The Fenix-Store        
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 85

Thread: Now "Australia to ban old-style light bulbs"

  1. #1
    Flashaholic C4LED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    East Coast, USA
    Posts
    463

    Default Now "Australia to ban old-style light bulbs"

    It looks like Australia is going to follow CA's lead...

    ----------

    Australia to ban old-style light bulbs

    By ROHAN SULLIVAN, Associated Press Writer

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070220/...ban_the_bulb_2

    SYDNEY, Australia - The Australian government on Tuesday announced plans to phase out incandescent light bulbs and replace them with more energy-efficient compact fluorescent bulbs across the country. Legislation to gradually restrict the sale of the old-style bulbs could reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions by 4 million tons by 2012 and cut household power bills by up to 66 percent, said Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull.

    Australia produced almost 565 million tons of greenhouse gases in 2004, official figures show.

    Prime Minister John Howard said the plan would help all Australians play a part in cutting harmful gas emissions: "Here's something practical that everybody will participate in."

    In incandescent light bulbs, perfected for mass use by Thomas A. Edison in the late 19th century, electricity flows through a filament to create light. Much of the energy, however, is wasted in the form of heat.

    Australia is not the only place looking to replace them with fluorescent lighting, which is more efficient and longer lasting.

    Last month, a California assemblyman announced he would propose a bill to ban the use of incandescent bulbs in his state. And a New Jersey lawmaker has called for the state to switch to fluorescent lighting in government buildings within three years.

    Cuba's
    Fidel Castro launched a similar program two years ago, sending youth brigades into homes and switching out regular bulbs for energy-saving ones to help battle electrical blackouts around the island.

    The idea was later embraced by Castro's friend and ally, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who announced his own program to save energy and in recent months has given away millions of incandescent bulbs in neighborhoods nationwide.

    Under the Australian plan, bulbs that do not comply with energy efficiency targets would be gradually banned from sale. Exemptions may apply for special needs such as medical lighting and oven lights.

    Fluorescent bulbs are currently more expensive than incandescent bulbs, but use only about 20 percent of the power to produce the same amount of light and last longer, making them more competitive over time, advocates argue.

    Environmentalists welcomed the light bulb plan, but noted than the vast bulk of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions come from industry, such as coal-fired power stations.

    They urged the government to set national targets for emission reductions and renewable energy.

    "It is a good, positive step. But it is a very small step. It needs to be followed through with a lot of different measures," Australian Conservation Foundation spokesman Josh Meadows told Australian Broadcasting Corp. radio.

    Howard has become a global warming convert, conceding in recent months for the first time that human activity is having an effect on rising temperatures.

    But he has steadfastly refused to bring Australia into line with most of the world and ratify the
    Kyoto protocol on greenhouse gas reductions, arguing that doing so could damage Australia's coal-dependent economy.

  2. #2
    Flashaholic*
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    2,127

    Default Re: Now "Australia to ban old-style light bulbs"

    Similar article was posted in the CA Bans Light Bulbs thread too...

    -Bill

  3. #3
    Flashaholic* PhotonBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Annapolis Valley, Nova Scotia, Canada http://tinyurl.com/8zu5t
    Posts
    3,305

    Default Re: Now "Australia to ban old-style light bulbs"

    Good to see. I hope most countries adopt similar laws.

  4. #4
    Flashaholic*
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    1,274

    Default Re: Now "Australia to ban old-style light bulbs"

    Would this include items such as incandescent heat lamps?

  5. #5
    Flashaholic*
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    2,127

    Default Re: Now "Australia to ban old-style light bulbs"

    From the link I posted, Australia will save up to 0.14% in its overall CO2 emissions if they pass the "ban the old-style light bulbs".

    From this article:

    Humans' beef with livestock: a warmer planet:
    It's not just the well-known and frequently joked-about flatulence and manure of grass-chewing cattle that's the problem, according to a recent report by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Land-use changes, especially deforestation to expand pastures and to create arable land for feed crops, is a big part. So is the use of energy to produce fertilizers, to run the slaughterhouses and meat-processing plants, and to pump water.

    "Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today's most serious environmental problems," Henning Steinfeld, senior author of the report, said when the FAO findings were released in November.

    Livestock are responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse-gas emissions as measured in carbon dioxide equivalent, reports the FAO. This includes 9 percent of all CO2 emissions, 37 percent of methane, and 65 percent of nitrous oxide. Altogether, that's more than the emissions caused by transportation.

    The latter two gases are particularly troubling – even though they represent far smaller concentrations in atmosphere than CO2, which remains the main global warming culprit. But methane has 23 times the global warming potential (GWP) of CO2 and nitrous oxide has 296 times the warming potential of carbon dioxide.

    ...
    Animal-rights activists and those advocating vegetarianism have been quick to pick up on the implications of the FAO report.

    "Arguably the best way to reduce global warming in our lifetimes is to reduce or eliminate our consumption of animal products," writes Noam Mohr in a report for EarthSave International.


    Changing one's diet can lower greenhouse gas emissions quicker than shifts away from fossil fuel burning technologies, Mr. Mohr writes, because the turnover rate for farm animals is shorter than that for cars and power plants.

    "Even if cheap, zero-emission fuel sources were available today, they would take many years to build and slowly replace the massive infrastructure our economy depends upon today," he writes. "Similarly, unlike carbon dioxide which can remain in the air for more than a century, methane cycles out of the atmosphere in just eight years, so that lower methane emissions quickly translate to cooling of the earth."

    Researchers at the University of Chicago compared the global warming impact of meat eaters with that of vegetarians and found that the average American diet – including all food processing steps – results in the annual production of an extra 1.5 tons of CO2-equivalent (in the form of all greenhouse gases) compared to a no-meat diet. Researchers Gidon Eshel and Pamela Martin concluded that dietary changes could make more difference than trading in a standard sedan for a more efficient hybrid car, which reduces annual CO2 emissions by roughly one ton a year.

    "It doesn't have to be all the way to the extreme end of vegan," says Dr. Eshel, whose family raised beef cattle in Israel. "If you simply cut down from two burgers a week to one, you've already made a substantial difference."
    If you really want to make an impact on global warming--go vegetarian...

    -Bill

  6. #6
    Flashaholic* Erasmus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    1,077

    Default Re: Now "Australia to ban old-style light bulbs"

    I think it is a good evolution to save some energy and the environment. But they should make a good plan for disposal of the fluorescent lamps, there's some nasty stuff inside that should not be disposed in the environment. And of course there's also the opportunity for LED lighting to grow if they ban incandescent lighting

  7. #7
    Flashaholic*
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Saskatoon SK Canada
    Posts
    1,146

    Default Re: Now "Australia to ban old-style light bulbs"

    What will happen to appliance bulbs? I don't think CFs can handle a 400 degree oven or start well when inside a refridgerator or freezer.

    Maybe they should just put a sin tax on incandescents and use the funds to make CFs and other energy efficient lighting tax-free.

    Greg
    My EDC: Chrome Draco.

  8. #8
    Flashaholic* 2xTrinity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    2,386

    Default Re: Now "Australia to ban old-style light bulbs"

    Quote Originally Posted by greg_in_canada
    What will happen to appliance bulbs? I don't think CFs can handle a 400 degree oven or start well when inside a refridgerator or freezer.

    Maybe they should just put a sin tax on incandescents and use the funds to make CFs and other energy efficient lighting tax-free.

    Greg
    They explicitly said there would be exceptions for oven lamps and other similar devices where fluorescent would be inappropraite.

    I'm generally against this sort of policy, but if they do it, they should at least at the same time mandate better quality control for CFLs. I know of several businesses that have wanted to switch to CFL, but actually found that the bulbs they put in generated interference/noise on the electrical lines. Also, there's a lot of bulbs out there with terrible longevity/lumen maintenance, extreme heat sensitivity, and overall poor quality -- the difference between good CFLs and bad ones is huge, yet short of being a lighting enthusiast like the people in this site, it's very hard to tell the difference when shopping in stores.

    Would this include items such as incandescent heat lamps?
    Certainly there would need to be an exception for that. If all you need to do is heat a small area, to keep food warm or to heat up people sitting in chairs, incan heatlamps are a lot more efficient than unnecessarily heating a huge space with gas heaters.

  9. #9

    Default Re: Now "Australia to ban old-style light bulbs"

    Quote Originally Posted by BB
    From the link I posted, Australia will save up to 0.14% in its overall CO2 emissions if they pass the "ban the old-style light bulbs".

    From this article:

    Humans' beef with livestock: a warmer planet:


    If you really want to make an impact on global warming--go vegetarian...

    -Bill
    Well I'm already a vegetarian but I would think the ever increasing human population and their polluting ways are more to blame. Of course eating less of anything would be beneficial not just animal products. Processed and packaged junk food comes to mind.

    KROMA
    TICS

  10. #10
    Flashaholic*
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Saskatoon SK Canada
    Posts
    1,146

    Default Re: Now "Australia to ban old-style light bulbs"

    Thanks 2xTrinity. There are also places in a house where the light is switched on and off many times per day so the CFLs will never achieve their rated life.

    I alread have CFLs in all the places in my house that make sense. And dimmers on chandelier-type fixtures that can often be run dimmer than full brightness.

    Greg

    Quote Originally Posted by 2xTrinity
    They explicitly said there would be exceptions for oven lamps and other similar devices where fluorescent would be inappropraite.

    I'm generally against this sort of policy, but if they do it, they should at least at the same time mandate better quality control for CFLs. I know of several businesses that have wanted to switch to CFL, but actually found that the bulbs they put in generated interference/noise on the electrical lines. Also, there's a lot of bulbs out there with terrible longevity/lumen maintenance, extreme heat sensitivity, and overall poor quality -- the difference between good CFLs and bad ones is huge, yet short of being a lighting enthusiast like the people in this site, it's very hard to tell the difference when shopping in stores.
    My EDC: Chrome Draco.

  11. #11
    Flashaholic*
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    2,127

    Default Re: Now "Australia to ban old-style light bulbs"

    I have CPFL's just about everywhere--and they have seemed to last pretty well... The only place I have had any obvious early failures is on table lamps with those really cheap/flaky rotary switches... You know--the ones where the contacts jump and you have to backup/rotate a couple times to get the right light string to turn on...

    Over the last 6 months, I have been saving CPFL's to recycle (limit environmental mecury), and still only have one (maybe two) in the bin. Compared to the el-cheapo incandensents from Sylvania (would only last about 6 weeks for outdoor light sensor controlled lighting)

    Overall, other than the pretty poor color of the lamps--they seem to last very well (just getting the cheap--$0.50-$1.50 per lamp with utility rebate built in from Costco). Willing to put up with poor color but a cool house (during the summer without AC--installed in my ceiling fans) and a very low electric bill.

    -Bill

  12. #12
    Flashaholic* chevrofreak's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Billings, Montana, USA
    Posts
    2,544

    Default Re: Now "Australia to ban old-style light bulbs"

    I almost exclusively use CFL's in my house, but I don't think a government has a right to make decisions like this.

  13. #13
    Flashaholic*
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    down the road from Pleasure Point.
    Posts
    3,984

    Default Re: Now "Australia to ban old-style light bulbs"

    Quote Originally Posted by chevrofreak
    I almost exclusively use CFL's in my house, but I don't think a government has a right to make decisions like this.
    ditto
    "a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen." -Warren vs District of Columbia, after three women were raped, beaten for 14 hours and police never came after numerous 911 calls were placed

  14. #14

    Default Re: Now "Australia to ban old-style light bulbs"

    Quote Originally Posted by chevrofreak
    I almost exclusively use CFL's in my house, but I don't think a government has a right to make decisions like this.
    How about low flow toilets?
    Seat belts as standard equipment?
    Emissions controls required on cars?

    I'd be more comfortable as well if we just simply got people to do this ...without a law compelling them to do it. However, our over dependence on fossil fuels (and nuclear too for that matter) is causing pretty significant pollution issues for everyone.

    I suppose the other option is to let people buy whatever kind of appliances they want, but tax carbon contribution highly enough that most people will naturally conserve to the best extent possible.
    ITS Good 4.US ...Renewable fuels create 2.46 million new jobs

  15. #15
    Flashaholic* chevrofreak's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Billings, Montana, USA
    Posts
    2,544

    Default Re: Now "Australia to ban old-style light bulbs"

    Quote Originally Posted by ikendu
    How about low flow toilets?
    Seat belts as standard equipment?
    Emissions controls required on cars?

    I'd be more comfortable as well if we just simply got people to do this ...without a law compelling them to do it. However, our over dependence on fossil fuels (and nuclear too for that matter) is causing pretty significant pollution issues for everyone.

    I suppose the other option is to let people buy whatever kind of appliances they want, but tax carbon contribution highly enough that most people will naturally conserve to the best extent possible.
    Low flow toilets were born of the silly notion that it is actually possible to "waste" water, so, no, I don't think there should be any laws regarding them.

    I also think a person should be allowed to decide whether they use a seat belt or not, as long as it doesn't endanger anyone else, such as not having any passengers in the vehicle.

    Emission control isn't as big of a problem today as it was when it was first introduced since it doesn't effect performance like it once did. I still don't think it should be required, but perhaps a tax incentive to the manufacturer and purchaser would be enough to make them want to have it.

    I am absolutely tired of government being involved in every aspect of my life.

  16. #16
    *Flashaholic* greenLED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    La Tiquicia
    Posts
    13,261

    Default Re: Now "Australia to ban old-style light bulbs"

    Smokescreen (pun intended). The amount of emissions coming from coal burning in AU is by far greater than the potential reduction in CO2 emissions coming from switching to CFL's. And, while I'm (mostly) in favor of sensible use of natural resources, I don't like Big Brother telling me what to do.

  17. #17

    Default Re: Now "Australia to ban old-style light bulbs"

    chevrofreak wrote:

    Low flow toilets...I am absolutely tired of government being involved in every aspect of my life.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    I was listening to an NPR piece about water policy. It was explaining that we've conserved so much water that even though we've doubled our population that the existing water supply systems were adequate to continue the supply. So... as much as I hated only being able to purchase low water flush toilets, they have helped to hugely reduce the cost for tax payers and water rate payers. Now that lower water flush toilets are required, guess what? Companies have figured out how to make good flushing toilets and still meet the low water consumption limit.

    Once the industry was forced to figure out how to conserve... they did!

    I'm no fan of over-regulation and I do agree it can get tiresome.

    I also see plenty of cases where it was not only necessary, but highly beneficial in the end.

    As far as CFBs... if we can figure out how to achieve wide spread adoption without compelling their use, then I like that better. Taxes, incentives or education are all tools we could use. We do need to use our energy more efficiently though. Since 1940, carbon in our atmosphere is 27% higher than at any time in the last 650,000 years. If even just a portion of the consequences our scientists are projecting are correct, the cost to society will be huge. Couple that with pollution from fossil fuels and you've got a good case for wide spread adoption of efficiency measures.

    It's not like they are outlawing light, just inefficient production of light. Using CFBs will save their citizens money for energy and also on the cost of bulbs in the long run. It doesn't seem so awful. Maybe, that's why they are doing it.
    ITS Good 4.US ...Renewable fuels create 2.46 million new jobs

  18. #18
    Flashaholic*
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    805

    Default Re: Now "Australia to ban old-style light bulbs"

    When I read this and the California thread, I wonder how industry lobbying affects all this? Is it mostly a feel good measure, driven by profit?

    I don't claim to have the answers or inside information. I do know that flourescent lighting gives me headaches and is hard on my eyes. I don't like the idea of big government telling me I can't use incans.

    I don't use them anymore, but the most soothing light to my eyes is quartz halogen. Maybe there are already LEDs that can produce this spectrum more efficiently, or will soon.

    Black market incan light bulbs? Or just no longer made?

    "My uncle has a light device
    That no one knows about
    He says it used to be a lamp
    Before the Incan Law

    And on Sundays I elude the eyes
    And hop the turbine freight
    To far outside the wire
    Where my white haired uncle waits...

    Down in his barn
    My uncle preserved for me an old light engine
    For fifty odd years
    To keep it as new has been his dearest dream

    I strip away the old debris
    That hides a shining bulb
    A brilliant GE incan
    From a better, vanished time"

    Apologies to Rush (and all of you) for the bad parody!

    Who needs beef when you can have delicious, nutritious Soylent Green?
    I'm not getting worse; I'm getting brighter!
    ----------------------------------------------------
    Incans: SF G2, Pelican M6 Lithium, SL TL-3, Mags, MinMags, Browning Thunder & Lightning Bugs, M*G74 Tekna Mono Lith
    Hybrid: SL TT 2L, SF A2
    LED: SF U2, Inova T4, Gladius, HDS U60, SG 30 LED, several small Coast lights, 8 LED AAAs, VB-16 3W, CPF LE #13 VB-16, LionHeart, Orb RAW, LionCub, McLux PDIII, Chameleon, Titanium Chameleon, Orb Raw NS.

  19. #19
    Flashaholic*
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    2,127

    Default Re: Now "Australia to ban old-style light bulbs"

    Here is a pretty funny Anti-Tax Everything ad from Britain:

    Who knows what they will tax next
    (opens window with Flash Movie)

    -Bill
    Last edited by BB; 02-21-2007 at 10:36 AM.

  20. #20
    Flashaholic* yuandrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Chino Hills, CA
    Posts
    1,321

    Default Re: Now "Australia to ban old-style light bulbs"

    Even though California has been recently getting the attention due to the idea of "Banning the Bulb", the idea originally belongs to the British.

    http://www.techmind.org/energy/dontbanthebulb.html

  21. #21
    *Flashaholic* idleprocess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    dfw.tx.us
    Posts
    5,291

    Default Re: Now "Australia to ban old-style light bulbs"

    Sounds like greenwashing and other feel-good legislation that won't really accomplsih much, but will benefit government bureaucracies and well-connected businesses.

    Why don't people conserve energy? Because there's not much incentive to conserve energy! Instead of carbon credits/taxes, and all these various schemes, just make the price of energy higher and all of a sudden people will decide that they don't need 1000W of outdoor lighting, don't need to heat a pool during the winter, and won't buy homes with windows covering 25% of the exterior surface area.

    Several years ago, I replaced almost 100% of the incandescent lights in my apartment with compact florescent. Did my electrical bill drop signifigantly? Not really... I know they're consuming less energy, but for the most part the biggest benefit has been how ridiculously durable that they are. I've had some going for nearly 4 years without incident.

    Air conditioning (and electric heat!!!) is my biggest electrical load, and living in an apartment, there is precious little I can do to effect it.
    I apologize that this letter is so long; I did not have time to write a short letter

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,266

    Default Re: Now "Australia to ban old-style light bulbs"

    I HATE fluorescent lighting. I'm not too partial to the spectrum of current LEDs.


    I think they should ban government personally..


    Only positive thing I see is that it will give the power companies another excuse to charge more for less energy.

  23. #23
    Flashaholic Mike V's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    259

    Default Re: Now "Australia to ban old-style light bulbs"

    Personally I think this is crazy.

    I hate cheap compact flouros. The colour is awful.

    I'm going to have to get a secret stash of tungsten globes sent to Sydney.

  24. #24
    Flashaholic* Thujone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    1,687

    Default Re: Now "Australia to ban old-style light bulbs"

    *Edited

    I apologize for the potential flamebait, I will just say I am not a big fan of over zealous tree huggers and the government pretending they are our parents. As well as people that believe neither of those things are bad.
    Last edited by Thujone; 02-21-2007 at 08:21 AM.
    01001100011010010111011001100101001000000110100101 10111000100000011101000110100001100101001000000110 0100011000010111001001101011
    00101100000011010000101001100001011011100110010000 10000001110100011010000110010100100000011101110110 1111011100100110110001100100
    00100000011010010111001100100000011101000110100001 11001001100101011000010111010001100101011011100110 1001011011100110011100101110


  25. #25
    Flashaholic*
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    2,127

    Default Re: Now "Australia to ban old-style light bulbs"

    Some current news on Carbon Trading:

    China, India Smile as West Overpays for Climate:

    Countries that must purchase emission credits to atone for their higher-than-mandated production of carbon dioxide are paying a tiny group of chemical manufacturers in China and India massive sums to reduce industrial gases and methane, which are rather inexpensive to capture and destroy, Wara says. China and India

    The improvement that can be obtained by spending just $31 million on incinerators could cost developed nations as much as 750 million euros ($986 million) through the elaborate trading mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol, and even then only two-thirds of the problem would go away, Wara estimates.

    China and India are getting a prize for producing lots of hydrofluorocarbon-23, one of the six greenhouse gases under the Kyoto Protocol. One ton of it is considered the equivalent of 11,700 tons of carbon dioxide.

    Six Chinese companies have consented to be paid to destroy this toxic byproduct of a gas used as a common refrigerant and a Teflon feedstock. Their total commitment is more than 43 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per annum. India, with two registered projects, is second with about 7 million tons. Thus, barely eight chemical plants in China and India control about 44 percent of the existing annual supply of emission credits.
    Emission trading suffers as carbon prices plummet
    However, speaking to an audience of academics and business leaders at this week's Tyndall Centre conference on investments in low carbon technologies, Professor Catrinus Jepma of the University of Amsterdam warned that both the EU's Emissions Trading Scheme and the UN's Clean Development Mechanism were in danger of failing with prices for the carbon credits used under both schemes predicted to reach just a few cents. "The Stern Report suggests we need a price for a tonne of carbon emissions of $20, rising to $30, $40 or even $50 to stabilise [the level of CO2 in the atmosphere] at manageable levels," he said. "But there is a good chance that the carbon credits that are meant to provide incentives for reducing emissions will be available for next to nothing."

    The problems with the European Trading Scheme are well documented with the collapse in the price of a tonne of carbon dating back to May last year when it emerged that most countries in the scheme had set their carbon caps far too high, resulting in fewer firms than expected having to buy credits and causing the price of a tonne of carbon to plummet from over €30 to less than €10.
    Welcome to euets.com - the CO2 exchange for CEE
    euets.com is a fully electronic exchange for anonymous trading on the spot EUA market. euets.com is the only CO2 trading platform designed to give direct access for all operators to the European CO2 market.EUA spot

    Prices on 22.02.2007
    € 0.85 [down] € 0.08
    People pushing € 50 per tonn carbon credits trading in virtually meaningless bits on a computer network from a hand full of horribly polluting Chinese/Indian companies collapses from € 10+ to € 0.85 per tonn in a matter of a few months.

    Color me surprised.

    -Bill

  26. #26
    Flashaholic* twentysixtwo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    718

    Default Re: Now "Australia to ban old-style light bulbs"

    Quote Originally Posted by ikendu
    How about low flow toilets?
    Seat belts as standard equipment?
    Emissions controls required on cars?

    Well said! I imagine those who think this is a kommunist plot would re-think their position if their electricity bill tripled and they suffered through chronic blackouts.

    It's like the people who complain about zoning laws - until their neighbor decides to sell out to a landfill or factory pig farm.
    The will to win means nothing without the will to prepare.” Juma Ikaanga

    SF L4, E2E, U2 w/18650 and WXOS, UK Vectra w/LED Mod, THOR 35W HID Mod, 3xTWOH M@G, M@G85, M@G60, HDS EDC60, EDC85 mod, Too many Nichia CS Mods to count.

  27. #27
    Flashaholic* hotbeam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Melb, AU
    Posts
    1,737

    Default Re: Now "Australia to ban old-style light bulbs"

    Good move I'd say! You've got to start somewhere and this is something that everyone can do easily. Incans are very old, inefficient technology anyway and it is no loss to lose it...

  28. #28
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,266

    Default Re: Now "Australia to ban old-style light bulbs"

    I don't think people should tell other people what to do in matters like this. But that's just me.

    Regardless, with the amount of pollution that China and India cause, this would make so little difference that it's laughable.

    But since it takes away a person's choice, most people will be all for it. People like to tell others what to do.

  29. #29
    Flashaholic*
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    2,127

    Default Re: Now "Australia to ban old-style light bulbs"

    Celibrating the Oscar for “Inconvenient Truth”:
    Al Gore’s Personal Energy Use Is His Own “Inconvenient Truth”
    Gore’s home uses more than 20 times the national average

    Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.

    Gore’s mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

    In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

    The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

    Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

    Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

    Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

    “As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk to walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.

    In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.
    I think I am going to crank-up my heat from 60 to 63 degrees in the kids study.

    -Bill

  30. #30

    Default Re: Now "Australia to ban old-style light bulbs"

    InfidelCastro wrote:

    Regardless, with the amount of pollution that China and India cause, this would make so little difference that it's laughable...

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Sorry, guys, but I just can't agree with this notion.

    "This little bit is so small... why bother?"

    If we all think that way, we'll have what we have right this very minute; increasing energy use every day. More pollution, more CO2, more environmental distruction.

    Are you all familiar with "Mountain Top Removal"?

    http://www.mountainjusticesummer.org/facts/steps.php

    Basically, coal mining companies blast off the "dirt" from the top of the mountain, push it over the edge into what used to be beautiful streams and trees, strip mine the coal, then push the dirt around flat and plant grass.

    No more mountain, no more streams, totally disrupted water shed leading to polluted water tables and increased flooding when it rains.

    Did you know that coal is "washed" before it is shipped to market? Well, it is. The leftover water is so polluted, it has to be kept in holding "ponds". In 2000, a "pond" burst and release coal wast sludge in more volume than the Exxon Valdez oil spill.

    http://www.nrdc.org/onearth/03spr/coal1.asp

    Whatever happens in India and China, we should be slowing down our use of fossil fuels here in the good 'ole U.S. of A. In the end, we should stop using coal BEFORE the coal seams run out. Wind energy is now as cheap as coal. We should start building out wind farms and new distribution networks at top speed.

    See here for proposed new "distribution corridors":

    http://www.energetics.com/1221techni...dfs/walker.pdf

    (see page 2 of this .pdf)

    Combine with the existing technology for storing electricity (water pumping) and you've got yourself a coal-free, nuclear-free and CO2 free source of plentiful electricity that isn't dependent on foreign imports or continuing to mine and pollute our planet.

    So... do I want to get whatever savings in energy I can?

    You bet.

    CFBs save consumers money. They also save CO2 and pollution from burning and mining.

    Maybe we shouldn't compell their use (although, it seems like a pretty small "harm" to force electricity users to save money), but we should do all we can to see them adopted as quickly as possible.

    If for no other reason than to save some beautiful mountain valleys in West Virginia.
    ITS Good 4.US ...Renewable fuels create 2.46 million new jobs

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •