numbers please.

I cannot give numbers, because there are none that FULLY analyse ALL energy
inputs and pollution outputs for the hundreds of processes involved. And
when I say "costs", I am not talking monetary ones, as I explained earlier.
As I said, I am sure that it is just too complicated a situation to ever be
able to arrive at a real figure, but no matter how much you don't want to
believe it, you have to accept that there *are* many hundreds of process
steps and transport steps involved in CFL manufacture, compared to
incandescent manufacture, which *must* add up to a very significant amount,
that is being totally ignored in making the 'green' case for the things.
Whether it can be accurately quantified or not, if you stop and think about
it, it is common sense.

Almost certainly, they use less energy if
you accept the simple picture, get the projected life from them, and
believe the equivalence figures for light output, that they put on
the boxes. And again, on this score, I understand that they are now
trying to legislate over here, to mark the boxes in lumens or some
such, probably because users are starting to doubt the quoted
equivalence figures. In reality, if you have a genuine like for like
in terms of light output, factor in the *real* costs of producing,
transporting, and disposing of properly at the end, and get the more
typical average service life of 2000 hours from them, then the saving
becomes much less significant, and for me, insufficient reason to ban
me from using incandescents.

**My CFLs are averaging far more than 2,000 hours. Do you have any data to
supplort your notion that QUALITY CFLs manage an average of 2,000 hours?
Are you aware of any consumer legal action against Philips? After Philips
cite a 6,000 hour life for their product. Here in Australia, the penalties
are severe for companies engaged in misleading advertising of that nature.
Recently, LG was penalised several hundred thousand Dollars for making
misleading claims about the efficiency of their refrigerators. I'm certain
the legislators would be happy to tackle Philips, if you can supply solid
supporting evidence to back your claims (about QUALITY CFLs).

See my earlier comments regarding quality CFLs versus the reality of what
people *actually* buy ...

If it's really the case, then CFLs will win out the day
in the end.

**By a massive margin, in fact.


Distorted by the fact that CFLs are effectively government sponsored,

**Not in Australia. They compete in the market, like any other product.
They cost approximately 5 times as much as an equivalent IC lamp. They
last 5 times longer and use 1/5th as much energy.

his might prove an intgeresting read for you:

http://www.choice.com.au/consumer-action/sustainability/energy-efficiency/compact-fluorescent-lightbulbs.aspx

and that I cannot buy the bulbs I want any more, because they have
banned them to make sure that I can't. If it was still incandescents
vs CFLs on a level playing field, the take up of CFLs would be much
less, which was the reason in the first place that they found it
necessary to legislate to force people to use them.

**I agree with that. Most people are, fundamentally, greedy, self-serving,
fools. They'll choose the cheapest, upfront solution, without regard to
longevity or running costs.

I don't understand this. By saying that, you make my case for me, and
utterly destroy your own ...

But I think that it is utterly wrong that the existing
technology has been banned completely on thin evidence and a less
than truthful declaration of the energy required to make and dispose
of the things, the only factor being pushed, being the lower energy
consumption when they are in use, as though this is the be-all and
end-all of their right to exist, and to be forced on us.

**Your opinion is duly noted. That comment is a political issue. I
recall EXACTLY the same arguments were made, here in Australia, when
leaded petrol was legislated out of existence. I susepct that, in 20
years, when we look back at this whole discussion, it will appear to
be a non-event. More efficient lighting will be the standard,
incandescents will be relegated to specialised applications (oven
lighting, etc) and the whole issue will be viewed for what it really
is - a storm in a teacup.


I fail to see how you equate leaded petrol to the situation with
CFLs. It is a different issue entirely, with very clear motives and
outcomes. You would have to be brain dead not to understand that
putting huge quantities of lead into the atmosphere at ground level
and in a form that people could breathe, is bad in every way.

**As is feeding excessive CO2 into the atmosphere. Too much CO2 is causing
excessive warming of this planet.

That is by no means proven in science. Only in the media. There are many
reputable scientists who believe otherwise.

Removing lead from petrol had little if any impact on the general
public, because it was already possible to build engines that had no
requirement for lead in their fuel, without compromising performance.

**That was not the case here in Australia. Manufacturers had to alter
their production systems, costing millions of Dollars to cope. Most
automobiles suffered a performance fall when switched to unleaded fuel.
Those who retained their leaded fuel autos have to use expensive additives
to compensate.

There is little difference between engines that burn leaded and unleaded
fuel. For sure, there had to be some modification to the production and
design processes, but these occur for the manufacturers every time they
bring out a new model or engine. The monetary costs of doing this are
factored into a new design, so will actually not have been any particularly
burdensome problem for the manufacturers. Drops in performance of existing
engines when converted to run on unleaded fuel were actually fairly minor,
and most people here, at least, did not even bother converting because
leaded petrol was available alongside unleaded, for a reasonable time
period. Back when all this happened, cars were not that long-lived anyway,
so unless you had only just bought a new one, it was no great shakes that
the next one you bought would be produced with an unleaded petrol engine,
already designed in. The manufacturers knew this was coming, and had plenty
of time to carry out the required design alterations, and actually to
amortise the costs in their existing production, in readiness for the
legislation.

It was, unlike CFLs, a classic example of a genuine *replacement*
technology, which suffered no disadvantages over the technology that
it was replacing.

**Not here in Australia. Costs rose for buyers.

There was not even any need to challenge this bit
of legislation, because the advantages were very clear to see in
large cities the world over. Even if you clung on to your car that
needed leaded petrol, this was still available at the pumps for some
years after unleaded came in, and after it was finally removed from
sale, there was still LRP (lead replacement petrol) available for
some long time after that. Finally, if you still wanted to run your
vintage engine, this could be achieved in most cases by the simple
expedient of altering the ignition timing, and in the worst case,
reducing the compression ratio a little, by fitting a thicker head
gasket.

**Incorrect. Leaded fuel vehicles require an additive to allow correct
operation of valves (seats). The simple expedient of altering timing is
only for making up for differences in octane, not lead.

The lead was in the petrol as an anti-knock agent, as I recall

CFLs are nothing like this. They are a substitute technology
which is unable to replace incandescents in a number of areas - such
as decorative light fittings - and having many other shortcomings in
comparison to incandescents, in exchange for the dubious possibility
that they in some way help to save the planet.

**Specialised IC lamps are still available in Australia. I don't know
about Europe. Fancy lamps, oven lamps and others are still available. For
those who refuse to change, halogen replacements are still available.

Nope. Pretty much all outlawed here. You can't get a proper golf ball or
candle any more. You haven't been able to get pearlised bulbs of any
description for a long time. Truly specialised ones for ovens etc are still
available, because it is simply impossible to replace them with anything
else. Halogen 'Apollo nose-cones' are still available at the moment, and
capsule halogens still are, but only in clear envelopes, which are pretty
useless compared to frosted ones. I was looking around the other day to see
if I could still find any halogen replacements (the type where a halogen
capsule bulb is incorporated into a 'traditional' shaped incandescent
envelope), and the only ones of those that I could find were clear. These
give a very harsh light, whereas the pearlised ones, gave a very nice even
light

Arfa

 

[TonyS]

On 25/09/2011 8:03 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
[snipped an awful lot]

**Perhaps. I swapped out all my iron transformers for SMPS some years ago,
to increase efficiency. The SMPS seem to deliver a pretty accurate Voltage,
so I doubt that is an issue. As an aside, my mother has a number of 12 Volt
halogens in her kitchen. I receive at least 2 calls per year to replace
blown lamps. I believe that low Voltage halogen downlights are an utterly
evil blight on society. They are OK for directing light into specific areas,
but are hopeless at lighting a space, relatively inneficient and they don't
last very long.

I think there is a place for halogen spot lights. In my kitchen area,
with a pine-lined cathedral ceiling, I have 4 halogens. They are well
placed above the critical spots where I need good lighting.

The 35W lamps from Ikea are just as bright as the old 50W. (Even the 20W
ones could be an option now).

I run them on electronic ballasts and on a trailing edge dimmer, for a
soft background light when the kitchen's closed
The dimmer has a soft start switch, very nice!
I have had no 35W lamps failing after 3 years which equates to an
estimated 2000 hrs on full power, and the dimming hasn't done any harm
to them.

I have, for now, substituted 2 of the halogens with LED lights from Deal
Extreme (MR16 4-LED 360-Lumen 3500K Warm White Light Bulb (12V)
Item Number 39027 49.5mm, $8.30) which consume only 6W (6W instead of 35
is a strong argument). They are bright enough but the yellowish colour
really needs to get used to. I don't know if I will keep them or get
some more white ones instead. Maybe someone has tried some more and
different ones? Let us know what you think. There is just too many too
chose from.

Tony

[snipped even more]

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 11:02:28 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
<arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:

But as I said, coal fired plants have been declining over the years in
Europe - for instance, we operate just 14 here in the UK now. France has
none, I believe.

There are about 600 coal plants in the US. The numbers are a bit
misleading as coal fired power plants come in all shapes and sizes.
It's not the number, but the generation capacity that's important. In
the US, we built 10 new plants in 2010 for a total new capacity of
1.6GW (gigawatts). However, if you include decomissioned plants, the
net loss in capacity in 2010 was about -4.6GW lost. Most of the loss
was balanced by a transition to federally subsidized wind power. In
2010, there was also the cancellation of 10 additional plants mostly
due to legislative or EPA restriction. For example, California has a
ban on new coal plants (SB1368). Europe is doing much the same.
<http://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/refshelf/ncp.pdf>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_phase_out>
If the EPA gets its way, it's likely that most of the older US coal
plants will need to close to meet emission requirements.
<http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Existing_U.S._Coal_Plants>

The loss of -4.6GW of coal generation capacity is not going to make
much of a dent in the mercury emissions. At this time, the US gets
about 45% of about 4 trillion kw-hr of electricity from coal. A few
gigawatts of capacity here and there isn't going to change much.
<http://www.eia.gov/coal/>
Note that capacity loss is usually balanced by burning more coal to
produce more electricity at other plants. Therefore, closing a plant
does NOT constitute an overall decrease in emissions. Only a decrease
in generated mw-hr can decrease emissions.

If you accept my coal generation logic at face value, every product
that uses electricity also dumps mercury into the environment. For
example, my electric water heater would be considered a major
contributor to coal based environmental pollution and far more
significant than a CFL lamp. While this doesn't do anything to help
one decide between CFL and incandescent, it does highlight some
priorities on the process.

Apparently, the vast majority of increase in CO2 emissions,
and use of coal to fire power plants, is coming from India and China.

Yep. Something like 90% of the really obnoxious atmospheric pollution
comes from burning coal. There are technologies that drastically
reduce coal fired plant emissions. They're expensive, messy, use huge
amounts of water, and are being largely ignored by the larger plants.
Not so with the smaller plants, a few of which use one or more
technologies.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_coal_technology>
As far as I can tell, neither India or China are doing clean coal
plants.

These
are both technologically competent nations, who are ignoring any
responsibility they might have to reduce emissions. So why does that mean
that I have to suffer a 'pissing into the wind' replacement for technology
that I am happy with, so they can carry on regardless ?

I don't have an answer to the "why". Most likely, both countries
economies will collapse without the generated power, which makes it
one of many "necessary evils".


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Mick DaDik]

Hi Tony,

I have, for now, substituted 2 of the halogens with LED lights from Deal
Extreme (MR16 4-LED 360-Lumen 3500K Warm White Light Bulb (12V)
Item Number 39027 49.5mm, $8.30) which consume only 6W (6W instead of 35
is a strong argument). They are bright enough but the yellowish colour
really needs to get used to. I don't know if I will keep them or get
some more white ones instead. Maybe someone has tried some more and
different ones? Let us know what you think. There is just too many too
chose from.

I have replaced 6 x 50w Halgens in our kitchen with 6 x these ones 3.8w each

http://www.dealextreme.com/p/mr16-3-8w-60-led-6500k-360-lumen-light-bulb-white-12v-30825

and I have to say I am happy on several fronts.

firstly it consumes only 23w compared to 300w of the originals.
secondly they run cool not burning hot
thirdly the light is WHITE not yellow and floods the kitchen rather than
being directional like the halogens were.

Our ceilings are 9ft and the halogens created a bright area that was
very narrow and left deep shadows to the sides of the area...

These LEDs `flood' the whole area and in effect create a daylight
environment much more pleasing to me.

I will add that whilst they ran on AC 12V they had a slight flicker I
found disturbing so I now run them off 12Vdc and they are great.

mick

 

[TonyS]

On 25/09/2011 2:37 PM, Mick DaDik wrote:

Hi Tony,

I have, for now, substituted 2 of the halogens with LED lights from Deal
Extreme (MR16 4-LED 360-Lumen 3500K Warm White Light Bulb (12V)
Item Number 39027 49.5mm, $8.30) which consume only 6W (6W instead of 35
is a strong argument). They are bright enough but the yellowish colour
really needs to get used to. I don't know if I will keep them or get
some more white ones instead. Maybe someone has tried some more and
different ones? Let us know what you think. There is just too many too
chose from.

I have replaced 6 x 50w Halgens in our kitchen with 6 x these ones 3.8w
each

http://www.dealextreme.com/p/mr16-3-8w-60-led-6500k-360-lumen-light-bulb-white-12v-30825


and I have to say I am happy on several fronts.

firstly it consumes only 23w compared to 300w of the originals.
secondly they run cool not burning hot
thirdly the light is WHITE not yellow and floods the kitchen rather than
being directional like the halogens were.

Our ceilings are 9ft and the halogens created a bright area that was
very narrow and left deep shadows to the sides of the area...

These LEDs `flood' the whole area and in effect create a daylight
environment much more pleasing to me.

I will add that whilst they ran on AC 12V they had a slight flicker I
found disturbing so I now run them off 12Vdc and they are great.

mick

Thanks Mick.
They are a bit more expensive, but worth a try.
(Even though with Deal Extreme I never know for sure if I get what's in
the description.)
Tony

 

[Trevor Wilson]

Arfa Daily wrote:

snip


On the other hand, an
incandescent bulb uses - what - seven, eight maybe components, each
of which could be totally accurately pinned down on their production
energy costs. Bear in mind that the processes to produce the
components are also very simple and straightforward, unlike the
processes required to make the components of a CFL.

**Your point being?

It's not impossible to pin down the cost of manufacturing the
relatively small number of components in a CFL. Car manufacturers
routinely do just that, for what is a dramatically more complex
device.


But we're not talking cost here. We're talking energy budgets and
planetary pollution from industrial processes.

**Exactly. Large numbers of products, including automobiles, are carefully
costed, WRT energy consumption. They need to be in such a cut-throat market.

Any fool can say "this

transistor costs us 20 cents. This capacitor costs us 5 cents" and so
on. But it's an awful lot more complex to start looking into the
energy budget for refining the silicon.

**And yet, it is routinely done. For all manner of products. Bean counters
are very good at these sorts of things. That's why companies employ them.


For turning the silicon into

P and N types. For refining the plastic from the oil. For getting the
oil out of the ground. For getting the iron ore out of the ground.
For refining the iron out of the ore, and then converting it to
steel. Transporting all the constituents. Manufacturing them into a
transistor. Then shipping that transistor to the CFL maker. And on
and on. And that's just one component out of a considerable number -
see
http://www.pavouk.org/hw/lamp/en_index.html

My point obviously being that in comparison, an incandescent has a
very few constituent parts, all of which are simple, and have simple
well defined manufacturing processes, that could easily be energy
budgeted.

**And CFLs can be energy badgeted just as well, if not with slightly more
complexity.

Let's put that into some kind of perspective:

A typical 100 Watt IC lasts for 1,000 hours (at best).
A typical 15 Watt CFL lasts for 5,000 hours (I've certainly
exceeding that figure quite comfortably).

I have to say that in my experience, you have been extremely lucky
to get that sort of life from CFLs.

**Luck has nothing to do with it. I only buy quality CFLs and I have
19 of the suckers in service. If I had (say) 2 in service and not
experienced a failure, then I might agree with you. I have NINETEEN
of them in and around my home. And, FWIW: several of them are not
installed according to manufacturer's instructions. They are
surviving nicely. I have used all sorts over the
years, from cheap to expensive, and have never obtained anything
like that length of service from any of them, with the exception of
some very early ones that I installed in a day nursery that we once
owned. They were Dulux globe CFLs and very expensive. We owned that
nursery for twelve years, and most of them were still going when we
sold it, so I don't dispute that it is possible to make
long-lasting CFLs. I just don't think that overall, taken across
the whole raft of qualities and costs, they are doing it any more.

**I confess that I have not purchased a CFL for several years, so I
can't confirm. The damned things are so incredibly long lasting that
I simply have not had to purchase replacements. In fact, I fully
expect LEDs to be appropriately priced by the time I need to make
any changes.

Well, good luck with that one. As long as they have to keep putting
any kind of control electronics in them to make them run from AC line
voltage, then as long as they are not subsidised, they are never
going to get as cheap as incandescents, or have as low an energy
budget to produce.

**I don't know what the energy cost of manufacture is, for LEDs, but I'll
bet it is lower than CFLs. Moreover, since a large chunk of the energy cost
involves the cost of aluminium, since that aluminium is infinitely
recyclable, the total energy cost would likely be very competitive.

Whilst there have been some major advances in

recent years in the light output and efficiency of LEDs , they still
have relatively poor colour rendition qualities for home use, and
still struggle to produce even omni-directional light as is required
for general lighting, due to the fact that the light is produced at a
flat surface.

**Wrong on all counts. In my kitchen, I use a range of lighting, depending
on what I need to do. The low Voltage halogens provide excellent, high
intensity light, but with poor dispersion. I also use an 11 Watt T5 fluoro
for day-to-day bench work. I recently purchased some of these:

http://www.dealextreme.com/feedbacks/BrowseReviews.dx/sku.80310

Not only is light output almost double that of the fluoro (measured with a
light meter), but it does so on-axis and all off-axis positions too (easily
100+ degrees of spread). Colour temperature is very close to that of the
halogens. I already have a number applications planned for them. I don't
know how long they'll last. Further: I've been buying these things for many
years (at least 10 years):

http://www.ledsales.com.au/catalog/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=148_190

They're inexpensive, good quality, long lasting and have a respectably wide
light spread.

Of course, there has been the venerable Luxeon emitters, which are available
in up to 120 degree spread and have been for many years.



As to not experiencing the same longevity as you with

my CFLs, I thought that I carefully explained that I have purchased
all qualities of the things, and have not found the expensive
'quality' names to be any longer lived than the cheapos. This seems
to be the findings of others on here, as well.

**I suggest you read this:

http://www.choice.com.au/reviews-and-tests/household/energy-and-water/saving-energy/compact-fluorescent-lightbulbs.aspx

"After 6000 hours (December 2010), several good performers were still going
strong. All had dimmed since the start of our test, but the best performers
had dimmed comparatively little - if you had one of these in your home, its
gradual dimming over three (or more) years would probably not be
noticeable."

The test involved a large mnumber of lamps. Quite a different scenario to
yours and mine.

snip

are now gas or nuclear

**Philips cite 6,000 hours for their lamps. Most manufacturers of IC
lamps cite an average of 750 - 1,000 hours for their standard IC
lamps. These can be made to last longer, but at the cost of
efficiency. Fundamentally, however, I take issue with your constant
reference to cheap, crappy lamps. I have CONSISTENTLY stated that I
refer only to quality lamps (like Philips). It would be like you
trying to argue that automobiles are fundamentally unsafe,
unreliable and uneconomical, by using ONLY Tata automobiles as your
reference. You should be using Toyota, Honda, Mecedes, Hyundai and
the others as part of your reference. No more talk of cheap, shitty lamps
please. Whilst they are are
available and fools will buy them, they are not representative of
state of the art in quality or longevity.

Well no. That is an unfair slant in favour of the CFL argument. As
long as cheap crappy ones are available, *most* people - not just
"fools" as you so disparagingly refer to them - will buy them over
the expensive quality ones, because they don't understand the
difference, as we do. It's human nature to buy cheap, which is why
the Chinese are doing so well on the back of world-wide sales of
cheap - and often crap quality - electronic goods, offered for sale
through all our nations' supermarkets. This is where the whole thing
breaks down as an argument about the eco validity of any of this
technology. The manufacturers of the cheap CFLs are in it purely to
make money.

**I would posit that ALL manufacturers of CFLs (and ICs) are in it for the
money.

They have no concern at all for the 'green' credentials

of their products, except in as much as they will sell in their
millions, irrespective of their quality, just because the *are* CFLs.
So whilst it is true what you say in that the cheapo ones are not
representative of the state of the art, unfortunately, they *are*
representative of what is being sold in quantity to the general
public, and their contribution to the validity of the discussion,
cannot be ignored until *all* CFLs that are offered for sale, are
indeed representative of the state of the art. I'm sorry if that
offends your sensibilities, but it *is* part of the overall equation.

**It doesn't offend me in the slightest. Just as there are a number of
quality manufacturers of automobiles, like Hyundai, Honda and Toyota, there
are also a number of manufacturers of crap automobiles, like Chery and Tata.
A prospective buyer has access to the same information about these vehicles
that I do and anyone who buys a Tata or a Chery does so in the knowledge
that they are crap automobiles. Same deal with CFLs. I've made the mistake
of buying some cheap CFLs. I will not do so again.

In fact, your analogy with the cars, is self-defeating, because you
could look at it from the other angle, and say that if you take say
BMW as your reference, then all other cheaper makes are invalid
because they are not 'state of the art', and people who buy them are
fools.

**Not so. I would posit that BMW buyers are fools. BMW cars have a average
reputation for reliability, average fuel economy, ordinary stylinbg (IMO),
expensive spare parts and are no safer than (say) a Toyota/Lexus. Even a
Hyundai can probably beat the BMW in a number of areas. Particularly price.

The cheaper makes will always be bought by the general public,

because not everyone can afford the safety and performance of a BMW,

**Not everyone wants to be gouged by their local BMW dealer either. BMW is
legendary for it's greed WRT spare parts, service and a host of other issues
(here in Australia).

just like not everyone can afford to pay Ł5 or whatever for a bulb to
replace an incandescent that they are used to paying 50 pence for.

**Let's try to put that into some kind of perspective:

The quality CFL costs around AUS$5.00, not 5 Quid.
A quality, 100 Watt, (1,000 hour) IC lamp used to cost around AUS$1.00. The
replacement halogens are more expensive (about $3.50).

If UK residents are paying 5 Quid for quality, government subsidised CFLs,
then there is something seriously wrong with the system. We can land them
way across the other side of the planet (mine were made in China) for less
than you can buy them.

If

there is a CFL costing 50 pence on the shelf alongside the Ł5 one,
you tell me, which one are most uninformed people going to buy ?

**There is something seriously wrong with your prices. They're far too high
for CFLs. Our prices are much lower and there's no subsidies.

And

it is for precisely this reason that the whole CFL thing, taken on a
world-wide basis, falls apart.




And this does not take into pollution created at the point of
manufacture. That is an issue that should be dealt with locally.


If people want to use CFLs in the belief - mistaken in my opinion
- that they are in some way helping the world to use less energy,
then that's fine.

**It's not a mistaken belief. It's a fact. CFLs use FAR less energy
than incandescents. From cradle to grave. Vastly, hugely less
energy.


On the face of it, they appear to, and as I said before, that is the
*only* angle that's been exploited by the greenies, to try to gain
them widespread acceptance.

**Incorrect. ALL green groups have expressed reservations about the
proper disposal of CFLs.


But that is actually another comparatively minor issue. Important
from the pollution point of view, yes, but insignificant compared to
the manufacturing energy budgets and pollution-causing manufacturing
processes, that are NEVER mentioned by these groups, because they
never even consider these 'hidden' aspects.

**Never say "never".

Personally, I believe that the situation
is far less clear than this rather simplistic assumption, when you
factor in the *true* costs.

**Fair enough. Cite these "true" costs you speak of. Numbers please.



I cannot give numbers,

**OK. I can't provide you with any more data than I already have. If you
cannot counter my data, then we must accept that mine is the most accurate
available. Your 'gut feel' doesn't count.

because there are none that FULLY analyse ALL

energy inputs and pollution outputs for the hundreds of processes
involved. And when I say "costs", I am not talking monetary ones, as
I explained earlier. As I said, I am sure that it is just too
complicated a situation to ever be able to arrive at a real figure,
but no matter how much you don't want to believe it, you have to
accept that there *are* many hundreds of process steps and transport
steps involved in CFL manufacture, compared to incandescent
manufacture, which *must* add up to a very significant amount,

**It does add up. A CFL costs around 6 times as much, energy-wise, to make,
compared to an IC lamp.

that

is being totally ignored in making the 'green' case for the things.
Whether it can be accurately quantified or not, if you stop and think
about it, it is common sense.

**You keep neglecting that it was _me_ who provided the data regarding the
energy costs of production of the two lamps.

Almost certainly, they use less energy if
you accept the simple picture, get the projected life from them, and
believe the equivalence figures for light output, that they put on
the boxes. And again, on this score, I understand that they are now
trying to legislate over here, to mark the boxes in lumens or some
such, probably because users are starting to doubt the quoted
equivalence figures. In reality, if you have a genuine like for like
in terms of light output, factor in the *real* costs of producing,
transporting, and disposing of properly at the end, and get the more
typical average service life of 2000 hours from them, then the
saving becomes much less significant, and for me, insufficient
reason to ban me from using incandescents.

**My CFLs are averaging far more than 2,000 hours. Do you have any
data to supplort your notion that QUALITY CFLs manage an average of
2,000 hours? Are you aware of any consumer legal action against
Philips? After Philips cite a 6,000 hour life for their product.
Here in Australia, the penalties are severe for companies engaged in
misleading advertising of that nature. Recently, LG was penalised
several hundred thousand Dollars for making misleading claims about
the efficiency of their refrigerators. I'm certain the legislators
would be happy to tackle Philips, if you can supply solid supporting
evidence to back your claims (about QUALITY CFLs).


See my earlier comments regarding quality CFLs versus the reality of
what people *actually* buy ...

**I was directly addressing your claims that CFLs had a life-span that was
considerably less than that claimed. Here in Australia (and, presumably, in
Europe) such data must be able to be justified to consumer regulators.
Severe fines can result for manufacturers who fail to live up to the claims
of their products. AFIK, Philips has not been fined for their longevity
claims. Moreover, the article I directed you to has indicated that most
samples were very reliable.

If it's really the case, then CFLs will win out the day
in the end.

**By a massive margin, in fact.


Distorted by the fact that CFLs are effectively government
sponsored,

**Not in Australia. They compete in the market, like any other
product. They cost approximately 5 times as much as an equivalent IC
lamp. They last 5 times longer and use 1/5th as much energy.

his might prove an intgeresting read for you:

http://www.choice.com.au/consumer-action/sustainability/energy-efficiency/compact-fluorescent-lightbulbs.aspx

and that I cannot buy the bulbs I want any more, because they have
banned them to make sure that I can't. If it was still incandescents
vs CFLs on a level playing field, the take up of CFLs would be much
less, which was the reason in the first place that they found it
necessary to legislate to force people to use them.

**I agree with that. Most people are, fundamentally, greedy,
self-serving, fools. They'll choose the cheapest, upfront solution,
without regard to longevity or running costs.


I don't understand this. By saying that, you make my case for me, and
utterly destroy your own ...

**Er, nope. I understand EXACTLY why people want IC lamps. They're cheap.
Upfront. That, of course, is the short-sighted approach.

But I think that it is utterly wrong that the existing
technology has been banned completely on thin evidence and a less
than truthful declaration of the energy required to make and
dispose of the things, the only factor being pushed, being the
lower energy consumption when they are in use, as though this is
the be-all and end-all of their right to exist, and to be forced
on us.

**Your opinion is duly noted. That comment is a political issue. I
recall EXACTLY the same arguments were made, here in Australia,
when leaded petrol was legislated out of existence. I susepct
that, in 20 years, when we look back at this whole discussion, it
will appear to be a non-event. More efficient lighting will be the
standard, incandescents will be relegated to specialised
applications (oven lighting, etc) and the whole issue will be
viewed for what it really is - a storm in a teacup.


I fail to see how you equate leaded petrol to the situation with
CFLs. It is a different issue entirely, with very clear motives and
outcomes. You would have to be brain dead not to understand that
putting huge quantities of lead into the atmosphere at ground level
and in a form that people could breathe, is bad in every way.

**As is feeding excessive CO2 into the atmosphere. Too much CO2 is
causing excessive warming of this planet.


That is by no means proven in science.

**Bollocks! Read this:

www.ipcc.ch

Read AR4 IN FULL. If you feel that AR4 is in error, then you should submit a
page by page rebuttal.


Only in the media.

**Er, nope. SCIENCE has released the data. The media publishes whatever
their editorial people or owners tell them to. Scientists cite data.

There are

many reputable scientists who believe otherwise.

**Er, no, there isn't. There are a bunch of liars, charlatans and those who
are employed by the fossil fuel industry who publish cherry-picked and
misleading information. In fact, a goodly amount is nothing but lies.

Removing lead from petrol had little if any impact on the general
public, because it was already possible to build engines that had no
requirement for lead in their fuel, without compromising
performance.

**That was not the case here in Australia. Manufacturers had to alter
their production systems, costing millions of Dollars to cope. Most
automobiles suffered a performance fall when switched to unleaded
fuel. Those who retained their leaded fuel autos have to use
expensive additives to compensate.


There is little difference between engines that burn leaded and
unleaded fuel.

**Bollocks. One vehicle I have some familiarity with is the Mitsubishi
Corida Turbo. The leaded version delivered 110kW with premium leaded fuel.
The unleaded version delivered 90kW with premium unleaded.

For sure, there had to be some modification to the

production and design processes, but these occur for the
manufacturers every time they bring out a new model or engine. The
monetary costs of doing this are factored into a new design, so will
actually not have been any particularly burdensome problem for the
manufacturers.

**It was for manu Australian manufacturers. One had to tool up to use alloy
heads, whilst another just gave up and imported (at huge cost) Japanese
alloy head engines, rather than tooling up.

Drops in performance of existing engines when

converted to run on unleaded fuel were actually fairly minor, and
most people here, at least, did not even bother converting because
leaded petrol was available alongside unleaded, for a reasonable time
period. Back when all this happened, cars were not that long-lived
anyway, so unless you had only just bought a new one, it was no great
shakes that the next one you bought would be produced with an
unleaded petrol engine, already designed in. The manufacturers knew
this was coming, and had plenty of time to carry out the required
design alterations, and actually to amortise the costs in their
existing production, in readiness for the legislation.

**Again: Not here in Australia.

It was, unlike CFLs, a classic example of a genuine *replacement*
technology, which suffered no disadvantages over the technology that
it was replacing.

**Not here in Australia. Costs rose for buyers.

There was not even any need to challenge this bit
of legislation, because the advantages were very clear to see in
large cities the world over. Even if you clung on to your car that
needed leaded petrol, this was still available at the pumps for some
years after unleaded came in, and after it was finally removed from
sale, there was still LRP (lead replacement petrol) available for
some long time after that. Finally, if you still wanted to run your
vintage engine, this could be achieved in most cases by the simple
expedient of altering the ignition timing, and in the worst case,
reducing the compression ratio a little, by fitting a thicker head
gasket.

**Incorrect. Leaded fuel vehicles require an additive to allow
correct operation of valves (seats). The simple expedient of
altering timing is only for making up for differences in octane, not
lead.


The lead was in the petrol as an anti-knock agent, as I recall

**And as a lubricant for valves.

CFLs are nothing like this. They are a substitute technology
which is unable to replace incandescents in a number of areas - such
as decorative light fittings - and having many other shortcomings in
comparison to incandescents, in exchange for the dubious possibility
that they in some way help to save the planet.

**Specialised IC lamps are still available in Australia. I don't know
about Europe. Fancy lamps, oven lamps and others are still
available. For those who refuse to change, halogen replacements are
still available.

Nope. Pretty much all outlawed here.

**Apparently not:

http://www.homebase.co.uk/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Browse?storeId=10151&langId=110&c_2=2%7Ccat_16849318%7CLight+Bulbs%7C14418038&c_1=1%7Ccategory_root%7CLighting%7C16849318&c_3=3|cat_14418038|Globes|14327548

And:

http://www.homebase.co.uk/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Browse?storeId=10151&langId=110&c_2=2%7Ccat_16849318%7CLight+Bulbs%7C14418038&c_1=1%7Ccategory_root%7CLighting%7C16849318&c_3=3|cat_14418038|Candle+Light+Bulbs|14327550

And:

http://www.homebase.co.uk/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Browse?storeId=10151&langId=110&c_2=2%7Ccat_16849318%7CLight+Bulbs%7C14418038&c_1=1%7Ccategory_root%7CLighting%7C16849318&c_3=3|cat_14418038|Standard%2FGLS+Bulbs|14327554



You can't get a proper golf ball

or candle any more. You haven't been able to get pearlised bulbs of
any description for a long time. Truly specialised ones for ovens etc
are still available, because it is simply impossible to replace them
with anything else. Halogen 'Apollo nose-cones' are still available
at the moment, and capsule halogens still are, but only in clear
envelopes, which are pretty useless compared to frosted ones. I was
looking around the other day to see if I could still find any halogen
replacements (the type where a halogen capsule bulb is incorporated
into a 'traditional' shaped incandescent envelope), and the only ones
of those that I could find were clear. These give a very harsh light,
whereas the pearlised ones, gave a very nice even light

**They do, indeed.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au