Comments on: Fluorescent vs Incandescent lights http://etbe.coker.com.au/2008/01/01/fluorescent-vs-incandescent-lights/ Linux, politics, and other interesting things Thu, 09 Feb 2012 01:09:24 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: etbe http://etbe.coker.com.au/2008/01/01/fluorescent-vs-incandescent-lights/comment-page-1/#comment-17755 etbe Sun, 01 Feb 2009 11:51:01 +0000 http://etbe.coker.com.au/2008/01/01/fluorescent-vs-incandescent-lights/#comment-17755 Jenni: I have had many people who have little knowledge of science try and convince me that CFLs (and every other change to energy use other than using more coal) is a bad thing. I have little patience for people who just make things up. If everyone used only incandescent globes then the blackouts would have covered larger areas. If everyone used only fluorescent lights then the areas would be smaller. If we had smart meters and the ability to have dynamic electricity pricing and turn off non-essential appliances when the price rises then we would have had no blackouts. The lighting in empty buildings has been dramatically reduced over recent times. One problem at the moment is that most large buildings have one switch covering 25M^2 or more. If one person is working late (or early) then you might have an entire floor lit for one person because the switches don't allow anything else. Electricity expenses are a significant factor for corporations, and they are trying to reduce it. I suspect that fear of OH&S issues is more of a cause of needless lighting than a desire to make the building look good. The ideal would probably be to have low power lights covering all walkways and switches for the main lighting on a per desk basis. Then if one person is working on a floor you might have 100W for lighting the walkways and 20W for their desk. Of course as some corporations have dual-core computer systems running 24*7 on every desktop (wasting 100W per system) the lighting might actually be a minor issue. We can of course solve the computer power waste too, but that's a separate issue. Fluorescent lights have been used since the 1940's, and I believe that they became widely popular in the 1960's. The older fluorescent tubes had much higher levels of mercury, so even if you choose not to recycle your used fluorescent lights (tubes and CFLs) the amount of mercury in the landfill will be a small fraction of what it used to be (newer fluorescent lights use about 1/10th the amount of mercury and none of the beryllium compounds that were used in 1940). One interesting aspect of the mercury hysteria is that AFAIK no-one ever tests a house for mercury or lead before purchase! You claim to be worried about breaking a CFL (with low-mercury design) but you probably wouldn't know if an entire box of high-mercury fluorescent tubes had been smashed in your house by the previous owner! Also every house that is more than 40 years old will have some lead-based paint and some asbestos used in it's construction. In terms of government action, I generally don't approve of banning things. It's better to just change the tax rates and let the market sort it out. Jenni: I have had many people who have little knowledge of science try and convince me that CFLs (and every other change to energy use other than using more coal) is a bad thing. I have little patience for people who just make things up.

If everyone used only incandescent globes then the blackouts would have covered larger areas. If everyone used only fluorescent lights then the areas would be smaller. If we had smart meters and the ability to have dynamic electricity pricing and turn off non-essential appliances when the price rises then we would have had no blackouts.

The lighting in empty buildings has been dramatically reduced over recent times. One problem at the moment is that most large buildings have one switch covering 25M^2 or more. If one person is working late (or early) then you might have an entire floor lit for one person because the switches don’t allow anything else. Electricity expenses are a significant factor for corporations, and they are trying to reduce it. I suspect that fear of OH&S issues is more of a cause of needless lighting than a desire to make the building look good. The ideal would probably be to have low power lights covering all walkways and switches for the main lighting on a per desk basis. Then if one person is working on a floor you might have 100W for lighting the walkways and 20W for their desk. Of course as some corporations have dual-core computer systems running 24*7 on every desktop (wasting 100W per system) the lighting might actually be a minor issue. We can of course solve the computer power waste too, but that’s a separate issue.

Fluorescent lights have been used since the 1940′s, and I believe that they became widely popular in the 1960′s. The older fluorescent tubes had much higher levels of mercury, so even if you choose not to recycle your used fluorescent lights (tubes and CFLs) the amount of mercury in the landfill will be a small fraction of what it used to be (newer fluorescent lights use about 1/10th the amount of mercury and none of the beryllium compounds that were used in 1940).

One interesting aspect of the mercury hysteria is that AFAIK no-one ever tests a house for mercury or lead before purchase! You claim to be worried about breaking a CFL (with low-mercury design) but you probably wouldn’t know if an entire box of high-mercury fluorescent tubes had been smashed in your house by the previous owner! Also every house that is more than 40 years old will have some lead-based paint and some asbestos used in it’s construction.

In terms of government action, I generally don’t approve of banning things. It’s better to just change the tax rates and let the market sort it out.

]]> By: Jenni http://etbe.coker.com.au/2008/01/01/fluorescent-vs-incandescent-lights/comment-page-1/#comment-17753 Jenni Sun, 01 Feb 2009 06:15:36 +0000 http://etbe.coker.com.au/2008/01/01/fluorescent-vs-incandescent-lights/#comment-17753 Thanks for the contempt! I never claimed to be a scientist. I want to point out that there are appliances whose usage produces much higher levels of green house gases for households than lighting. Again much of this depends on how the appliance is used. I believe that much can be done for home design to minimise the need for excessive cooling and heating. We didn't have blackouts in the current Vic/SA heat wave because everyone had their lights on! You used the scenario of lighting required for 16 hrs a day in one room. This would pay off to use a CFL over the course of a year. Much household lighting would not be used in this manner. The value add depends on how the item is used. You mentioned the extra elec used by air cond to remove the waste heat from incandescent lighting. Depending on where and how you live this may not be an issue. Have you seen city buildings lit up at night when they are substantially empty? Looks pretty but at what cost? Ok for the government to tell me (individual but I vote) that I can't buy an incandescent globe anymore but not okay to tell a company (lobbying power, $$$$?) with an empty building that they cannot have it lit up? You say bogus, I say double standard. As for disposal of mercury containing CFLs the Australian Government website states "CFLs can generally be disposed of in regular garbage bins - where the garbage goes to landfill." It does mention recycling however the depots that will take CFLs will not be readily accessible to all consumers especially those who live in country areas. I have read the submission from Peter Bitto of CMA Eco Cycle to Sustainability Victoria on the draft Metropolitan Waste and Resources Recovery Strategic Plan and it contains disturbing figures on the current level of landfill disposal of fluorescent lights and the possible environmental effects of this unregulated dumping. CFLs work for you and that's fine. Let me have my freedom of choice and let me avoid the possible health risks if I accidentally break one. Thanks for the contempt! I never claimed to be a scientist. I want to point out that there are appliances whose usage produces much higher levels of green house gases for households than lighting. Again much of this depends on how the appliance is used. I believe that much can be done for home design to minimise the need for excessive cooling and heating. We didn’t have blackouts in the current Vic/SA heat wave because everyone had their lights on!
You used the scenario of lighting required for 16 hrs a day in one room. This would pay off to use a CFL over the course of a year. Much household lighting would not be used in this manner. The value add depends on how the item is used. You mentioned the extra elec used by air cond to remove the waste heat from incandescent lighting. Depending on where and how you live this may not be an issue.
Have you seen city buildings lit up at night when they are substantially empty? Looks pretty but at what cost? Ok for the government to tell me (individual but I vote) that I can’t buy an incandescent globe anymore but not okay to tell a company (lobbying power, $$$$?) with an empty building that they cannot have it lit up? You say bogus, I say double standard.
As for disposal of mercury containing CFLs the Australian Government website states “CFLs can generally be disposed of in regular garbage bins – where the garbage goes to landfill.” It does mention recycling however the depots that will take CFLs will not be readily accessible to all consumers especially those who live in country areas.
I have read the submission from Peter Bitto of CMA Eco Cycle to Sustainability Victoria on the draft Metropolitan Waste and Resources Recovery Strategic Plan and it contains disturbing figures on the current level of landfill disposal of fluorescent lights and the possible environmental effects of this unregulated dumping.
CFLs work for you and that’s fine. Let me have my freedom of choice and let me avoid the possible health risks if I accidentally break one.

]]> By: etbe http://etbe.coker.com.au/2008/01/01/fluorescent-vs-incandescent-lights/comment-page-1/#comment-17733 etbe Sat, 31 Jan 2009 09:53:04 +0000 http://etbe.coker.com.au/2008/01/01/fluorescent-vs-incandescent-lights/#comment-17733 Jenni: This time last year my household electricity use (including CFL lighting) was an average of 13KWh per day. That included a minimum of one room being lit for 16 hours a day. If a 14W CFL was replaced with a 75W incandescent light then that's almost 1KWh per day already. As it's common to have two or three lights on at one time (especially during the evening and on overcast days) the savings for my usage pattern could be as high as 3KWh per day. That means that if I used incandescent lights my electricity bill could increase by up to 25% before counting the extra electricity used by the air-conditioner to remove the waste heat. If you have evidence of CFLs not lasting as long as they are advertised then please take appropriate action against the companies that make false advertising claims. If you don't have evidence then please don't spread FUD. If you had read my post you would have noticed that it's possible to recycle objects that contain mercury in Australia and that smoke from coal fired power plants contains mercury. The electricity companies will routinely turn power off to sections of the grid when there is too much load. Yesterday the Crown casino and the surrounding area was cut off. Maybe if more people used CFLs and decreased their direct and indirect (through A/C) electricity use then the power outages wouldn't have needed to be as big or as long. Your claim about the government not telling companies when to turn off their building lights is bogus. Regarding your comment about heat radiation and global warming, please study some science before commenting on such things. A level of scientific knowledge equivalent to that which is taught at year 11 would do. Jenni: This time last year my household electricity use (including CFL lighting) was an average of 13KWh per day. That included a minimum of one room being lit for 16 hours a day. If a 14W CFL was replaced with a 75W incandescent light then that’s almost 1KWh per day already. As it’s common to have two or three lights on at one time (especially during the evening and on overcast days) the savings for my usage pattern could be as high as 3KWh per day. That means that if I used incandescent lights my electricity bill could increase by up to 25% before counting the extra electricity used by the air-conditioner to remove the waste heat.

If you have evidence of CFLs not lasting as long as they are advertised then please take appropriate action against the companies that make false advertising claims. If you don’t have evidence then please don’t spread FUD.

If you had read my post you would have noticed that it’s possible to recycle objects that contain mercury in Australia and that smoke from coal fired power plants contains mercury.

The electricity companies will routinely turn power off to sections of the grid when there is too much load. Yesterday the Crown casino and the surrounding area was cut off. Maybe if more people used CFLs and decreased their direct and indirect (through A/C) electricity use then the power outages wouldn’t have needed to be as big or as long. Your claim about the government not telling companies when to turn off their building lights is bogus.

Regarding your comment about heat radiation and global warming, please study some science before commenting on such things. A level of scientific knowledge equivalent to that which is taught at year 11 would do.

]]> By: Jenni http://etbe.coker.com.au/2008/01/01/fluorescent-vs-incandescent-lights/comment-page-1/#comment-17729 Jenni Sat, 31 Jan 2009 06:09:24 +0000 http://etbe.coker.com.au/2008/01/01/fluorescent-vs-incandescent-lights/#comment-17729 I find the whole argument of incandescent vs CFL to be quite ridiculous. Does anyone actually realise how must their lighting contributes to the elec bills? Energy retailers charge usage by the Kwh. It takes 10 hrs using a 100watt globe to use 1Kwh of power. Energy providers charge by the Kwh. If your energy providers charges 18c per Kwh then that is what it costs to run your 100watt globe for 10 hrs. Lighting is usually the smallest part of a household elec bill. CFLs are supposed to have a long life but my experience with them has been that they last as long as the average incandescent. A 10,000hr incandescent is about half the cost of 10,000hrs CFL while a lower hr rated incandescant is cheaper again. Households need to factor in the cost of the globe and the cents that they will save compared to using a CFL. Green house gas emmissions are also comparably small. Lights turn on, lights turn off. It's appliances like refrigration and heating/cooling that usually use the most power in a household and therefore produce the most green house gases. Safe mercury disposal is also another issue. Thanks to the democratic dictatorship that I live in for taking away my freedom of choice when it comes to choosing what sort of light bulb I can buy. How petty! Does government tell big business with highrise buildings that they have to turn all their lights off? How much energy would that save each night? Does anyone talk about the effects of heat radiation when it comes to global warming? The more surfaces you have like concrete, steel and brick buildings the more heat is absorbed during the day and re-radiated at night. How does that not contribute to global warming? Bigger population, more buildings. More heat-traps. Greater use of appliances such as air cond because homes are not being built to be climate friendly (verandahs, vents in roofs to let hot air escape, correct window treatments etc). I find the whole argument of incandescent vs CFL to be quite ridiculous. Does anyone actually realise how must their lighting contributes to the elec bills? Energy retailers charge usage by the Kwh. It takes 10 hrs using a 100watt globe to use 1Kwh of power. Energy providers charge by the Kwh. If your energy providers charges 18c per Kwh then that is what it costs to run your 100watt globe for 10 hrs. Lighting is usually the smallest part of a household elec bill. CFLs are supposed to have a long life but my experience with them has been that they last as long as the average incandescent. A 10,000hr incandescent is about half the cost of 10,000hrs CFL while a lower hr rated incandescant is cheaper again. Households need to factor in the cost of the globe and the cents that they will save compared to using a CFL. Green house gas emmissions are also comparably small. Lights turn on, lights turn off. It’s appliances like refrigration and heating/cooling that usually use the most power in a household and therefore produce the most green house gases. Safe mercury disposal is also another issue. Thanks to the democratic dictatorship that I live in for taking away my freedom of choice when it comes to choosing what sort of light bulb I can buy. How petty! Does government tell big business with highrise buildings that they have to turn all their lights off? How much energy would that save each night? Does anyone talk about the effects of heat radiation when it comes to global warming? The more surfaces you have like concrete, steel and brick buildings the more heat is absorbed during the day and re-radiated at night. How does that not contribute to global warming? Bigger population, more buildings. More heat-traps. Greater use of appliances such as air cond because homes are not being built to be climate friendly (verandahs, vents in roofs to let hot air escape, correct window treatments etc).

]]> By: etbe http://etbe.coker.com.au/2008/01/01/fluorescent-vs-incandescent-lights/comment-page-1/#comment-16034 etbe Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:39:54 +0000 http://etbe.coker.com.au/2008/01/01/fluorescent-vs-incandescent-lights/#comment-16034 http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/Windmills-Eat-Birds.htm Borislav: The comments of the article you cited point out that the turbines in question were not ideally placed (they did not take bat movement into account when planning) and also the fact that stopping the turbines at low wind speeds (which produce little electricity) will save the bats (who like to fly when it's not too windy). Also the above URL has an article which refutes most of the FUD about windmills and birds. As for how soon the issue gets decided, please read some recent news reports about ice melting around the north pole. Wind farms can be completely built and installed (including an environmental assessment) in 18 months. Nuclear power plants take 10 years or more. http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/Windmills-Eat-Birds.htm
Borislav: The comments of the article you cited point out that the turbines in question were not ideally placed (they did not take bat movement into account when planning) and also the fact that stopping the turbines at low wind speeds (which produce little electricity) will save the bats (who like to fly when it’s not too windy).

Also the above URL has an article which refutes most of the FUD about windmills and birds.

As for how soon the issue gets decided, please read some recent news reports about ice melting around the north pole. Wind farms can be completely built and installed (including an environmental assessment) in 18 months. Nuclear power plants take 10 years or more.

]]> By: Borislav Trifonov http://etbe.coker.com.au/2008/01/01/fluorescent-vs-incandescent-lights/comment-page-1/#comment-16017 Borislav Trifonov Fri, 26 Sep 2008 06:11:41 +0000 http://etbe.coker.com.au/2008/01/01/fluorescent-vs-incandescent-lights/#comment-16017 > the climate changes issues will be decided before nuclear power can make a difference" Who says? > There is no evidence of wind turbines being a great hazard to birds and bats. http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/08/25/bats-wind.html > It’s amusing that the coal industry keeps pulling out this one The article above references University of Calgary researchers, not coal industry representatives (and on top, CBC is a seriously left-wing station) > the climate changes issues will be decided before nuclear power can make a difference”

Who says?

> There is no evidence of wind turbines being a great hazard to birds and bats.

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/08/25/bats-wind.html

> It’s amusing that the coal industry keeps pulling out this one

The article above references University of Calgary researchers, not coal industry representatives (and on top, CBC is a seriously left-wing station)

]]>