Energy Efficient Light Bulbs

squonk

Am I the only person who is deeply irritated with John Gormley's attitude to the introduction of CFL and LED bulbs?

I believe that instead of making a mandatory switch over from conventional bulbs to the new energy efficient ones, he should adopt an approach where such bulbs are phased in over time, with perhaps a levy being placed on traditional bulbs in favour of the new bulbs.

The alternative, which is the road he is going down, deeply annoys me. I have to say I don't like CFL bulbs but would be prepared to pay extra for my preferred choice. It's not acceptable that he dictates that, come Jan 2009, conventional bulbs will no longer be on sale.

As a voter I have, until now, had a good bit of good will for the Greens and they always got a 3rd. or 4th. preference from me. That' won't be happening in the future. I will say I have plenty of other issues with the party since they went into government.

Admittedly kicking up over an issue such as bulbs seems a bit narky but I believe that it's just an indicator of the current climate where environmental issues are given far too much leewaay. Yes, they are important but I believe there is an ethos here in Ireland that it's somehow wrong to speak up against such issues, especially when it impacts on our quality of life and I wish this would change.

Kev_ps3

Until the price of them comes down then they wont become mainstream.

kf1920

i think strong resistance will come in relation to CFL bulbs on the grounds of the dangers involved, mercury and disposal etc

oscarBravo

Meh. In my case resistance would come from not being able to dim them (yet).

humanji

You don't need to dim them, they start off dim and don't brighten until about 5 hours later

Pascal14

Its a scam. Why debate the issue any further?

Sponge Bob

Pascal14 wrote: »

Its a scam.

Its not quite a scam but there are some 'issues'. Lets look to the Feds in the US for guidance .

http://www.epa.gov/mercury/spills/index.htm#flourescent

EPA recommends the following clean-up and disposal guidelines:

1. Open a window and leave the room for 15 minutes or more.Carefully scoop up the fragments and powder with stiff paper or cardboard and place them in a sealed plastic bag.
   
   Use disposable rubber gloves, if available (i.e., do not use bare hands). Wipe the area clean with damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes and place them in the plastic bag.

1. 1. Do not use a vacuum or broom to clean up the broken bulb on hard surfaces.
2. Place all cleanup materials in a second sealed plastic bag.
   1. Place the first bag in a second sealed plastic bag and put it in the outdoor trash container or in another outdoor protected area for the next normal trash disposal.
      Note: Some states prohibit such trash disposal and require that broken and unbroken lamps be taken to a local recycling center.
   2. Wash your hands after disposing of the bag.
3. If a fluorescent bulb breaks on a rug or carpet:
   1. First, remove all materials you can without using a vacuum cleaner, following the steps above. Sticky tape (such as duct tape) can be used to pick up small pieces and powder.
   2. If vacuuming is needed after all visible materials are removed, vacuum the area where the bulb was broken, remove the vacuum bag (or empty and wipe the canister) and put the bag or vacuum debris in two sealed plastic bags in the outdoor trash or protected outdoor location for normal disposal.

It does remind me of nuclear waste just a tad !! LEDs are too dim I find.

Pascal14

No, when something increases ten times in price and gives half the performance, its a scam.

oscarBravo

Pascal14 wrote: »

Its a scam. Why debate the issue any further?

If you're not interested in debate, feel free not to bother posting in this forum.

Pascal14

Easy on. I am only new to these forums.:mad:

Sponge Bob

Pascal14 wrote: »

No, when something increases ten times in price and gives half the performance, its a scam.

It costs 10 times more for the SAME lighting performance but lasts 10 times longer and costs a lot less to run over that time.

Therefore it performs BETTER when everything is taken into account...bar its safe disposal of course.

It does not meet the criteria for a scam as such.

however once that tricky disposal is factored in and costed it will still be a better deal I will wager but by how much ????

Pascal14

Sponge Bob wrote: »

It costs 10 times more for the SAME lighting performance but lasts 10 times longer and costs a lot less to run over that time.

Therefore it performs BETTER when everything is taken into account...bar its safe disposal of course.

It does not meet the criteria for a scam as such.

however once that tricky disposal is factored in and costed it will still be a better deal I will wager but by how much ????

Now thats I bet I like the look of. I would put the estate on the fact the new bulbs will not last as claimed, will not provide the energy savings as claimed, will not perform as claimed and will rocket in price when market transforms into a monopoly in 2009.

oscarBravo

Pascal14 wrote: »

Now thats I bet I like the look of. I would put the estate on the fact the new bulbs will not last as claimed...

I can only recall one failing, and that was shortly after it was installed.

Pascal14 wrote: »

...will not provide the energy savings as claimed...

That's trivially easy to measure. If they produce comparable light output with one fifth of the power consumption, they provide energy savings.

Pascal14 wrote: »

...will not perform as claimed...

Define "perform".

Pascal14 wrote: »

...and will rocket in price when market transforms into a monopoly in 2009.

Much like the "monopoly" incandescent light bulbs have enjoyed for a century or so?

Pascal14

oscarBravo wrote: »

I can only recall one failing, and that was shortly after it was installed. That's trivially easy to measure. If they produce comparable light output with one fifth of the power consumption, they provide energy savings.

The ordinary bulbs use a minimal amount of energy already. Just give free choice, why can the do gooders not buy the expensive lights and leave the sane non brainwashed people to use ordinary bulbs.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Define "perform".

In this case light the area to a standard that could be expected in this day and age of "new" ireland.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Much like the "monopoly" incandescent light bulbs have enjoyed for a century or so?

Monopoly by consent, not by political force.

On a side not it will be funny to see massive cfls sticking out of all these fancy chandelers/new age light fixtures the the vulgar majority have purchased.

Sesshoumaru

I have no problem with only energy saving light bulbs being available. In my own experience they tend to last a lot longer and it only takes a few seconds for them to reach full brightness. I wasn't aware though they were so dangerous if broken. I'd be in favour of still allowing the sale of ordinary bulbs until such time as energy saving ones have no problems associated with disposal.

djpbarry

kf1920 wrote: »

i think strong resistance will come in relation to CFL bulbs on the grounds of the dangers involved, mercury and disposal etc

If I were you, the toxic element of CFL's would be the least of my concerns, given what we surround ourselves with these days. CFL’s are perfectly safe once they are disposed of safely – they are no more dangerous than a conventional mercury thermometer.

Pascal14 wrote: »

The ordinary bulbs use a minimal amount of energy already.

An incandescent bulb uses approximately 5 times the energy a CFL uses to generate the same amount of light. Why? Because a conventional incandescent bulb converts about 98% of the energy it uses into heat; hence, they get very, very hot.

Pascal14 wrote: »

In this case light the area to a standard that could be expected in this day and age of "new" ireland.

Not sure what you're getting at here. A CFL can produce just as much light as an incandescent bulb.

Pascal14 wrote: »

Monopoly by consent, not by political force.

How is this creating a monopoly? Will CFL's not be available from a variety of manufacturers, all of whom will be in direct competition?

DadaKopf

Yeah, I'm annoyed that they don't work with dimmers. That's annoying. I wonder if the compromise will be a higher tax on old-fashioned bulbs.

Another issue not resolved: its acknowledged that they don't work well in toilets, closets, places where the light is only on for a short while. They take 15 minutes to reach full brilliance, so this may lead people to leave lights on in bathrooms all the time, reducing the so-called benefits.

I'm in favour of environmental moves like this, but is the technology up to it?

zippy 99

Pascal14 wrote: »

Its a scam. Why debate the issue any further?

Here Here

djpbarry

DadaKopf wrote: »

Yeah, I'm annoyed that they don't work with dimmers.

Dimmable (is that a word?) CFL's are available, although they are more expensive at present. You could also buy a different type of dimmer, which is suitable for CFL's.

DadaKopf wrote: »

They take 15 minutes to reach full brilliance...

:eek:
They shouldn't take more than 3 minutes to warm up.

Orion

I use CFLs where possible. In our sitting room we've a dimmer so use traditional ones. I am in favour of encouraging more people to use CFLs but I don't think banning incandescent ones is the way forward yet. I really think a phased approach maybe with a levy (similar to the plastic bag levy) would be better.

Besides it won't be illegal to use them - just to sell them. So people will get them somewhere - like Newry.

Húrin

squonk wrote: »

Yes, they are important but I believe there is an ethos here in Ireland that it's somehow wrong to speak up against such issues, especially when it impacts on our quality of life and I wish this would change.

It's because the environment is not given any real leverage that small steps like this must be taken. If the environmental issues were given the leverage that the science indicates that they deserve, the government would stop building motorways, institute renewable and/or nuclear power on a serious scale and make efforts at reducing flights especially in Dublin Airport, by 80% to 90%. Because that's the kind of policies that are required these days.

The ethos here in Ireland is that the environment is not the #1 issue and I wish this would change. I'm amazed that building more motorways and rapid economic growth are given greater priority than our climate and thus food and water supply.

Latchy

I dont like the Energy Efficient Light Bulbs at all and never have .

They are to dull compared to your standard 60/100 watt bulb

Sesshoumaru

Húrin wrote: »

It's because the environment is not given any real leverage that small steps like this must be taken. If the environmental issues were given the leverage that the science indicates that they deserve, the government would stop building motorways, institute renewable and/or nuclear power on a serious scale and make efforts at reducing flights especially in Dublin Airport, by 80% to 90%. Because that's the kind of policies that are required these days.

The ethos here in Ireland is that the environment is not the #1 issue and I wish this would change. I'm amazed that building more motorways and rapid economic growth are given greater priority than our climate and thus food and water supply.

Renewable and nuclear fission power are thinking too small scale if you ask me. Renewable power like solar/wind has no credible means of storage yet and while I have no issues with the safety of modern fission reactors, they do have resource issues as well. Like the fact that uranium is not in unlimited supply.

We need something more radical like solar power plants in orbit that beam energy back down to a base station. If you have enough of them in the right orbits you could have a continuous supply of cheap and clean power. or more down to earth plans like this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/dec/02/renewableenergy.solarpower

Switching over to energy saving bulbs just seems to small minded. We need scientists and politicans to come up with some kind of manhattan project for energy production. The only real use for switching over to these energy saving bulbs is it gets people thinking about the enviroment. I suppose its worth it for that alone.

mckenna45

In my opinion this scheme has been introduced without thorough thought. At the minute it looks like nothing more than a publicity exercise by Gormley.

astrofool

Using all CFL's here, no problems with them haven't had a single one blown (18 months+ now), haven't had any brightness issues.

Thing is, CFL's are going to be shortlived as LED's start to take over, but it's right that we get rid of incandescents, very wasteful of power.

Húrin

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

Renewable and nuclear fission power are thinking too small scale if you ask me. Renewable power like solar/wind has no credible means of storage yet and while I have no issues with the safety of modern fission reactors, they do have resource issues as well. Like the fact that uranium is not in unlimited supply.

We need something more radical like solar power plants in orbit that beam energy back down to a base station. If you have enough of them in the right orbits you could have a continuous supply of cheap and clean power.

this sounds like science fiction. Has anyone actually done the sums?

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

or more down to earth plans like this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/dec/02/renewableenergy.solarpower

Again I have long known of this plan and I think it has not been subjected to sufficient scientific and economic analysis. Massive amounts of energy would be lost over such long transmission distances.

Also, placing our energy dependencies in foreign countries like this would simply create more of the kinds of sticky relations that characterise the West's relations with the Arab world.

I do agree that radical solutions are required. I suggest a phasing out of the extraction of all fossil fuels from the ground.

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

Switching over to energy saving bulbs just seems to small minded. We need scientists and politicans to come up with some kind of manhattan project for energy production. The only real use for switching over to these energy saving bulbs is it gets people thinking about the enviroment. I suppose its worth it for that alone.

I agree. It's tokenism. If only FF would not restrain the Greens then some real steps could be taken.

Demand for power must go down. In my honest opinion, the consumer/hyper-industrial model of society has no future. Due to the permanently high oil prices (and lack of any viable techno-fixes for a lot of things that depend on it such as agriculture) I think that the world will have to revert to a somewhat more traditional model (i.e. slower transport, more of the workforce involved in agriculture). That's not to say "back to the 17th century", as we will have learned so much from the cheap oil age.