Australia to ban incandescent bulbs

DownUnderLite

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Jun 10, 2006
Messages
86
Location
Melbourne Australia
I saw the news article on the "idiot box" the other night. Although they do call it a ban, The suggestion was that there would be exceptions to the rule for appliances that don't readily accept the small flouro type bulb. If you think things like ovens,fridges chandeliers etc.

I think the idea is to limit carbon emmisions by the reduction in useage of electricity. Most of Australia's power is generated via coal burning power stations and a tiny amount of Hydroelectric generation. If you think long term then the demand may put off building another coal burning unit. We are starting to suffer 'brown-outs' already. It's Summer at the moment; and with everyone running air conditioners at peak times, the system shuts down.

You also have to consider that there is an election coming up. So there could be some grandstanding at the moment.
 

BruceD

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Nov 22, 2007
Messages
13
Location
TN
Did they have to ban the torch to get people to go to oil lamps? No, because eventually everyone will switch.

Having the government tell us what kind of light bulb to use is pretty silly, IMO. As usual, these efforts by politicians are often symbolic, even though they are sold as substantial.

Like making people recycle fluorescent lamps to help reduce mercury - when roughly 1/1000 of the mercury released by people is from fluorescent lamps. If you realy want to go after mercury, you might want to start with the industries that release the largest percentages of it. Sometimes it seems that it's a lot easier for politicians to go after Joe consumer than to actually go after the root causes of a particular issue.
 

GreySave

Enlightened
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Messages
686
Location
Erie, PA
Unless I am missing something I would have to change many of the light fixtures and even table lamps in my home, as they feature bulbs locations that are enclosed. All of the CFL lamps I have seen and / or tried are clearly marked to indicate that they cannot be used in fixtures where they are enclosed due to excessive heat build up that lessens the bulb's life dramatically. I found the warning (in VERY small print) after losing two CFL lamps in a short period of time.

There is also an issue with decorative lighting. Am I to be told that a $2,500 crystal light fixture can no longer be used because it requires small decorative incandescant bulbs? CFL bulbs will not fit and the lighting effect would be ruined even if they did.

This is simply another example of hype and rhetoric bypassing the science of the issue. I will gladly use (and currently do use) use CFL bulbs where it is practical AND cost effective. I even have a couple of low powered LED bulbs in use, again where it makes sensoe to use them. Beyond that, if our state or federal government wants to mandate this nonsense someone had better be ready to compensate me for all of the expense involved in making such a mandated change.
 

Spalding

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Jan 24, 2007
Messages
43
Location
Fresno, California
Rather than impose a tax on the innocent, consider letting the free market solve the problem by itself. For example, here in California we are forced to use expensive forms of power production. That makes electricity real expensive. People shift their buying habits to save on their power bills by buying energy-efficient lighting without the government overstepping it's bounds and punishing us with more taxes. Believe in the free market - it works even in the face of government interference.
 

mdocod

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
7,544
Location
COLORado spRINGs
I believe I was reading in popular science, or mechanics, or one of them. They did the math and came to the conclusion that the amount of mercury in a CFL would be equal to or lower than the amount the power plant would spew running an equally bright incandescent bulb... Point being that switching to CFLs may actually be an improvement when talking about mercury as the majority of it would end up in the ground (garbage) rather than in the air (stacks from a coal fired power plant)... Personally I am skeptical of ANY report from any angle because everyone is being funded, everyone is being sponsored, and everyone has something to gain and something to loose. Personally, the only thing I have to gain or loose is my freedom, which makes it a pretty obvious choice. Ban Socialist nazis, remove their testicles, deep fry, feed to the pigs.
 

Nubo

Enlightened
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
461
If I'm not mistaken, here in my area (California) the electric utility provides a significant subsidy for CFL household light bulbs. This seems a reasonable win-win approach. It makes adoption of CFL bulbs much more attractive, and the energy savings help the utility forestall expensive powerplant construction. Doesn't outlaw Tungsten bulbs, just helps speed the wide adoption of CFL. Win-Win.

There are a couple of fixtures in my home where I still want incandescent (for dimming). The rest do well with CFL. The newer CFL seem to give much better color too. Our local Home Depot carries the N-Vision brand, which comes in 3 different color temps. These are very nice. CFL has really been nice in our ceiling fans -- the vibration had forced me into using "ultra long life" incans, which kind of sucked for light output and still burned out frequently. I've got a couple of years now on the CFLs in our Kitchen fan. And in the dining room ceiling fan I replaced the 40W incans with 4W(!) CFL teardrops -- just as much light if not more. Amazing. And a nice warm color temp to boot.

I think this will do nicely until LED proves itself for indoor lighting. Looking forward to being able to not only dim, but adjust the color at will :)
 

mdocod

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
7,544
Location
COLORado spRINGs
CFLs are more expensive to run where I live than incandescence, they do not last but a fraction of their rated hours on the power spikes we get out here.
 

2xTrinity

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
2,386
Location
California
If I'm not mistaken, here in my area (California) the electric utility provides a significant subsidy for CFL household light bulbs. This seems a reasonable win-win approach. It makes adoption of CFL bulbs much more attractive, and the energy savings help the utility forestall expensive powerplant construction. Doesn't outlaw Tungsten bulbs, just helps speed the wide adoption of CFL. Win-Win.

IMHO CFLs are a poorly compromized stop-gap. Most light fixtures, especially dimmable ones, are designed with incandescents only in mind, as they have extremely "dirty" power supplies.

I would personally rather see subsidies for decent-looking household light fixtures that operated on standard 4ft T8 or T5 fluorescent tubes, with soft-starting and full-range dimming ballasts. The linear tubes are much more efficient at light distribution, as a lot of the light emitted from the spiral CFLs is blocked by the spiraling tube itself. Standard incan fixtures tend to be bad for trapping in heat (kills the built in ballast) and inefficient for light distribution.
 
Top