Slashdot Mirror
Australia Outlaws Incandescent Light Bulb
passthecrackpipe writes "The Australian Government is planning on making the incandescent light bulb a thing of the past. In three years time, standard light bulbs will no longer be available for sale in the shops in Australia (expect a roaring grey market) and everybody will be forced to switch to more energy efficient Fluorescent bulbs. In this move to try and curb emissions, the incandescent bulb — which converts the majority of used energy to heat rather then light — will be phased out. Environmental groups have given this plan a lukewarm reception. They feel Australia should sign on to the Kyoto protocol first. A similar plan was created together with Phillips, one of the worlds largest lighting manufacturers."
For those with short memories, there's a legislator in California proposing the same idea, though over a five-year period instead of three.
I find the difference in approach interesting, though. The California proposal, judging by the press releases, seems to be about banning sale of incandescents. The Australian proposal is simply upping the energy efficiency standards to the point where incandescent bulbs no longer qualify.
Considering California actually has a higher population than Australia (estimated 36 million in 2005 vs. estimated 20 million in 2006), the California ban, if adopted, would actually have a greater effect.
It doesn't matter if you are trying to prohibit drinking alcohol or paying someone else for sexual favors, prohibition doesn't work -- all it does is create artificial scarcity which then develops a black market for the product or service. When alcohol was prohibited in the U.S., the mob was created. When incandescent light bulbs are banned, the black market will flourish, unless people see a real reason to switch.
We tried CFLs in my household and we hated them. We found some random buzzing issues, hated the color of our walls and furniture, and didn't really see a huge savings over incandescent because we turn off lights we don't use (and we use home automation in the bathroom and bedroom). I don't see how the Australian government can really enforce this law other than going after retailers who try to circumvent it. Putting the onus on the retailer will just make Australia that much less competitive -- you can bet that eBay.com.au will have thousands of listings for the old bulbs -- and there is no way that the Australian customs office can afford to search every box for illegal bulbs.
I'm sure it will work in the short run, but I wonder who is really behind this. It could be Phillips, who is sure to gain a huge profit from the mandate. Maybe it is the mercury disposal company that has a brother in office -- CFLs do contain mercury and need to be disposed of properly (I know there are alternatives, but the seem to reduce the cost-effectiveness of the bulb in the first place). When your CFL bulb dies, you're supposed to return it to the store for recycling or disposal. I'm sure everyone does that, right? *sarcasm* Of course, it is debated that coal-burning plants create a lot of mercury, but I assume that mercury is disposed of properly, unlike the mercury that is in your CFL bulb and ends up in the trash.
I prefer what Wal*Mart is doing -- working to convince the market that these bulbs MIGHT be better for them. I also wonder about the ancillary effect of the incandescent -- namely, heat. In the cold Midwest, I actually like reading under my incandescent lamp over my bed -- the warmth is nice, it is focused, and it is better than overheating my entire house. This way, I get just enough heat that I need when I am awake, as when I am asleep I can tolerate much lower heat requirements.
The other two problems with the CFLs is the ugly light they give off (although it is getting better), and how few of them fit into the lamps I have in my household. I also can't dim them (there are dimmable units now, I've heard), which we utilize all the time for effect, especially when watching movies or for social parties we host.
I'll take a prop bet with anyone here that the black market of light bulbs in Australia after 2010 will be very profitable -- and very easy to maintain.
Hope they're putting a big recycling effort in place for used compact fluorescent bulbs.
[Insert pithy quote here]
Q: How many Australians does it take to screw out a light bulb?
A: 16. One to change the bulb and 15 to say "Good on yer, mate!"
Aussies screw themselves with CFLs and their politicians. Join the Kyoto Agreement - then screw in the light bulbs.
If they outlawed me.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
Your complaints about compact fluorescents are well-founded. Although, in reality, CF's will be replaced by much more efficient, and much prettier-light-producing, and even longer lasting LED's within the decade.
I don't respond to AC's.
They just plan to outlaw them. There are sensationalist headlines and there are wrong headlines. This one is both.
Fluorescent bulbs running on AC are in fact strobe lights. If the frequency of the AC matches that of some repetitive motion (such as a spinning blade, cog, or other machine part) then the machine will give the appearance of standing still.
I wonder how many hands people will have to lose before they consider allowing exceptions to this one? All in all I am in favor, but not of a blanket ban.
Austrialia will do little to curb overall output, North America and Western Europe are the problems.
n _by_Region.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Emissio
I also wonder what the environmental manufacturing cost of a CFL vs a plain lightbulb is.
Why doesn't the Australian government mandate the use of candles? They use no electricity and have little impact on the environment. Brilliant!
gasmonsohttp://religiousfreaks.com/
Only Aussies will have incandescent bulbs.
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
I think that a total ban, as all total bans, is really arrogant and short-sighted. After all, there are many decorative lights that will look simply horrendous with incadescent light bulbs. Aesthetics are important, and forcing people to make their households less appealing isn't going to help anyone live a better life.
Instead of a ban, let's create an economic pressure. Tax the incadescent light bulbs, so that they are significantly more expensive than compact fluorescents, and use the money for conservation. This way, the shift will be natural, and the people who prefer/need incadescent bulbs, can still purchase them, albeit at 10X+ the current price.
The new bulbs cost more because they cost more to make. Costing more to make means it takes more resources or rarer resources. In the long run this is not sustainable.
Plus my experience with these bulbs is that they burn out almost twice as fast as regular bulbs.
All this will do is benefit certain bulb makers and their suppliers and will cost the public millions in the long run.
Thereby making almost any dimmer switch entirely useless, as well as forcing people to use CFLs in dimmer circuits that could damage them.
Brilliant, guys.
"Environmental groups have given this plan a lukewarm reception. They feel Australia should sign on to the Kyoto protocol first."
So Australia does something concrete, something difficult, by itself instead of signing on to a flawed international agreement with limited enforceability. And "environmental groups" are upset.
I'm shocked, I say! Shocked!
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Tax high wattage bulbs like 100W and up.
Better yet, establish a lumens per watt minimum and tax accordingly.
That way you don't force people away from certain technology, just the inefficent ones.
While they're at it, do the same for air conditioners.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
This will do some good to energy consumption, but the jury is out as far as the overall environmental impact is concerned. The high frequency fluorescents contain all kind of environmentally unpleasant stuff in them (rare earth metals as well as electronic circuitry from the board). Personally, I do not like the idea of simply chucking them in the bin once they fail. So does Australia also intend to mandate their recycling?
Also, what are people with dimmers going to do?
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
You do know that that is true of incandescent lamps as well, right? There is a dip in the light output at the main frequency, it's just not as significant. It's worth mentioning that CFLs (actually, most modern flourescents) are not on/off stobe lamps, but use longer persistance phosphors to overcome the effect.
This used to be noticable on HP calculators which had display refreshes that produced a beat frequency that was very visible under 60 hz lighting. FWIW, I've used fluoresents in my shop most of my life, and I still have ten fingers. Of course, it might have been that I can hear my tools when they're running, too. *shrug*
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
The Kyoto accord Will not decrease Greenhouse Gasses and supporting it is useless ... If everyone in the world meets their targets the growth in Greenhouse Gasses released in China and India (which are not required to stop/slow growth in Green house gasses) will be greater than the ammount reduced by everyone else; in fact most countries will lower their greenhouse gas volumes by buying credits from China/India so growth in Green house gasses will continue ...
...
Kyoto is the a wonderful concept poorly implemented with no real use
Isn't it California that prohibits tossing flourescent lights in the trash because of the mercury content? (And they're also going to ban the sale of incandescents, putting Joe and Jane Consumer in a bit of a bind: forced to buy something with a limited lifespan that's a pain to dispose of.)
Seems to me that the law of unintended consequences may bite them.
------ "Darn floor. Big bite." (Koko the gorilla's best attempt at explaining the experience of an earthquake.)
What about professional applications that require non-fluorescent bulbs? Theater lighting, photography studios, art studios, et cetera mostly rely on incandescent bulbs and halogen bulbs because they provide a more "real" lighting scheme. The fluorescents tend to take the warmness out of any colors.
I'm the Devil the Windows users warned you about.
A tax on incandescnt bulbs would be better. 90% of the lights in my house or CFL. But a few lights are incandescent. Those lights have the fancy shaped bulbs. As a kid I used incandescent bulbs to keep the chickens warm in the winter.There are a lot of niche areas where CFLs make no sense. Don't outlaw incandescents, just tax them more. Then you get the energy savings and the minority of people that need incandescents can still legally get them.
http://www.windmeadow.com/
Why can't we just let the market take care of it? CFL's cost more, but their price has steadily been declining. Incandescents are cheaper right now, but thinking people replace them with CFL's (where appropriate). I buy CFL's in an 8 pack at Sams Club. When an incandescent burns out, I replace it with a CFL. Sure, some people don't do that, but eventually people will figure out the cost savings, savings in time of replacing bulbs (particularly hard to reach bulbs) and this will force the demise of non-CFL bulbs.
Taxes and prohibitions are simply not necessary.
Brawndo: It's what plants crave!
Unfortunately, there's also the environmental cost, as I see the probability of these being recycled at a high rate as a near-zero probability concept. People only do it with Cans because of the deposit. You'd NEED that to have it happen here, and even then plenty of mercury will be going into landfills. It'd be interesting to me to know what the current rate is with all types of fluorescent bulbs.
Australian for lightbulb.
Recently I read that some Autistic people dislike fluorescent light bulbs because they can detect the light flickering, where as most other people do not. Although I support Australia's desire for greater energy efficiency, it seems a shame that so many could be adversely affected by this decision. Are there any alternatives for more stable light sources? DC lights and power supplies perhaps?
(I'm not autistic myself, but I hate fluorescent light sources).
Nothing sucks like a Vax, nothing blows like a PowerMac G4
What could go wrong here, with millions of mercury containing floresent bulbs soon finding their way to landfills all over Australia? But at least it's being done in the name of the environment.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
FUD
in my Easy Bake oven.
I wonder how many hands people will have to lose before they consider allowing exceptions to this one?
Not a big risk in the home but in the UK at least, the wiring/lighting regs for industrial use say that adjacent flourescent lights must be spread across the three phase supply to eliminate the possiblity of the 'stroboscopic accidents' you suggest.
Good points. And as far as persistent phosphors being used, I believe that is true - in well made fluorescent bulbs. But with CFLs, you can pay $10 for a good bulb or buy cheapies at 6 for $10 - and I have serious problems with the quality of the cheaper ones. Perhaps standards for bulbs in machine shop settings? But then again, I hate to invite the government to interfere more than it already does. At the very least this one deserves more though that it has been given (the blanket ban that is).
I tried CF bulbs a couple of years ago, for about three months. Three months (closer to four) is how long it took every CF bulb in the house to stop working. These things are supposed to last longer than regular light bulbs (LASTS OVER FIVE YEARS!!!!1 the packaging said) - but in my experience, they were vastly more likely to die during a power surge, power outage, or other form of "electrical event" than traditional bulbs.
:P
Of course, I rent a Fight Club house with old wiring, but that doesn't change the fact that the rest of my equipment (oldskool light bulbs, half a dozen computers, alarm clock, etc) is still plugging away. But I can't exactly put the ceiling fixtures on a surge protector.
So until I hear for sure that CFs will actually last on a power grid that looks more like an EKG than a nice straight line, I'm sticking with the older technology - I'd rather spend five bucks a year on lightbulbs than twenty bucks a month.
As for the OMG UR ELECTRIK BILLZ!! - I run my lights for about two hours a day, tops. Maybe four. I don't really live in my house, so the utility difference is nill.
It's refreshing to see a new pun "Light bulbs get the flick".
In the Australian media today they've all been making "globe" puns such as "saving the globe by turning them off". Shameful!
Find a HazMat disposal company that operates in California and Australia and BUY, BUY, BUY!!!!
"faster"??
sounds like he got the ones made of paper and dry twigs...
Money is a representation of resources and as such those things that cost more inherently consume more resources. Forcing people to switch to CFL is not of any environmental savings because the energy 'savings' (as represented by money) often cannot cover the extra resource cost (as represented by money in the price of the unit). I've seen the math on CFL packages that says they pay for themselves but I've also noticed that CFLs don't last nearly as long as they're supposed to. They also contain mercury and plastic and a PCB along with electronics, none of which incandescent have.
This leads to the conclusion that while CFL may appear to help reduce our impact on the environment (reducing emissions at the power plant) they actually do the opposite by speeding the consumption of resources. In addition, enforcing bans on incandescent bulbs consumes even more resources (money) which ultimately must be factored into the cost of CFLs or other alternative lighting.
So, how to help the environment? Take all that money that is to be spent on the CFL ban and put it into researching better CFLs or alternatives that can compete with incandescent cost-wise. Once they can compete in cost then the energy savings will truly be an savings, instead of just switching the pollution from the power plant to the plastics plant (or the mercury mine, or the glass works, etc).
This is what you want governments doing? Telling you what kind of light you can use?
Fluorescent light is harsh and not as useful as incandescent. I don't use fluorescent when I want a nice, soft lighting. I use fluorescence in the basement and the garage or at the office. I don't use them over the dinner table because they do nothing for the mood or the food.
They might use more energy but they do produce much better light in many peoples opinions.
I ask how much energy is it going to take to convert every lamp to fluorescent? Every lighting fixture? Is there really much net savings?
Who's making all the money off this scam?
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
We are still polluting heavily all over the USA with DDT and Flourocarbons. Get real. As long as there is a decent alternative, bans will work.
Now with that said, I would rather that they apply a tax to these and allow folks to decide. There are places in my home where I prefer a regular bulb (bathroom mirror), and am willing to pay 5/bulb vs. 3/bulb for the CFLs. But the vast majority of our bulbs have been switched to CFL and the bill is noticeably lower. In particular, I notice that the AC seems to run less. As to noise and colors, well, since the wattage was so much lower, on the 60 watt inc. bulbs, we put in 100 watt CFL. And on the 100 watt inc., we put in 240 watt CFL. Now the house is brighter and we pay less. BTW, I put 500 watts CFL (buring less than 60 watts), and now the basement is a very bright place to be in.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
halogen? I'm looking at installing dozens of recessed halogen lamps in my home in the next few months. I plan on flipping the home, but I wonder if something like this will cause problems for those in the future. The bulb socket will only accept a halogen bulb. If they are no longer sold because of envromental reasons, the lights become useless and would have to be removed.
Could be frustrating for those in the future.
R.I.P.
I was just playing devil's advocate - I generally hate CFLs.
I'll tell you what - I'll back a no-incadenscent proposal when the following three conditions are added:
1. All fluorescent lamps must have a CRI of 97 or higher
2. All fluorescent lamps for sale shall either
(a) match the color temperature of the equivalent incandescent wattage replaced
(b) produce a 5000K+/-200K color temperature and be labeled as such
3. All fluorescent lamps shall be dimmable using all dimmer technologies which currently work with incandescents
(a) color temperature shall not vary by more than 10% under the dimmed condition
Now, if I wanted to be a pain, I would have changed 3(a) to read that the color temperature shall scale with the dimmed setting, but that's really asking too much.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
When your ignorance is pointed out, call them a socialist. Never fails.
Unfortunately, there's also the environmental cost, as I see the probability of these being recycled at a high rate as a near-zero probability concept. People only do it with Cans because of the deposit. You'd NEED that to have it happen here, and even then plenty of mercury will be going into landfills. It'd be interesting to me to know what the current rate is with all types of fluorescent bulbs.
1) People don't need a 'deposit' to recycle. In my area (Fairfax, VA), the trash company just has an extra bin they give us for recyclables. We don't get any money back directly. Maybe indirectly as a lower trash charge rate. It's the same for my relatives in Chicago.
2) When powered by Coal (as is the case in Australia), compact flourescents have less of a net mercury release, when compared to incandescents. This includes both the mercury contained inside of them and the mercury released by burning coal to power them.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Great, so now my daughter will either create science project goo with her Florescent Easy-Bake Oven or turn to a life of crime selling her brother's Pokemon cards for 100watt light bulbs.
Carbon trades at $3.75/ton on the Chicago Climate Exchange http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/. They don't do an avoided emissions credit but they are working on it. For a CFL that replaces a 60 W incadescent at 13 W and lasts for 7 years with 4 hours of use per day the avoided electric use is 0.49 MWh and so using the low conversion rate that the exchange uses for renewable electric power http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/news/publications/p df/CCX_Renewable_Offsets.pdf based on displacing gas turbines this comes to 0.18 ton of carbon, or $0.74.
- Compact-Fluorescents so just the
carbon savings are likely coming close to the cost of production.
2 95242023.s -selling-solar.html
You can get CFLs for 1.89 bulk retail http://www.1000bulbs.com/products.php?cat=13-Watt
At $0.09 per kWh electric cost, one also saves $44 per bulb.
So, why would legislation be needed? I think mainly to get people thinking.
LED street lights are begining to get going with a similar boost in efficiency and greater reliablility http://www.cree.com/press/press_detail.asp?i=1171
--
Switch to solar: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
If you can get your hands on an old high-quality turntable (for playing vinyl records), you will notice a series of regular black marks in several rows along the side of the turntable itself. These were based on the idea that the power feeding your lights is at 60 Hz so the marks were calibrated to appear to stand still at specified RPMs (such as 33 for standard LP records).
A goal is a dream with a deadline
Who's going to be the first one to get caught smuggling light bulbs? Then there will be the underground incandescent labs. This will only give rise to murderous incandescent light bulb cartels. Who will be the first politician caught up in that little affair?
Phillips? Oh. Okay. Now I understand.
What?
1. The quality of the light is not the same. It affects white balance in filming and other camera work.
2. Kyoto == buying polution credits == not about fixing the problems
I'm all for them in the home because they lower power usage and for most people are adequate. But I think there should be exemptions for people who do artwork and need a cleaner light source.
Signing on to Kyoto won't solve the problem. All is does is allow people to buy/move polution credits and not actually force real change. I'll trust politicians talking about the environment when they put adequate bus service out to where I, and 10,000 other people, work. instead of forcing us to weather the cold walking distances/waiting long times for buses, or taking our cars.
Frankly, if they can't sort out bus routes, how the hell will we actually implement/follow the spirit of the kyoto accord?
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
There seem to be a lot of people saying that they had poor experiences with CFLs, so maybe I'm just lucky, but I've had a pretty positive experience thus far using them. My SO and I decided to switch out all the incandescents in the house we were renting and while we had one CFL bulb that was slightly buzzy, it was an older model, and all the newer bulbs we bought didn't have that buzz. While I hate fluorescent tubes, I didn't find the light from the bulbs to be as annoying as tubes, and I really have noticed a difference in my energy bill. And FTR, since we replaced those bulbs three years ago, not a single one has burned out. I don't know what I'll do with the bulbs once they burn out; I wasn't aware they had mercury in them, but I'll remember not to chuck them in the garbage.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you're having to expend energy to heat your house anyway, wouldn't an incandescent bulb be just as efficient as a fluorescent? If the bulb puts out less heat then your heating bill goes up by the same amount you'd save on lighting.
Fluorescent lights are known to cause headaches in people with specific sensitivity. Unfortunately, I am one of those people. I am not alone in that either. The sensitivity is likely a result of both the specific frequency range of the light they emit, as well as their stroboscopic nature ("blinking" at 60Hz or so).
I for one simply cannot stay in room lighted with fluorescent lights for more than a few minutes without getting an incapacitating migrane. At places where I work I essentially have to remove fluorescent lamps and bring in my own incadescent or halogen light source.
I certainly hope whoever pushes these laws through puts in some sort of health exception, because I really would not want to endure the pain of living in the fluorescent-lighted world.
BTW, I wonder what their take on halogen lights is.
Incandescent bulbs waste a lot of energy. We all know this. In fact, that's the specific reason I use them for certain applications like dummy loads...draining batteries, discharging caps, bleeding off excess RF... I WANT to waste excess electricity. A resistor of comparable wattage is a lot more expensive. I also use them to limit current...when fixing power amplifiers, I put 2x25 watts in series to prevent overloads during testing.
What about vacuum tubes compared to solid state equipment? We all know how inefficient tubes are and how they have a much shorter service life than solid state transistors.
I just hope this idea stays in california and australia...give us INCENTIVE to switch, not a REQUIREMENT to switch.
This problem with market forces is that they only act in the short term. Environmental damage is occurring now that will potentially have global impact in the next 100 years. No market will recognize consequences that far away. This is why we have governments and regulation. All individuals cannot be expected to act for the benefit of the whole 2 generations from now.
I second those suggesting standards based regulations, targeting a single product is very inefficient and as has been noted likely ineffective.
encouraging the use of CF bulbs via regulation will also spur innovation to improve bulb response, cold performance, recycling (why not a deposit?) color temperature, etc.. that's what market forces will do.
It sounds dramatic, but doesn't involve any serious commitment to reducing CO2 emissions. It may even be counter-productive, since fluorescent bulbs contain rare and toxic materials. But nobody will make any fuss about that.
It's superficial, unfair, cowardly, and contemptible. A politician's solution.
Think "indirectly".
.au is buying CFLs, they can no longer be a niche market. CFL makers now have a big economic incentive to come up with affordable, reliable, pleasant-looking lights for all the things people use light bulbs for.
.ca.us to switch. You don't start with the biggest market and go down -- that never works. You start with a smaller market, make them happy, *then* go for the bigger pieces of the pie.
.au is being the world's guinea pig (thanks, mates!) is why I think this actually has a good shot at working.
If everybody in
Dimmers, high-output, warmer colors, shapes that fit in any socket, and so on.
Once we have these on the market, it'll be a lot easier for people in places like
The fact that
Of course if we were to force a change in the socket, why not use that as an opportunity to mandate the switch to DC lighting at the same time. Safer and as I understand it, more energy efficient. Of course the the switch would be easier if they simply mandated that new construction required the new wiring. As soon as the first housing division went up, it would be immediately economical for local stores to carry the new bulbs. After the dust settles, you start offering rebates for upgrading existing wiring, similar to what they do for upgrading windows. When the number of DC CF homes gets to be larger than the AC incandescent homes, the incandescents would be considered "specialty" lighting, and would only be used where they are really needed.
I would guess that within a few years, people would look at the current lighting as see it the way we now see the old knob and wire systems.
Traditional fluorescent lights have to be avoided in some laboratories because they emit a lot of RF energy that interferes with instruments. Does anyone know whether compact fluorescents pose the same problem?
Okay, so they ban the sale of incandescent bulbs. Fine.
Now, mind you, I have a house full of CF tubes. Every single bulb socket that can fit one, has one. I have also given presentations on the advantages of CF tubes, including in the presentation what the financial payback is of using these tubes. I believe in this technology greatly.
That said, what are you supposed to do for your refrigerator (where a CF tube will be at the double disadvantage of being cold and not running an appropriate duty cycle), or your oven (where the temperatures will be prohibitively high)? Will appliance bulbs still be available?
www.wavefront-av.com
Why do some people think the government needs to force me to recycle and conserve energy? There are ways to conserve energy that actually save me money, I don't really need any bureaucrat telling me what to do, I will happily do it on my own. And some ways of conserving energy might not save you much, but it is incredibly cool (like putting up solar panels)
I don't know about other nations, but in the US recycling is immensely popular, especially in the suburbs. Everyone has their little sorted recycling boxes out. And in rural America the services often provide semi-sorted recycling where minimum wage workers sort the plastics for you. You just have three buckets. Garbage, Paper (so it doesn't get soggy) and Other (glass and plastic). In nearly all of the US such a service is voluntary and free (unlike the garbage service) and quite popular. If you didn't know already almost all of these refuse collection and recycling programs in the US are fully privatized and profitable. your tax dollars aren't sinking into a bottomless pit of free government services.
I cannot believe that Australians are so callous, thoughtless and ignorant that they won't adopt energy saving lights without government intervention.
I don't think I'm going to be putting any CFL in my chandelier, even the ones with the little fake frosted covers are ugly. Sometimes those clear pointy incandescents are the only thing that will do.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
I use CFL's in my house where it's the right application. On top of that I have several large aquariums (hobby) and CFL's are by far the best lighting for those to grow plants in tanks.
On the other hand, if you use X-10 switches and controls, and/or you want to be able to DIM your lights my experience would suggest you stay away from CFLs for those applications.
Outlawing them is stupid.
And yes, I have noted a difference in my electric bills since I started converting over the lights I could to CFL.
I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
Unfortunately nobody will be alive to notice because we're all busy dehydrating as a result of our mega drought. Yeah, apparently it's supposed to end Real Soon Now(tm) but that could still mean a few years. And we still continue to waste huge amounts of water, not domestically but industrially.
Let's fix that first.
I don't like the alternatives with lighting. Fluro bulbs and tubes DO flicker and produce a harsher light. Trying to colour match them with tungsten light isn't fun, either. You can't get spots as effective that way - which means I'd have to repalce those with halogens. I do agree that it's a good idea, but enforcing it WILL piss people off.
I just find incandescent lighting nicer on the eyes.
...only outlaws will have incandescent bulbs.
Why not just tax the daylight - er - well, you know - out of them?
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
I doubt very much that the preference for warm lighting existed prior to the widespread introduction of incandescent lighting. Before then, most people spent the majority of their time under 5000K light from the sun, and a much smaller portion (relative to the time we now spend indoors) with candles or gaslights. But the "warm" artificial lighting would definitely have been the exception, and daylight the rule. Now, it's almost the opposite way around; people perceive the light from incandescent bulbs as 'normal,' and bulbs that produce light that's actually similar to the big glowing thing outdoors as "cold" and "harsh."
There's probably some deep-rooted psychological link between lower color temperatures and "warmth," and associated feelings of security (because fires produce lower temperature light compared to the sun, fires = warmth and usually, safety), but I think most of it is social, and that we've acclimated to a home life that's lit by incandescent bulbs.
I switched my bedroom and home office to daylight fluorescent bulbs a while back, and after getting used to them, rooms lit with conventional (3500K) incandescent bulbs seem very 'yellow' and seem stuffy in comparison. The light from the fluorescents also blends much better with the natural light from the room's windows than the incandescent light did, and there's less of a change during the day (previously, during the morning when there was a lot of window light, it would seem very blue, then during the day as the sun would fade, I'd turn more incadescent lamps on to compensate, and everything would get yellow; now, when it gets dark, I put on the fluorescents, and it's just like turning the sun back on).
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Funny that when it was finally decided to ban R12 refridgerant (freon), the push came from Dupont in terms of lobbying (freon is bad) because they had the only replacement - which costs more. Now a light bulb manufacturer has a plan to replace your cheap light bulbs with their expensive models under the "save the environment" plan..
Funny that light bulbs orginally lasted for years until the bulb manufacturer's realized changed that by changing up the gas in the bulb, they could shorten their life and sell more bulbs. Look at the crap incandescents you get now. The quality sucks. If the fluorescents sell, eventually they will reach market saturation... which I suspect will lead to shorter lasting bulbs evaporating any savings you may get.
Turning off lights when not in use is probably smarter. As for the environmental hazard, how is producing all those mercury filled bulbs better? It's like saying that a methadone addict is better than a herion addict.
Three months (closer to four) is how long it took every CF bulb in the house to stop working. These things are supposed to last longer than regular light bulbs (LASTS OVER FIVE YEARS!!!!1 the packaging said) - but in my experience, they were vastly more likely to die during a power surge, power outage, or other form of "electrical event" than traditional bulbs.
I keep reading this on Slashdot, and I don't disbelieve you, but I'm scratching my head. I've been using CFs for years now, and they *do* last years. Granted I haven't been living in a war zone or anything, but I wouldn't call the power real steady or reliable, either.
Heck, I'd prefer them even if they didn't save money, just because I hate having to change light bulbs. *Especially* because I've been living in older houses, with older fixtures, I want to minimize wear. One of these times the bulb is going to seize in there, or the fixture is going to come apart - no point hastening that day.
But save electricity they do, as well. My current house is wired all screwy, with most of the upper floor hanging off one circuit. I put a microwave in, but it didn't look like I was going to be able to use it. Replace all the bulbs with CFs, and wala, no more tripping the breaker.
What about banning slashdot addicts that look for news more than 25 times a day? That would save more energy per day than Australia will save per year. Cheers!
"They feel Australia should sign on to the Kyoto protocol first."
That says it all, really.
The last time I look at flurescent bulbs, they don't work with dimmer switches. Is the Australian Government banning dimmer switches as well?
to welcome our new semi-luminous overlords who take about 25 seconds to reach full brightness...
25 critical seconds when you have just entered a bathroom!!!!
LampRecycle.org has information for the US and Canada. Surf around a bit and you'll probably end up on Earth 911, which has a database of local recycling centers.
There's at least one household hazardous waste collection facility in my area where you put whatever you want to recycle -- dead CF bulbs, old computer monitors, paint, whatever -- in the trunk of your car, drive up, pop the trunk, then fill out a form that swears you're only dropping off stuff from a home, not a business. They remove the waste from your trunk, close it, and you drive off.
What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
All joking aside, the radio-interference issue is a non-trivial one to many people (including myself) who are concerned about mass producing a whole lot of anything that's going to possibly mess up the shortwave or HF radio bands. Luckily, most CFLs don't seem to be too bad. There are a lot of anecdotal reports of ham radio operators using them alongside HF radios without problems, and the manufacturers themselves seem to be cognizant of the problem.
In case anyone is interested in specific figures, there is a chart of RFI versus frequency from a typical CFL ballast here (go to the very end of the document for the graph).
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
I have this lamp I bought at Fry's. It has variable dimming or something like that. It's a knob. Anyway, it also senses the ambient light in the room with some sort of sensor as well. It was a couple of years ago when I attempted to put one of the florescent bulbs in place of an incandescent and the florescent bulb started emitting smoke! It didn't care for what I presumed to be constant variations in power.
So I'm thinking that these bulbs are find for just on/off action, but when it comes to dimming, there are issues. This was at least 3 years ago so maybe something has improved with those bulbs. Perhaps I'll try it again this weekend or something.
When they have an idea? A lighted florecent bulb just doesn't have the same punch!
Seriously, I am at over 75% florecent or LCD spotlight in my house. I have a few lights that can be dimmed or are on motion detectors, that are still incandescent.
Those ought to be sorted out in the next few years.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
Did they make even the slightest effort to figure out that there are people with common medical problems who are adversely affected by fluourescents? I can just visualize (by the light of my CF bulb) an underground market like the one for medical marijuana.
"Here's what's happening. You're starting to drive like your Dad..." - Red Green
I like your idea of a deposit, but why not require a deposit for incadescents? The cost saving for a CFL is about $40. Why not make this plain by charging a deposit of $40 for an incadescant? You get your money back once you turn it in, but you do get the information at the point of purchace that you are wasting your money.
s -selling-solar.html
Leave carbon behind, go solar. http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Actually, you can. When I had my fuse panel replaced with circuit breakers, I had them install whole-house surge supression. (they're installed in two of the circuit breaker slots, one for each leg)
There are also suppressors that don't go in the circuit panel
Either way, you're going to need an electrician, but it is possible.
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
Light dimmer switches don't work with CFL bulbs. People will have to remove the dimmer circuits or watch their CFL bulbs fry in a couple hours or not work at all. I think this will be a big issue because it is not well known. People will just go WTF and be pissed off that the only bulbs they can purchase don't even work in their home.
Because most people are idiots?
In my state, the public-school system is funded, in large part, by a tax on people who are bad at math. It works startlingly well, even though in a rational world, it wouldn't draw in a cent.
A system that assumed that people will do the rational, productive (heck, even the self-interested) thing in the long term, is probably doomed to failure. People aren't rational, and frankly, given the choice between thinking and not thinking, they seem to overwhelmingly choose the latter.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Does it outlaw Christmas lights aswell? Those are filament-based too.
What about dimmer switches? Those don't work with energy saving light bulbs or areas of the house you need imediate light such as an attic/loft or basement? The idea is a good one but they need to sell regular light bulbs too.
The phosphors in the cheapest ones ARE shit. You gotta pay more for better phosphors, tho.
Blar.
So have the Aussies outlawed owning pets who need heat lamps, people who like heat lamps, lava lamps, and burger joints who use them to dry out their burgers? As with all legislation that aims for a quick, easy fix, this is foolhardy and will likely cause more harm than good.
If you like the idea of replacing incandescents with compact fluorecent bulbs, you might want to take a look at http://onebillionbulbs.com/. They are running a site that demonstrates the aggregate impact of light bulb replacements by groups and individuals.
Are there already fluorescent light bulbs that have an acceptable light? All that I have seen so far have a horrible white'ish light that makes me depressive. LEDs seem to be not much better (at least I bought a LED desk lamp a year ago, and never used it because the light was so much worse than my old Halogen lamp).
Such a regulation would never fly in Canada.
These compact fluorescent bulbs don't take well at all to cold temperatures. I have tried three different brands in my porch, none of them work if the temperature drops significantly below 0 Celsius. They work great indoors however.
Australia and California, sure, Canada and other countries with cold winters, no way.
At least with current compact fluorescents. I imagine they could be re-designed to work in cold weather. (and should be)
Heck yes it impacts "white balance in filming and other camera work" ... in a positive way. It's nearly impossible to buy incandescent film today, ... for many years the entire film industry has been on daylight color temp lighting, often in the form of fluorescent but HID and short arc xenon are also popular. God forbid someone on slashdot know what they are talking about..
Get the brooms out...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_temperature
Most professionals that I've worked with who are interested in getting true colors want nothing to do with "warm" incandescent light. They purposely seek out light in the 5000-6500K range to eliminate the yellow/orange cast. It's easier to add warmth back in afterwards than it is to compensate for it, white-balance wise, during a photography shoot. Yes, I'm aware there are ways around this either in-camera or with raw tweaks afterwards, but given the option in a studio where you control the light, not many I've seen will choose anything in the range you're speaking of.
I know dentists who use calibrated 5000K flourescent lights for matching up porcelain fillings to teeth. Likewise, our creative/marketing department specifically wants "daylight" CFL's to do color matching on prints and digital images. After they're done truing everything up, they may review it under multiple types of light to make sure it's still aestetically pleasing, but that's at the end of the workflow.
So, in short, no, I don't know very many professionals that think of incandescent lighting as "pleasing" to work with. They cope, they get by, they deal with it, but the ones I've worked with don't choose it if given the option.
It would be much easier to just switch our electricity production to nuclear. Then, we can all continue to use energy as we like. Furthermore, instead of massive changes throughout the population (with little real effect), we only require changes from the electricity generating companies.
The dangerous stroboscopic effect only occurs if the fluorescent light source is using a magnetic ballast, which drives the light output to oscillate at the same frequency as the alternating current (60Hz here in the USA). Electronic ballasts increase the oscillation frequency to something above 20000Hz, eliminating flicker and increasing energy-efficiency at the same time. Magnetic ballasts have been outlawed here in commercial and residential applications, but are still allowed in some cheap "shop light" fixtures meant for garages and such, so watch out there. Be aware that LEDs operated on AC exhibit worse flicker than the cheapest fluorescent. At least with a fluorescent, there is some light from the phosphors between cycles -- an LED goes completely dark between cycles. I recently examined dozens of brands of LED holiday lights -- every single one flickered like crazy. That's OK for decoration, but not illumination. You can add electronics to counter this, but you sacrifice energy efficiency and drive up the cost. I'm frankly amazed to see that people care at all about this proposed ban. In the USA, they already banned halophosphor T12 fluorescent lamps and those magnetic ballasts by raising the efficiency requirement(EPACT 1992). And guess what, lots of energy was saved, lighting quality was improved, and nobody died! In fact, nobody even noticed.
They're talking about doing this here in California too. My initial reaction is that if regulators really want to reduce our energy consumption, perhaps they should examine the 200+ amp service feeds that are installed in each new home. It seems pretty simple to me. If you want people to use less power, give them less. Sure, they'll bitch about not being able to run their stove and oven and dishwasher and clothes washer and clothes dryer and air-conditioner and three refrigerators and four plasma TVs and computers and video games and household lighting all simultaneously, but perhaps, just perhaps, with less power available they might learn to be more responsible about its usage.
Or maybe not.
I noticed that these energy saving light bulbs are noticibly dimmer than claimed on the packaging. I did a test connecting both a 60W normal light bulb and a 15W philips fluorescent light bulb in the same room. The Fluorescent was claimed to be as bright as a normal 75W bulb, but it was noticibly dimmer than the 60W bulb.
I think the problem is they measure the total light enimating from the total surface area of the bulb, rather than any real world test of how bright the room is lit. If you look at a normal bulb the light is a lot brighter, but it's just enimating from just one single point, while the florescent light has much dimmer light but enimating from a larger surfice area
OK, so rather than BAN things, lets be realistic. Most people don't care terribly much one way or the other, but buy what they've always bought. So change the game.
Here's the trick. Electric utilities are regulated. In a number of places, electric utilities actually pay for lightbulbs (this used to work in the Chicago area--you brought in your coned bill to a participating hardware store, and they gave you X number of bulbs). Now here's a model that will work. Mandate that electric utilities provide bulbs to customers, and have them only supply CF bulbs. Say you get 2 bulbs per month, and the utility is allowed to charge the cost of 2 bulbs per month to you on your bill for your lightbulb allocation.
Hey, presto. Now CF bulbs are "free" to everyone. You can still buy incandescents if you want, but the CF bulb allowance bill still appears on your statement. Now consumers have a choice, but effectively, we're subsidizing consumers who buy CF's (since they get them at cost), and forcing those using incandescents to pay a surcharge.
I'm sure the specific numbers need some thinking/tweaking, but the idea is simpler and easier than an outright ban, and will have most of the same effect.
For most residential applications, the idea of going 95% to compact fluorescent lighting is a good thing. Saves energy, etc. blah blah blah. Color not so great, but hey, most photographers and video folks weren't using CFL anyway.... But as an overall law, getting rid of incandescents completely is not a good idea, for two reasons: compact fluorescents are not dimmable nor do you find extremely low or high powered lamps. Which means that for certain applications, they just won't work.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
Fluorescents aren't particularly dimmable, and are really only good for flood light purposes. I do lighting design for a living, and the only option available for the work I do (Aside from very expensive HID fixtures, and even more expensive LED's...) is to use incandescent lamps. There are fluorescent lamps that dim, but they have much more expensive ballasts and dimming systems, and once again, can only really be used for floodlights. Also, as far as I know, fluorescents can only dim down to maybe 25% intensity, at which point they simply turn off. No good for what I do, but at least it might allow one to get that romantic mood in their dining room... I don't know how broad the scope of this legislation is in Australia, but I know that when I looked at replacing the 18 work lights in my theatre with fluorescents, the cost was going to be roughly $2000. Currently the cost to replace all the lights is about $100, and they're rated for 5000 hours vs. maybe 20,000 for the CFL's. I suppose the other $1600 would hopefully be made up in energy savings, but I'm skeptical.
I thought that CFL's are cheaper any way once you factor in the cost of running them. We got CFL's all over our house. havent checked the leccy bill but I'm sold on them paying for themselves after about eight months. Can i ask thou, whats the price per unit in the US?
Australia Outlaws Incandescent Light Bulb! Some say the outlook is dim!
I can honestly say I'm in favour of this.
It's one thing to talk of "choice", but the whole point is that there are some things you don't have a choice over. Using filament bulbs is poisoning babies. Anyone with a brain ought to be able to see that. Banning filament bulbs -- or even taxing them heavily, something like about 5 GB pence a watt -- would be a great first step. The market will adapt, sooner or later. There will be some kind of retrofit bulb available for the weirdy screw-fitting ones they have in fridges, sewing machines, ovens and the like.
Wasn't it Australia where they read out the weather forecast in Fahrenheit one night, then switched to Celsius the next morning, and now nobody can even understand it when "bloody septics" talk about temperature? Sometimes a big, hard push is what it takes.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
That's not so. Even old fashioned flourescent strips (compact flourescents run at a frequency between 25 kilohertz and 40 kHz, and the flourescent coating has a long enough persistence that it won't flicker significantly anyway at that frequency) don't act as a strobe.
The characteristics of a strobe are a very short duration bright flash with a relatively long dark period between. Imagine a series of spikes on an oscilloscope, and you'll get an idea what the light intensity from a strobe is like.
An old flourescent on the other hand - the light output is closer to a sine wave than a set of spikes. So while an object spinning at 120 revolutions per second will show clearer during the maximum brightness of the flourescent, you will still see the blurred motion of the spinning object because the flourescent doesn't then go completely dark - rather, it dims over time, still providing some light, before starting to brighten again on the other half of the AC wave form.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Now, the only reason I even knew about this was because of someone I know that suffers from it... http://www.lupus.org/education/brochures/photosens itivity.html
Skip down to the #3 in the "How can you protect yourself against ultraviolet light?" section and you'll see that this law could adversely affect those that have this condition.
It's sad to see legislation based upon whether or not the bulb is incandescent. Not all incandescent bulbs are evil. this one, for example, can save a lot of energy in the context of a closet or a stairwell(*), and it doesn't have the nasty tradeoff that compact fluorescent bulbs make where they contain nasty elements that need to be recycled. (And how many people are actually going to properly dispose of compact fluorescents, honestly?) Legislation that isn't conscious of the tradeoffs could end up doing more harm than good. (*) Caveat, this bulb was taken off the market. :-(
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
Do they make one that will operate at low temperatures?
Or do I just have to rummage around my fridge in the dark with the door open, causing the fridge to run longer?
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
As much as I like saving energy, there are some health issues. A fair number of people are very UV sensitive - my wife has a disease which renders her vulnerable to sunburn if she sits under normal fluorescent lights for any length of time (conveniently, the hospitals around only use these... making ER visits somewhat self-defeating). There are something like a million people with the same disease in the US, and there are several other diseases that cause similar photosensitivity.
We've tried CF bulbs before - they cause the sunburn.
The California proposed ban is actually thus a Americans with Disabilities Act (US federal law) violation.
The day it was announced, I called the California assemblyman who was proposing it's office and informed them of this and asked them what the health and safety exceptions were going to be. They said they'd get right back to me...
I have no problem moving away from incandescents. Unlike some, I don't mind fluorescent color temperatures, though even the good ones seem a little off compared to the incandescents I'm used to. I live with fluorescent at work. I would pay for good LED bulbs if I could - the lifetime and hassle avoidance seem good from an economics standpoint as well as environmental, and I just changed several incandescents that burned out over the weekend. But LED isn't on the market yet.
Anyone who lives in Australia - I urge you to make sure that your government takes photosensitive people's health into account and either defer an incandescent ban until LED bulbs are available or have them provide proper exceptions (and ensure market availability) for those who need to not use CF.
I have to agree on this. Doesn't seem like they bothered to even research it. I know someone that suffers from lupus which many people suffer from also suffere from photosensitivity: http://www.lupus.org/education/brochures/photosens itivity.html
Skip down to #3 in the "How can you protect yourself against ultraviolet light?" section.
First, at the moment compact fluorescent manufacturers need to constantly improve their products to complete with incandescent lights. They have made great strides, but there is still more work to be done. What will happen to their incentive to improve their product when they no longer need to compete with the incandescent bulbs?
Second, as typical for environmentalist wackos, they would rather bitch and moan about signing a useless treaty that has not a chance in hell of accomplishing anything, than to do something concrete that will impact energy consumption.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Plus there's the fact that the white powder in CFLs is actually made from ground-up kittens' bones.
I think you were referring to "AC" as the type of power that comes from a typical wall socket. To nitpick a little: AC is AC, whether it's 60 Hz or 400 Hz or 20 kHz. As long as it's not zero, the frequency is irrelevant when determining if a current is AC or DC. If the direction of electron current reverses during the cycle, it is AC. If the electron flow is in the same direction throughout the cycle, it is DC.
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
You're right. I took mine back to Lowes, turns out there was a recall on them. I bought a bunch of packages from them and I still had the receipt. Seems to me they were "lights america" brand, however I may be wrong. I have replaced almost every light bulb in my house. Some have been in service for a decade already, the ones that replaced the 150 Watt bulbs. I had 6 in my basement, today one of the originals remains and that one will probably blow soon. I even use them outside for the light post. I get many years out of even the small ones burning for many hours each day. Sometimes you can catch them on sale.
I run my lights for about two hours a day, tops. Maybe four. I don't really live in my house, so the utility difference is nill.
Maybe. Depends on where you live. In your case you might save about $7/month (.07 KWH, 10 X 100 Watt bulbs (1KW/H), 4 hours/day and then 20 watt CF). Now multiply this over thousands of houses... Maybe you burn a light or two to discourage burglers? Anyhow, it is probably safe to buy them again. Just hold onto your receipt.
Done right a program like this is good. But, will they do the work needed?
Florescent lamps contain mercury (about 20 milligrams http://www.worldwise.com/recfluorlig.html).
Without educating the public and implementing a recycling program the ecology may be helped less than intended.
This 20 year bulb is cool, but expensive and less efficient that a CFLs. http://www.besthomeledlighting.com/product/OBS-80- 260-E27-96-WC
On the other hand, my outdoor lights are solar LEDs.
s -selling-solar.html
--
Solar, bringing light to your home: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'd like to know too, but for some reason many people don't answer my questions no matter how much I curse at them.
If only there were some sort of automatic system into which we could type terms like "photography fluorescent", "autistic fluorescent", or "Tourette treatment" and receive answers!
But seriously, I'm stunned by the hostile reaction "UbuntuDupe" is getting - and I've got CFL bulbs in every socket where they'll fit. Do people really think that the key to energy conservation is to badly micromanage every possible decision that people might make that involves energy use, rather than more simply charging for the externalties of energy production as they are incurred?
On the other hand, maybe I'm just on the wrong side of the "Let's force everyone to do what we like" bandwagon; why am I arguing when I should be trying to weasel my way into the inner circle? If you all like my decisions about what kind of lightbulbs to buy, just wait until you hear my thoughts about what kinds of entertainment you can enjoy, what levels of diet and exercise will become mandatory, and what kind of religious instruction we'll be giving your children.
This will do nothing for in terms of total energy savings, what Australia should do is switch to nuclear power plants and produce more electricity, this lightbulb stuff is crap.
Oh, and by the way, I would just buy the bulbs somewhere illegally because I love the incandescent light and hate the fluorescent. It would be a cool idea to start making these lights by myself, probably would make a killing on the black market.
You can't handle the truth.
Go forth it!
The running time to get net energy savings for a normal fluorescent tube was measured in seconds. The time for a CFL is less than a second. However, if you need 10 seconds to wait to full light before looking around for five seconds and turning it off, you do get a net energy savings with an equivalent incandescent.
I also wouldn't put a CFL in a stairway, as that would be a safety hazard since people are used to flipping a switch and going -- and full light just wouldn't be there. I wouldn't put one in a fridge since you don't want to waste energy standing there with the fridge open waiting for the light to get bright enough.
The Australian division of Easybake oven, has introduced a new replacement oven that uses over 10,000 LED's.
Who read that as indecent lightbulb?
I'm sure it's been said over and over here by people with intelligence, but it needs repeating. Over and over until the people that aren't so bright (hah) understand.
* CFLs contain mercury; no way will a decent disposal plan work well, and the garbage bulbs will become an environmental hazard.
* CFLs, even the best, have an unnatural tint to the light that makes them inferior to many.
* CFLs, even the best, have an annoying hum.
* CFLs take a comparatively long time to reach full brightness.
* CFL use in ovens, microwaves, closets, etc are wasteful and inefficient.
Use a standard incandescent lightbulb instead. Use a lower wattage and make sure you *turn the lights off when you aren't using it and when you already have sufficient light, e.g. in the daytime* and you'll save just as much energy as you would by going to crappy, inferior CFLs.
Despite this MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE AGAINST CFL usage there are people who fight for their use and adoption, and mods and "NEW TECH = BETTER BECAUSE THEY SAID SO" people who would suppress people with intelligence that rally against the adoption of garbage technology such as this. Therefore this is being posted anonymously for this reason (plus the fact that this has likely already been said before by many others, but it is still worth repeating).
*SIGH*.
I'm sure that if they improved AC efficiency by 10%, or increased the temperature by a couple of degrees, it would mean a much larger power saving than changing the lights in a hot country like Australia... Don't sweat the small stuff, I say. How about banning SUVs?
"Bright White" CFLs have a strong greyish tinge.
How the hell can LIGHT have a GREY 'tinge'? Definition: "To apply a trace of color to; tint." Most of the people I talk to who object to CF lights and how they "look funny", don't have a single one in their house. Your brain automatically adjusts to different color temperatures. I used to do theater lighting design, and this is (believe it or not) exploited by designers. One scene's overall temperature influences the next.
"Daylight" CFLs have a strong bluish tinge similar to the backlight of an LCD display. Ugly. Horrible for photography. Looks nothing like real daylight.
Tungsten bulbs have a significantly higher color temperature than normal incandescents. Daylight CFLs have one significantly higher than tungsten bulbs. Would it surprise you to know that photographers actually seek out the high temperature FL tubes for home-made lightboxes?
This is because, unlike you, they know how to properly set the white balance on their camera (hint: you need a grey card.)
This would make you want to slit your wrist if you sat under it all day. Totally useless for anything except killing yourself.
I have a "bright white" bulb in my bathroom, one in my kitchen, and one by my desk. The rest are "soft" white. You'll be happy to know that no wrist-slitting has occured in several months since moving in, and my landlord was shocked at how low my power bill was.
Please help metamoderate.
I've never been to Australia, so don't think I'm ripping on them thinking I know "all about Aussies".
However, this is another example of a well-intentioned law simply crossing the line. Legislators have the right idea, but regulating things to the point where they are defacto illegal, is just not right.
California has the same thing: Regulating things to the point that they become illegal, without actually passing a law declaring something to be illegal, is just not right. I understand the need for regulations, but in cases where the defacto banning of something is clearly visible, is just not right.
In spite of California and their out of control legislation, I have gone out of my way for the following:
Illegal gas cans
Illegal toilets
Illegal refrigerator
and coming soon..... Illegal light bulbs.
Plus I read banned (hence illegal) books while in grade school)
Hmmmmm..... They don't care if I run my server 24 and two 22" CRT monitors hours a day, but they care if I turn on an illegal light bulb for a few mins while I get dressed in the morning.
I can understnd that the laws/regulations are well-intentioned, but Big Brother should stay out of my house. If I want to pay for the wasted energy used by incandescent bulbs, then so be it. Keep in mind that the laws, no matter how well-intentioned they may be, can backfire.
California forced oil refiners to pay to reconfigure their equipment to add MTBE to their gasoline. Later, when they realized it wasn't such a good idea, they forced refiners to reconfigure their equipment to remove the MTBE, and also pay for the cleanup of the MTBE that had gotten into reserviors and lakes after being used in motor vehicles.
Another one was the low-flush toilets that were required for all housholds in California. Low flush means less water used. However, they clog up a hell of a lot, and require more flushes, and a lot of trouble to unclog. More flushes means more water wasted trying to do the same amount of work.
Legislators need to think about what they are doing, and not listen to the lobbyists or special interest groups that they sleed with.
What California should ban are special interests and lobbyists. I don't care if they share my beliefs or not-they should be banned before anything else.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
This slap is unsourced and is not present in the linked article. Not all environmental groups support the Kyoto protocol; this makes the vague implied assertion, that all environmental groups are giving a plan to replace incandescents with alternative lighting technologies "lukewarm" support, suspect.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
Today isn't April 1st...??
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
So many coments here are along the lines of "Boo hoo! Those CF lamps either make my house look ugly, or are just the wrong shade of white."
Do you want a pretty house, or do you want a planet that supports life? Oh sure, the plannet will continue to support life, but if we keep farking it up, it's not going to be the same kind of life that we've been experiancing for the last several thousand years.
Get some perspective!
Note that this is in reference to Belt Drive Turntables....eventually, drive systems were necessatitated that no longer required this. but here is the Wiki quote:
"Belt drive system
Belt drives brought improved motor and platter isolation compared to idler-wheel designs. Motor noise heard as low-frequency rumble was much reduced. Many belt-drive turntables having multiple speeds used a simple mechanical system to change speeds, using a mechanism to move the belt between different-sized pulleys on the motor shaft. For electronic speed control, it is difficult to design multiple-speed synchronous motors; consequently, DC servomotors with electronics providing speed control have gained favor. On the most sophisticated designs, optical sensors on the platter are used to ensure the speed of the platter remains stable. Many platters have a continuous series of strobe markings machined or printed around their edge to provide optical pulses to these speed-control systems. Viewing these markings in artificial light at mains frequency produces a stroboscopic effect, which can be used by the operator to verify rotational speed. DC servomotors rotate in steps rather than continuously. This is referred to as 'cogging', and can add noise during playback. Helical armature motors can be used to overcome this. Problems with belt instability and deterioration have largely been solved by use of modern elastic polymers."
Please feel free to research what is meant by "artificial light at mains frequency"....go on....I'll wait right here.
A goal is a dream with a deadline
Gels work by subtracting wavelengths from the spectrum of light. CFLs have a spectrum with at most four sharp peaks, they do not radiate a full black body spectrum. There isn't anything between the peaks for the warming gel pack to subtract. Therefore, this is not a solution. The only solution is to add more types of phosphors to generate a fuller spectrum. This both adds to the cost and decreases the efficiency, however.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Try two minutes for full brightness:
http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?cid=1783
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
It is now, but only because freon is no longer made, and as a result is becoming rarer and more expensive when you can get it.
And they'd only just got electricity too!
I keed, I keed - just a dig from a Kiwi (hey, we're still on candles.On the other hand, we can play cricket!)
All bow to the Great God Kyoto.
None is worthy but She, who must be obeyed.
Sign the Kyoto Agreement, and all shall go well for you.
Worry not that all else is crumbling about you. For Kyoto is All.
> Clearly you've never actually used them, just like regurgitating what someone with an agenda wants to tell you.
It depends on which ones you buy, actually. If you buy cheap, crappy ones, you're likely to pay for it in the problems they give you. Similarly, people have little experience with them and don't know not to put them in dimmers (unless they're of a kind specifically made to allow for that), etc.
Most of the problems people have are the result of using them incorrectly, although there are a few applications (e.g. photography, incubators & EZ Bake ovens) where incandescent bulbs may be better or necessary.
Incandescents are considered cold light in terms of color temperature (5000 - 5500k). Blue and white light are considered hot (9000 - 9500k... outside shade). Photographically speaking that is. Complete opposite of what most people esthetically think of as warm and cold light.
There's a lot of incandescent bulbs that can't be replaced with CF. For example, the bulb in your oven, that sucker gets HOT. How about those little night-light style bulbs in the "water in the door" of many refrigerators? Just outlawing bulbs is short-sighted and will cause problems. Don't forget all those incandescent bulbs in cars, there's a bunch of them in there. I'd love to see a CF replacement for the dome light.
I also find it ironic, that other technologies that use lots of power aren't outlawed. There's lots of audio freaks that still use vacuum tubes. I've been known to weld metal which isn't very energy efficient, especially when I make something that sucks and I'll probably throw away.
The answer to this isn't to outlaw things, but to use economic means to change behavior. Make electricity cost more and people will treat it as a more precious resource. If gasoline was $5 a gallon instead of $2, I'd think twice before driving sometimes.
I lived in New Mexico a couple years ago, and they had lots of "save water" campaigns. Yet water was very cheap. Certainly a mixed message. I can see not wanting to raise the price of such a critical resource, but it could be done in a tiered fashion, such that the normal amount needed was cheap, but more than that gets expensive in a hurry.
Sheldon
This is because, unlike you, they know how to properly set the white balance on their camera (hint: you need a grey card.)
A gray card is more useful in terms of getting correct and consistent exposure. They were the tool of choice in film photography (although I still bracketed all my B/W). They are of limited use in colour correction however, it's much better if you know what kind of lights are there and can just adjust for that in the first place (e.g., I know the lights under the tradeshow roof for the auto-show I attend anually are pretty much Tungsten temperature: set it and forget it). Also, what works for the eye may not always match the data (e.g., how you remember the scene vs. how the scene actually appeared), so adjusting one image to 'look right' on a calibrated monitor and then adjusting the other images in a set accordingly may be more appropriate.
as for CFLs, the entire exterior of my house is CFL-lit and they look just fine. I also replaced all the lights in my garage with CFLs and it's actually brighter than the incandescents, with no flicker. I'll be moving inside with them soon with no complaint.
I don't think you can produce passable photographs with flourescents, can you?
Does this mark the end of these industries in Australia?
Do keep in mind this is a country that produced a children's book called "Hooky the Cripple", about an abused hunchback/son of a prostitute (named "Madonna') who stabs a butcher 21 times and then has the judge strangle his lawyer in court.
It was written by a guy who cut his own ears off and killed 19 people, and was illustrated by a guy who chained a rotting pig's head to his leg and walked around everywhere with it.
There is CLEARLY something in Australia's drinking water. Any normal person's response to meeting a giant reptile with more teeth than Rachael Ray is to avoid it, not leap on it and then shove a finger up its back passage.
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
Good point; I mainly made the mistake because I was adopting the language of the GP ("Fluorescent bulbs running on AC are strobe lights...").
:-). No, really: I was recently asked to calculate the phase offset (current against input potential) when the frequency was 0Hz, 60Hz, and infinity Hz.
...Turns out they were perfectly aware of this and wanted the limit as the phase tended to 0 & infinity.
...Oops.
Besides, if you want me to nitpick even more, I could say that DC is just AC with a frequency of 0Hz
I (slightly sarcastically) pointing out the utter meaninglessness of a non-oscillating current having a phase offset (never the question of infinity Hz!).
What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
Seems a terribly problematic way of doing things. T'would be much more efficient and effective to tax bulbs, etc. based on their efficiencies. Incandescents would carry a hefty tax as light-producing devices due to poor efficiency of converting electricity to light, and would also fair poorly as heat-producing devices, relative to heat pumps, etc.
...And not "try and."
the incandescent bulb -- which converts the majority of used energy to heat rather then light -- will be phased out.
All the energy used ends up being heat, whether the bulb is incandescent or fluorescent, except for the miniscule energy that escapes the planet and that still becomes heat somewhere else. The point is that fluorescent uses less energy per lumen than incandescent, not that the energy used for fluorescent doesn't end up being heat.
The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
Dumb question: are halogen bulbs considered incandescent? My house has many low voltage halogen fixtures on dimmer switches. I would really hate to have to replace my low voltage halogen dimmer switches and light fixtures. Thanks in advance...
to change a lightbulb?
All of them!
The quality of light emitted by standard fluorescent bulbs is much yellower than the "Reveal" type bulbs emit. For those with Seasonal Affective Disorder, the more natural light of the Reveal-type bulbs can help reduce the symptoms.
Well in Southern California, electricity prices are expensive already especially during the summer due to air conditioners. Do they need to be taxxed?
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
I wonder if this has more to do with lowering the cost of consumer's electricity bills.
Australia's electricity supply is generated predominantly by coal and so produces huge quantities of carbon emissions. Australia still has plenty of coal in the ground and is keen to support the coal industry as a provider of jobs and exports.
The current Federal Government is pushing ahead with plans to retrofit coal power stations with 'clean coal technology' - which generally isn't actually burning clean coal, but involves scrub the emsission and storing the carbon. Claims this will increase power bills by 15-30% for consumers has been met with outrage in the media. If the a move to CFLs can save consumers even 5% (possibly more?) on their electricity bill it may help mute criticsm of the costs of cleaner powerstations.
Well then, my lights must be different from your lights. I don't see the markings stand still (which is how you use a stroboscope to confirm rotational speed) when the turntable is illuminated by a regular lightbulb. The effect is only visible where the onboard strobe light shines on the markings. You can make the markings appear to move back and forth by adjusting the platter's rotational speed.
Self awareness - try it!
Seriously.
They produce an unpleasant light, it's not "warm" or soft.
I have incandescents in the lounge room because well fluro isn't romantic, it's not nice, it's just plain ugly.
I've got the fluro ones in the bathroom and kitchen as a lot of people do but honestly who puts those fluro's in the lounge?
(I know it's a silly complaint, yes I realise energy is not an unlimited resource, this doesn't change the fact the fluro IS a nasty light)
I purchased a metal halide lamp for the main room in my house. This room is lit up all evening so there is no problem with the re-strike time that are normally a problem with MH bulbs. The bulb is only 68-watts, has a good color index, and is slightly *brighter* than the *300-watt* halogen that it replaced. It was an easy choice for this particular room. I wish there were more companies making MH fixtures for homes. So far I can only find one company, Microsun (http://www.microsun.com) that makes fixtures for the home.
I physically own one of these turntables and it really-in-truly works with only ambient artificial light...
Fairly substantial billet-aluminum table, belt drive, little black marks along the edge...no stobe light.
I only quoted Wikipedia to give you an outside reference, discount if you must, but these turntables do exist.
A goal is a dream with a deadline
It depends on the ambient temperature and the particular bulb. YMMV.
ever used a bandsaw/circular saw under fluorescent light?
an RPM that is any multiple of the AC frequency looks like it is sitting still.
For this reason, all workshops have incandescent lights.. I seem to remember hearing that fluorescent lights were illegal as primary overhead lighting in machine shops (or had to be augmented with incandescent) for this reason.
More than a few guys have lost fingers/hands because the blade looks like it's sitting still.
I would mod you up :)
Why, yes I have been touched by His noodly appendage. And I plan to sue.
I'm a Canadian living in Australia. The first thing that shocked me here was that it costs about as much to heat my house when it's 10 degrees outside than it did in Canada when it was -20 degrees. I mean WTF?? I think mandating proper insulation of houses would have a lot more impact on CO2 emissions. Even better, it would pay for itself in a few years just with reduction of energy consumption (both in the winter and in the summer BTW). Just to give an idea to people from northern countries, my house (like many, many others) is 100% free from any insulation material and the only thing that separates the inside from the outside is solid brick.
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
In sunny areas, as well as rural areas, people are setting up solar panels and/or wind turbines to live "off of the grid." Who gives a shit how much energy they use by having incandescent light bulbs vs. CFL?
And then we have the law of unintended consequences - if a family saves $XXX on their energy bill using CFLs, they will just allocate that energy for more heating/cooling purposes, decorative purposes (outdoor lighting), etc. There will never be a net effect of less energy use.
The bigger incandescents are more efficient than the smaller ones.
40 watt incandescent, 280 lumens, 7 lumens per watt. It's really an infrared source that somehow leaks a little visible light.
100 watt incandescent, 1740 lumens, 17.4 lumens per watt.
If people responded to your tax by buying multiple smaller bulbs it would backfire. If they bought compact fluorescents then there's be big savings per bulb, but available compact fluoresents start getting thin on the ground if you need more light than a 100W incandescent. A 32W CFL will replace a 150W legacy bulb but those aren't on just every store shelf.
I thought US gas was heavily subsidised anyway; at least, the price you pay there seems cheaper than anywhere else in the world.
Incandescent bulbs are less efficient in Australia compared to the United States. That's because they don't burn as hot due to the need to run at a lower current since the electric voltage is higher there (240 volts) than in the USA (120 volts). Low voltage (12 volts) bulbs are more efficient. Of course fluorescent are better in any country in terms of efficiency. I wonder when they will have low voltage (12 volt) fluorescent replacement bulbs to plug into low voltage lighting systems that already exist.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
What if I run my house on non-carbon-sourced electricity and happen to want better light than is available from compact fluorescent bulbs? Am I going to become a black-market halogen-flood criminal?
I applaud any effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but I'm not sure this is really the environmental victory it purports to be. If we wanted to stop polluting, we should... well, regulate the emission of greenhouse gases maybe, instead of regulating each individual possible way of consuming 'black' power. Mandating more efficient light bulbs just means that with the savings on his electricitiy bill, joe consumer can now run another appliance. Until there's price pressure on the consumer to limit consumption, things will stay the same.
If there's one thing I won't stand for, it's intolerance.
One thing people usually overlook. In the winter, where you want to heat the house, a bulb contributes to the heating of the house. In fact, where you sit, is usually where you have the lights on, slightly delaying when the gas heat kicks in, while in other places of the house, are slightly cooler. I think the net result is that incandescent light bulbs can actually be beneficial. You'd have to use them below ceiling height though.
In the summer, it's the other way around. You spend energy cooling the house, and then a bulb sits there and makes it warm again. Kinda like the fridge in the winter. You spend energy to make the house warm, and then energy again to have a box with colder air inside of it. What a screwed up backwards world we live in.
Anyway, in the end - yes - impose the better light bulbs, because if you have to wait for the average idiot/moron to participate, it'll never happen.
Have people caught onto the fact that those really really cheap 4 for a dollar bulbs are intentionally made to have an extra short lifespan yet? Those people refuse to buy the $1.50 bulbs, even if they in the end they last 5 times as long.
Kinda like bus tickets, people buy individual tickets for, say, $2.50. They won't buy 10 for $20. Why? They *FEEL* it's cheaper. Or, "I don't have the money now", "I don't want to spend that much".
Yes, take control, decide it for them, people are too stupid to do the right thing.
If they are seriously DETERMINED to get the overwhelming majority of people to adopt compact fluorescents as a replacement for incandescents, they could place an excise tax on the incandescents and raise it a bit each year or so until they cost half again as much per bulb as the CF ones, or maybe even double. That would be all you need to do to get most ordinary consumers to go with CF. Problem solved.
Outlawing incandescents altogether is using an axe to swat a fly. There are a number of different kinds of special situations in which gas-discharge lighting is for one reason or another really not an acceptable option, and for those situations incandescent is really the only reasonable way to go, and would be even if the bulbs cost twice as much as the CF ones. These situations are rare enough that they don't add up to enough energy waste to worry about at a national level, so you lose nothing significant by allowing the use of incandescent bulbs to go on in such cases.
Put the collected excise tax moneys into a fund designated for, umm, I don't know, subsidizing research into improved energy efficiency or something.
This sort of thing is exactly what excise taxes are *for*. It's why you tax gas: because you want fuel efficiency to be worth more to car buyers (and thus to car makers). (It was working in the eighties, but in the nineties people (and reviewers like Consumer Reports) started looking so much at safety ratings that fuel efficiency became almost a non-issue; if you want it to be a major concern again, raise the excise tax until gas prices quadruple or so, and it will be.) While you're at it you (theoretically) put the money into road repairs, but that's not the real point.
I'm glad I don't live in Australia. I don't mind if the price of incandescents goes up to make CFs more attractive, but I don't want them to be altogether unavailable. There are certain situations where I specifically want them, not because they're cheap, but because for certain things they're much better.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
What about Easy-Bake Ovens? Or Creepy Crawler Thingmakers?
Maybe it would just take longer to cook things then
-Darkshadow (There was a thing called Heaven; but all the same they used to drink enormous quantities of alcohol.)
Changing to CFLs, as some posters noted, is a good start but can lead to squandering the savings through other means (leaving lights on, cranking the heat, and such). Instead of worrying about what other people might do, take action yourself. Start simply; although laudable, dramatic lifestyle changes are difficult. Easy ways to help the environment are listed online:
http://davidjarvis.ca/essays/environment.shtml
Does anybody care about the disposal issues of CF light-bulbs? There is Mercury in each and everyone of those things.
Whoops... 2 second delay before the brake lights come on.
-Maurice
FixingTheWeb.com Helping to keep the bad guys out...
Ok.. I'm kinda biased towards CFL's... Mainly because in the winter you can't seem to get them to turn on when it is below 0 centegrade (I live in Toronto, ON. Canada).Or if they actually do turn on, they are soo dim it isn't worth it. This applies to the fridge aswell! Who would put a CFL in their fridge! IT takes to long to turn on and it's dim. I don't see anyone splurging to rig up an LED or XENON equivelent for the ol' ice box which would cost mucho $$$. Guess they didn't think of that did they?
What about Easy-Bake Ovens? Or Creepy Crawler Thingmakers?
Perfect examples of why people should switch to CFLs.
Even ignoring the energy wasted in the form of heat, I've seen recessed light sockets with considerably less ventilation than the two toys you mentioned. We proably don't want to know how hot it gets in there...
Because the sun is rising or setting, or (in the temperate regions) the sun sits low in the sky due to the season. And although I won't speculate as to why, people like that light. It's why photographers call the hour after sunrise and hour before sunset the "magic hours."
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
This measure in Australia is a bit of political stunt
The current government here has been vehemently opposed to any cuts in CO2 emissions for over ten years. In the past few months, since the drought and enormous fires have hit hard, people have got scared about climate change, and feeling powerless, people are getting angry at the government for their inaction. This government, much like the US administration, has used fear as the primary basis of their reelection strategy since they gained office.
It's fairly widely established that when people are scared, their ability to reason is reduced and they will try to stay with whatever feels safe irrespective of logic. Anger has the reverse effect, causing people to reject the status quo.
This move by the current government is an attempt to make people feel that they are doing something, to ease the anger at at their inaction. In the past few months, with an election looming this year, they have been falling over themselves to been seen to be managing water effectively, reduce carbon emissions and are even talking about adopting a carbon trading scheme.
Australia has a natural abundance of alternate energy sources and a highly educated and intelligent population. Last year, the same federal government canned the rebate on installing renewable energy in homes. In the anouncement of this new measure, the environment minister said that if the whole world adopts this measure it will offset more than Australia's annual CO2 emissions. If the government instead concentrated in earnest on renewable technology, and sold the technology to overseas markets, Australia could help reduce global emissions even more and encourage new local industries.
Given a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, you get the idea.
This is the main reason for the cool reception from environmental groups
I don't therefore I'm not.
And I just installed dimmers in all my rooms.
I agree in principle, and have thought about the tax/subsidy approach in the past. There is one catch though - who gets to decide what's good for you and wat not?
Example: I've heard proposals to start taxing foods with a high fat content, while at the same time we're learning that heart disease is not necessarily caused by a fatty diet, but more indirectly through the blood vessel inflammation due to high blood sugar. So what should be taxed? The low-carb proponents would seriously oppose a tax on fat foods - which are already quite expensive.
On the other hand, taxing sugar or worse, any starchy food would cause a real riot...
Personally I'm in favour of taxing refined sugar for a start.
change is inevitable
This is untrue. The operating temperature of an incandescent lamp is selected to produce as much as light
as possible while resulting in a reasonably long life and avoiding melting and vaporization of the tungsten
filament.
Volts * Amps = Watts
The Amps drawn at a given voltage, and hence wattage consumed by a given incandescent lamp is a function of the applied voltage and
the filament's resistance.
Volts = Amps * Resistance (Ohms)
As the voltage applied is increased, the resistance of the filament must also increase in order to maintain the same wattage,
so, a 100 Watt lamp operating at 120 Volts will have a lower resistance filament than a 100 Watt lamp operating at 240 Volts.
Both lamps will be designed to operate at a color temperature of approximately 2800 Kelvin. The 240 Volt lamp will have a thinner, longer,
weaker filament than the 120 Volt lamp, but will be just as efficient because the filament is operating at the same temperature.
The 240 Volt lamp will burn out faster and be more vulnerable to shock and vibration though.
Assuming this is true:h tml
0 7/02/a_matter_of_global_concern.html
http://blogs.smh.com.au/thedailytruth/Dtwhopping.
"The Federal Government estimates replacing the old bulbs with compact flourescents in homes could cut greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 800,000 tonnes a year in 2008-12.
Australia's emissions in 2004 totalled 564.7 million tonnes."
Do the math, it's about an 0.15% reduction. It amazes me that people are so easily conned into thinking that something is environmentally friendly. I've seen people suggest that you should rush out and replace all your light globes with "energy efficient" ones. Never mind that they cost 10 times the price, do not in my experience last anywhere near as long as promised, and require the use of even more damaging materials to manufacture than the old standard light globes. Do people ever think maybe the reason they're being brain washed into thinking these things are energy efficient is that with the price being higher so is the profit margin?
http://blogs.smh.com.au/thedailytruth/archives/20
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
It is true that the new bulbs oscillate at much higher frequencies than the tubes of old, but I have scoured the web and I have found zero study on the effects of high frequency strobing light on the brain.
At low frequencies, (televisions, 100-120 hz fluorescent tubes), you get all kinds of nasty side-effects, from low-level hypnosis which allows messages to enter deep into the subconscious, to epileptic seizures.
I've seen some people complain of migraines and other symptoms perhaps stemming from the cold cathode tubes in their flat screen monitors, which strobe at around 200 hz.
But these CF bulbs strobe at much higher rates of around 120000 hz.
What happens when a bulb flashing that fast is near a 60 hz wall power source? Can the electronics in the light be affected and thus allow the light pulsing to modulate and simulate a much lower frequency? --Microwave energy from Cell Phones does this by design and the brain notices. High frequency EM carrier waves which modulate down to lower frequencies fall into the brain wave ballpark and sympathetic resonance starts affect the function of the brain.
In the case of wall socket 60 hz power, in conjunction with the Earth's own magnetic field, something called cyclotronic resonance kicks in, whereby the molecule whose natural frequency profile matches up, starts to vibrate faster and move on a vector. The molecule in question happens to be lithium, which occurs naturally in the blood and plays a role in the regulation of brain chemistry. When it is energized and given a vector to move on, it more readily crosses the blood brain barrier, and delivers a medicinal effect. Lithium is one of the primary elements in many anti-depressant drugs. (So-called, "Lithium Drugs".)
This stuff is entirely by design. Keeps the human population buzzed out and feeble. In the Northern end of Nova Scotia, in Cape Breton, there is a large population directly descended from the Celts. The old women of that population described that when the electric light came, the second-sight many of them experienced as a matter of course, went away.
With all the deliberate control measures being heaped upon humanity, such a move as this fluorescent light thing smells. I'd love to know more about how high frequency strobe lights affect the brain and perception.
If instinct is any gauge, then the simple fact that the new bulbs make me feel queazy is probably a good indicator behind the scheme.
-FL
...they could still market it as a winter bulb. It would still be energy efficient.
Yeah, houseplants, that's the ticket.
Watch those HID lamps for lots of hard UV during startup though.
Wear sunglasses while the light is starting (or put the bulb behind UV coated glass).
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
They are just a different kind. Same general principle though, they heat a wire to give off light. HID lights, also popular in cars, aren't really good for home use because of very poor color spectrum, not to mention somewhat complex power requirements.
Gives the room a nice bukakae atmosphere.
His will just likely be sooner.
The last year of your life is the most medically expensive. Weather it's at 40 or 90.
Your lifetime health care costs could well be higher.
So stop trying to live forever.
It's going to cost the rest of us money.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Don't believe me ask you utility for its resource mix, then ask them for last years. Bet the delta up is in coal (I have no idea where you live, but the odds are real good).
We're not talking about where it could come from in 'Hippie fantasyland'.
Why don't we all just light our houses with caged lightning bugs, that will work...
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
No, the other parts of the world just have higher taxes on it. This BBC page shows how much tax is levied against a liter of gasoline in the UK and other parts of Europe. http://www.internationalfuelprices.com/ has a PDF with the prices of fuel world wide and the maps show if fuel is taxed or subsidized. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_tax also has some of the rate information.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
1. That will get you reelected.
2. That will get you lynched.
Pick one.
Have you ever been to Australia? Distances are large. Public transport is no more useful there then Amtrak is useful outside BostiYorkadelphia.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
No kidding. That way, the people who NEED them can still get them, while everyone else will just buy the cheaper bulbs.
Then again, that might require that politicians and the general public understand a tiny bit about economics.
http://outcampaign.org/
I've had very inconsistent experiences with CFL lifespans. I've been buying them for several years now and try to use them wherever possible, primarily for the electrical savings (I'm an admitted light-forget-to-turn-off-er).
But I have a few fixtures that CFLs simply don't last in. My office is one where it makes the least sense -- 4 identical recessed ceiling fixtures, all on the same circuit and all bought at the same time. CFLs in one fixture simply don't last -- the three others are all the same CFLs I installed originally.
One side benefit I take advantage (and hasn't correlated with my early dying problem) is the ability to up-lamp a fixture -- using a 100-watt equivalent in a fixture designed for only a 60 watt incandescent and STILL saving electricity. I've even made use of the 150-watt equivalent bulbs, although they're kind of big.
There are two big problems with CFLs. One is that they do not work with dimmers. We have a number of lamps which are controlled by dimmers. These are especially valuable in connection with watching movies.
Someone please mod parent down. There is an amazing amount of misinformation going on in the comments to this story. To prove the quote above wrong, just search for dimmable cfl:
dimmable cfl
I'm surprised that on Slashdot of all places people would be so against a new technology. I can't think of any other explanation as to why people would be so quick to spread misinformation about technologies they obviously know nothing about.
CFLs could make a significant positive difference. A lot of people believe in them. If you're going to rag on them, at least do basic fact checking first. To lend some credence to the whining going on here, they're not perfect for every situation. But I find it hard to believe that they aren't appropriate for at least one or two sockets in every home.
I'm a big tall mofo.
I actually think you have some solid ideas, but man you come across as a pompous ass. I hope for your sake you're not like this in real life.
I'm a big tall mofo.
Because they contain mercury, and mercury is highly toxic. These bulbs will require special disposal procedures. How many of these things are going to just end up in the trash because their "green" owners don't even realize mercury is even in the things? For disposal recommendations, please see your friendly US Government pdf file for details. In the meantime, my incandescent bulbs aren't very efficient, but they've never been blamed for dementia either...
For years the Federal Energy Star program has perpetuated the myth that if you buy appliances (or any electrical device) for the home that uses less energy, you'll see proportional savings in your monthly power bill. This is rarely the case.
Other eco-writers do similar simplistic math to calculate savings in money, energy and carbon. A recent example is Charles Fishman's September 2006 article in Fast Company magazine about WalMart's CFL project, "<a href="http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/108/open _lightbulbs.html"><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">How Many Lightbulbs Does it Take to Change the World?</span></a>".
The claim is made that if a single light bulb using 45 watts less is placed in 100 million homes, 6.57 billion Kilo-Watt-Hours will be saved. The fact is, unless you are cooling your house, there is ZERO savings. Charles focused on the bulb, but forgot about the home. His entire premise is based on a false assumption. The savings are grossly exaggerated for most homes.
"Wasted" energy takes the form of heat. And this heat helps keep you warm, if only just a small amount. For most of America, for much of the year, that 45 watts will be automatically added back in by the home heating system to maintain the same level of comfort. If the home is heated with electricity, the savings in dollars, energy and carbon production is literally ZERO.
The only time energy is actually saved is when the air conditioning is running or you have the windows open to cool the house. With the air conditioning on, the savings can even be a little greater than 45 watts, but for most of America that's a small part of the year. What are the savings for the rest of the year?
ZERO!
If you are not cooling your home, EVERY light bulb and appliance is 100% efficient.
Here's why...
The second law of thermodynamics demonstrates that "wasted" energy tends to disperse evenly. And if this "wasted" energy is in your house, it simply keeps you warm. More importantly, it keeps your normal heat source from turning on. Let's see how it plays out in a real home and why saving energy by turning off the lights is mostly an illusion (pardon the pun).
If you have a home in the northern latitudes which is electrically heated much of the year, you are a net consumer of heat. And the nice thing about heat is that It doesn't matter where it comes from. And that's the key.
Take a light bulb that's only 10% efficient. That means 90% of it's energy is converted directly to heat. So what happens to that heat? It spreads out through your house and slightly delays your normal heating system from clicking on.
And what about the 10% of the energy in the form of visible light? Virtually all of it strikes objects in the house. It too is converted to heat. The ONLY ineffectiveness of a light bulb in a northern home in the winter is the light that escapes through the windows, which is a VERY small amount. Even THAT can be stopped with curtains making ANY light bulb 100% effective at producing heat. Here's how <a style="font-weight: bold;" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_effi ciency"><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">Wiki explains it... Efficiency versus Effectiveness.</span>
</a>
Why do I qualify this with northern homes and winter? Because if you have to open the windows to be comfortable, you lose the advantage. And if you have to turn on the air conditioning, this "effectiveness" actually becomes a small liability. So those of you in Florida and south Texas... nevermind.
It's all about heat, where it moves and how we store it. But for most of America, much of the year, energy efficiency is very much an illusion. Effectiveness rules the day because we actual
To be fair, not everyone who doesn't like CFLs fall into this camp. But if you take out the conservatives who also happen to be "skeptical" of evolution and global warming, you end up with a much, much smaller number CFL "skeptics". The number is inflated by politics.
Who said anything about CFL's.... we're going back to rubbings sticks together to
make fire.
In my next incarnation, I hope to come back as a code monkey.
With those principles, they should also ban bottled water and only authorize filtred tap water.
I'm apparantly not one of the more sensitive people on the board - but I can spot a failing ballast at 50 paces. The flickering drives me bonkers in short order.
Part of the problem you can have in many government/school/business/industry buildings lit by flourescent light is that they use the cheapest components they can get their hands on. That means lousy bulbs and ballasts. They probably hadn't been replaced when they should have either.
I went through an upgrade in one building where they finally went through and replaced all the ballasts and bulbs - difference was like night and day.
I don't read AC A human right
Lower-quality fluorescent lamps flicker a lot, see Wikipedia. It is also known that autistic people and those with Asperger's syndrome can't work well under fluorescent lighting.
Ah, excellent, thanks.
Now how am I supposed to make a crack pipe from a light bulb??
I have yet to see CFL's that can be used with dimmer controls or 3-way lamps. In our house your looking at $1,000.00+ of obsolesence. How about home theater lighting? I guess your choice will be a) none, b) low wattage movie lighting, c) Higher wattage area lighting, d)Install 2-3 times as many fixtures to give you the same lighting options as a single 3-way incandesent bulb.
-Eric
"Solar-thermal power could work really well here"
I think I Australia can't get its act together on solar power there's little hope for the rest of the planet.... all the other countries where there are more marginal benefits for experimenting with solar must surely be looking to countries with high levels of sunshine and large land mass to explore different test configurations from massive power stations down to domestic roof panels. I would have thought a country like Oz would be the ideal place for all sorts of tests to be run and some decent reports fed back to the rest of the world "yup town sized system X is the one you want to go for, domestic users, use roof system Y..". Plus I'd have hoped that there would be enough take up to get mass production rolling and make solar systems cheaper for us all.
Or am I missing something? engineers care to help me? does Australia's low population mean that it would be too inefficient to generate power inland and transport to the people?
I've often wondered why these countries with huge areas of unused desert land don't invest in big solar energy plants... help please on this? Would be wonderful if for example some of the poorest sub-Saharan countries could make use of all their free solar energy to improve their quality of life and maybe even have energy exports as an income generator...
The thing that really annoys me is that all the new houses I see use 50w heligen downlights. In our house we may use a maximum of say 180w total, probably less. But in the new houses they would have 6 50w globes for the same area for a total of 300watts - not including transformer losses so probably 400 watts. This I think is a bigger problem. I see that these downlights should be used much more sparingly.
Good CFLs take a moment to come on because they preheat the filaments before striking. Cheap junk CFLs come on instantly but the price you pay is short tube life because the coating on the filaments gradually gets ripped off by electrostatic forces (courtesy of the extreme starting voltage because the cold filaments are reluctant to emit electrons) and deposited as a black coating inside the tube ends. I always use a felt tipped pen to write the installation date on my CFLs and the best one (takes ~500ms to strike) is a 15 watt Philips that was installed 15th August 1995 (old as Win95) and is still going ok. Junk ones last 18 months to 2 years and invariably start instantly and gradually go black at the ends as stated. FWIW, I like the cold white ones.
And besides, you'll only have to replace them once or twice before LEDs beat them in efficiency. The LEDs in labs are already doing so and the mass production LEDs are getting better each year.
Someone had to do it.
What about people with forms of photosensitivity that don't allow them to be around flickering lights?
I have a friend who had a few seizures back in high school. He has since been put on medicine and has been seizure-free for over a decade, but there is only so far the medicine can improve things for him - While he no longer has seizures, flickering lights (such as low-refresh-rate CRT monitors and fluorescent lights) make him *very* sick. The problem is so bad and fluorescents are so prevalent in corporate environments that he basically is unable to get a job. He can't even work as a cashier in a department store (in fact, that's the worst possible job for him - the cheapo fluorescents in such stores are especially hard on him.)
With this law, he would effectively be forced to use lighting that makes him sick even in his own home, one of the few sanctuaries he has from fluorescent lighting.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Sorry, but incorrect. The AC mains goes into a rectifier, but because there's no reservoir capacitor the high frequency oscillator runs on a pulsed DC waveform. So there's a varying light output at twice the mains frequency,exactly the same as with oldfassioned FLs. I can't see it myself, not even from the corner of my eye, but I've just checked it with a photo-transistor and a scope. Both the high and the low frequency components are clearly visible.
Just think about it. Take any Government and you'll find a desire to spend money but still claim they staid 'within budget'/ The UK is a prime example of how far a chancellor will go to pretend the state remained within the budget, but even he has a hard job to explain how diligence turned a 60Billion surplus into a hole which requires borrowing to cover up. But I digress.
:-) - but ye shall not discuss the meat trade or farmers will block the road, and, worse for a politician, not vote for you.
Quite a lot of the baubles they spend are the HUGE share any Government gets from energy sales. A staggering proportion of fule sales, for instance, is tax which is why asking oil companies not to enrich themselves so much in terms of a crisis is rather disingenuous.
That's why most savings exercises are normally only half baked. Unless a Government can recover a self-inflicted loss from elsewhere (going back to the UK the strech is pretty much out of it now) it's not going to really enthusiastically promote energy savings.
If you want a clear example, just look at a couple of 'do not touch' holy cows (in this case literally): look at how much energy meat production takes. It's AFAIK close to 25-27% of the whole energy consumption (maybe the reason why a cow fart -methane- carries so much energy
So it's you and me that will have to save, which will trigger an increase in price to keep up revenue. So the planet still loses as the big problems are not addressed - because, as always, it's about money.
Even when they hit the trash, the mercury pollution is only half of that generated by a coal burning plant supporting an incandescent bulb.
l amp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_
When I looked at replacing bulbs around my house with CFLs, I noticed that all of the ones I was looking at said that you should not use them in a recessed fixture that has a cover. Unfortunately, that means these bulbs will not work in most of the fixtures in my house. At the time, I was unable to find a CFL that said it could be used in a covered fixture. Has this changed? If not, outlawing incandescent bulbs seems like a really bad idea.
This is something that should have been done a year ago here in the states. It doesn't hurt anyone because the money they save will allow the bulbs to pay for themselves within a year. I am ashamed to call myself an American when I see things like this in the news, I mean weren't we the one's that god chose? Wait, if that was the case we would have vast amounts of oil below our soil.
If carrots got you drunk, rabbits would be fucked up. - Comedian Mitch Hedberg R.I.P. 03/30/68-2/24/05
More expensive CFLs have a more even spectrum, as I stated. The topic is consumers replacing incandescent lightbulbs with CFLs. Your average 60-watt incandescent isn't going to produce a spectrum like the fancy lamp you linked to, so why bother comparing? That fancy bulb also cost $15.00 and can't be used in grandma's faux-tiffany lamp because it's the wrong formfactor and the wrong voltage!
I guess you're shilling for this company?
Blar.
Don't read too much into it, the pro-business incumbent party (think Republican) are just trying to establish their green credentials.
I'm in the UK and I've tried Ikea and B&Q so far. Neither of them had much of a range and all I could get were the very 'cool' lights. My wife made me throw them away immediately as she prefers the slightly yellower light from an incandescent.
The fact that two of them caused a weird high pitched noise in the lamp they were plugged into didn't help my case much.
After all, there are many decorative lights that will look simply horrendous with incandescent light bulbs.
So, become the inventor then of the "Decorative compact florescent' then, and make your million.
Do you HONESTLY think these gaps will not be filled, now that the government has effectively legislated this new competitive market into existence? Before, no one would have bought your decorative bulbs since they were more expensive. Now, they either buy them, or buy the ugly ones, or find some black market ones and hope to not get fined.
Remember lights are normally where - on the ceiling. Warm air rises - rises right out of your house.
There's a reason heat sources are usually floor mounted.
Most heat generated by incandescent lights in the winter will be outside the room before it has any effect.
At least in urban areas, the amount of electromagnetic interference caused by the electronics of thousands of those bulbs will make anything radio-related suffer badly. Compare the amount of background noise you can pick up with a wideband RX in an inner city to the middle of nowhere...
The world's largest fully movable radio telescope (Effelsberg in Germany) had been built into a valley for that reason, but even they are facing troubles now that flourescent bulbs and cheap consumer electronics have become common in the nearby towns.
I didn't know that dimmer switches and those compact flourescent lights don't mix. I learned the hard way, when smoke started pouring out of the base of the dimmer. I happened to be in the room at the time to shut it off.
I wonder how many people are going to learn this lesson the same way I did?
Thanks,
Dave Small
When congress mandated low water volume flush toilets, it created a black market for toilets imported from outside the United States. They were sold to contractors whose clients kept asking for normal toilets, not the low-flush kind. So yes, I believe it will happen. It happened because tons of people HATED the new toilets. I can guarantee you that tons of people will hate switching to florescent.
I was mildly sick almost every day at work for a year after moving departments, until someone suggested it may be the florescent lighting in the new area. I got a lamp to put in my cubicle, and the problem went away. If the government mandated that I had to change all the lights in my house to florescent, I would find a way to break the law. The lights where I worked weren't CFL, but the principle is the same.