Australia to ban incandescent bulbs

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: mrjminer

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: mrjminer

Originally posted by: Citrix

sure thats easy. coal is burned to make eletricty, now if you have 5 million 100w incandecent bulbs buring that is a lot of coal just to power lights. now if the light bulbs are replaced that use less wattage for example the 23w CLF that is equal to a 100w bulb that gives off the same amount of light that is a lot of power conversation. replace the 5 million lights with CFL's and thats and a whole lot less coal being burned and whole less C02 being pumped into the world just to power lights.

So tell me, did you thorw a fit when the government banned freon and made all of use another product that is a whole lot less damaging to the environment and did the same thing?

Then your argument would be that we need to switch from using coal to produce electricity to get to the root of the problem. Try again.

you try again, that wasnt my arguement at all.

Doesn't matter what you think your argument is, you've identified the real problem as being fossil fuels. As I said, try again and, perhaps, you can come up with something that shows an actual problem directly related to the use of incandescent bulbs. Indeed, they use more energy, but the problem is not the amount of energy they use, the problem is the production of energy itself.

Try again.[/quote]

You're technically correct, but what are the other options? Nuclear power isnt exactly clean, so that leaves solar, wind, and geothermal. And right now, those technologies are not robust enough to support our nation. Hopefully in the future, but that doesnt mean that we shouldnt do what we can right now to slow down our screwing up of the planet.

 

[darkstar782]

I love how people compare incandescent vs. CFL to cars.

Leaded vs. Unleaded? The only environmental impact of leaded petrol compared to unleaded was (unsurprisingly) putting lead into the environment.

Now, lead is toxic and all, but the chemicals that replace lead in unleaded fuel are arguably worse.

Who told you unleaded was better? The oil companies? The government? Heh...

Unleaded has one "advantage", it allows the use of Catalytic Converters, which supposedly reduce the harmfull emissions unleaded cars put out to below the level of an un-catalysed Leaded petrol car.

However, Catalytic converters:

A) Have to heat up before they work. On short journeys, especially in milder climates like here in the UK, they do nothing, meaning on that journey an unleaded car would release more harmfull (to people and animals not the planet as a whole) chemicals than a leaded one.

B) Cause significantly more CO2 and N2O gasses to be produced when the ARE working. This may not be harmfull to human and animal life, but both are major greenhouse gasses.

C) Catalytic converters prevent the use of Lean Burn engines, which pollute far less than a normal engine with a cat.


My point, is that its not as clear cut as "CFLs for the win". Governments issue edicts like this for selfish reasons, usually to grab votes.

Personally I find that CFLs blow easily unless fed a clean supply, mine is full of spikes and dips, and are expensive to replace when they blow. They are not availible in high enough wattage ratings. All my Incans are 150W, simply because I can never find 200W, and the best CFLs you can find (without paying for extremely expensive specialist ones) are 100W equivalents. CFLs dont work with Dimmers, which is an annoyance to many people. They flicker, which is even more annoying.

We also assume the heat outputted by Incans is waste, yet surely if I switch to CFLs and they put out 80W less heat than an incan, without noticing it my central heating will have to work 80W harder to keep the temperature of my thermostat?

I will not be switching to CFLs any time soon

The solution to climate change is not to promote the output of greenhouse gasses by insisting on catalysed cars, or to insist on CFLs. Even if a country such as the UK ceased 100% of its greenhouse emissions from all sources today, then that reduction would be offset by growth in China within 2 years.

In the face of that, the solution is NOT to switch to CFLs. It is to develop other energy sources. Wind/wave/hydro/solar/geothermal is not practical for the output needed. Nuclear is currently the only solution right now. Nuclear waste is far less of an issue than it used to be, and can mostly be reprocessed now, and even if it were not, its still less of an issue than the mass flodding that climate change threatens

Of course, hopefully Fusion will become viable within our lifetimes

 

[thescreensavers]

I am replacing as much as possible the only lights that we have not changed are the high hats. the rest are almost all changed

 

[Praxis1452]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Aharami

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Or maybe because you know I'm right.

Banning light bulbs is just retarded. And its a horrid push for the .gov to come inside your home and tell you how to live.

i dont agree with you that CFL lights arent better for the environment than incandescent lights. I kinda agree with you on the govt part. I dont like govt telling me how to live my life, but only when it comes to big things like my civil liberties (such as the patriot act). In this case, it's such a small thing that I dont have a problem with it.

and if you read the article, you'll see that AU govt is banning the sale of incandescent light. Not the use of it. So you wont be thrown in jail or fined for using incandescent lights you currently own

Why would you ever defend such authoritarian rules?

Does freedom frighten you? (and no, I do not support much of the patriot act)

Freedom IS frightening especially in the hands of other people. As much as we try to deny other people are probably the largest cause of human suffering in the world. Today their is almost no such thing as negative liberty. Your use of wasteful forms of energy affect me. Even as an anarchist I have to admit that their is no absolute freedom without absolute power and omnipotence is a characteristic of god. Freedom then is closest to negative liberty.

I wouldn't say that banning bulbs is good rather the goverment should adopt a pro cfl stance by helping to lower the cost of these bulbs.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: darkstar782
I love how people compare incandescent vs. CFL to cars.

Leaded vs. Unleaded? The only environmental impact of leaded petrol compared to unleaded was (unsurprisingly) putting lead into the environment.

Now, lead is toxic and all, but the chemicals that replace lead in unleaded fuel are arguably worse.

Who told you unleaded was better? The oil companies? The government? Heh...

Unleaded has one "advantage", it allows the use of Catalytic Converters, which supposedly reduce the harmfull emissions unleaded cars put out to below the level of an un-catalysed Leaded petrol car.

However, Catalytic converters:

A) Have to heat up before they work. On short journeys, especially in milder climates like here in the UK, they do nothing, meaning on that journey an unleaded car would release more harmfull (to people and animals not the planet as a whole) chemicals than a leaded one.

B) Cause significantly more CO2 and N2O gasses to be produced when the ARE working. This may not be harmfull to human and animal life, but both are major greenhouse gasses.

C) Catalytic converters prevent the use of Lean Burn engines, which pollute far less than a normal engine with a cat.


My point, is that its not as clear cut as "CFLs for the win". Governments issue edicts like this for selfish reasons, usually to grab votes.

Personally I find that CFLs blow easily unless fed a clean supply, mine is full of spikes and dips, and are expensive to replace when they blow. They are not availible in high enough wattage ratings. All my Incans are 150W, simply because I can never find 200W, and the best CFLs you can find (without paying for extremely expensive specialist ones) are 100W equivalents. CFLs dont work with Dimmers, which is an annoyance to many people. They flicker, which is even more annoying.

We also assume the heat outputted by Incans is waste, yet surely if I switch to CFLs and they put out 80W less heat than an incan, without noticing it my central heating will have to work 80W harder to keep the temperature of my thermostat?

I will not be switching to CFLs any time soon

The solution to climate change is not to promote the output of greenhouse gasses by insisting on catalysed cars, or to insist on CFLs. Even if a country such as the UK ceased 100% of its greenhouse emissions from all sources today, then that reduction would be offset by growth in China within 2 years.

In the face of that, the solution is NOT to switch to CFLs. It is to develop other energy sources. Wind/wave/hydro/solar/geothermal is not practical for the output needed. Nuclear is currently the only solution right now. Nuclear waste is far less of an issue than it used to be, and can mostly be reprocessed now, and even if it were not, its still less of an issue than the mass flodding that climate change threatens

Of course, hopefully Fusion will become viable within our lifetimes

New ones don't flicker perceptibly (using electronic ballast rather than the old magnetic ballast). They heat up almost instantaneously. You can buy ones that work with dimmers.

I think as well as being badly misinformed, you've managed to miss the point as well

CFLs have nothing to do with what we use to generate power, they are simply an excellent tool to very easily make quite significant reductions in power usage across the board. Is that so scary or worthless?

I'm tired of the 'ooh but look at China' argument, it's simply used by people as an excuse to do nothing If we (being the developed world) start adopting these things, they become vastly cheaper and drive the eradication of old tech for new more efficient tech, which then trickles on down to developing countries.

 

[0roo0roo]

yea if were a car equiv to cf you'd have a hybrid camry that did 120mpg

if only...