Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,949   Posts: 1,585,937   Online: 991
      
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 71
  1. #21
    Andy K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sunny Southend, England.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    9,422
    Images
    81
    CFL bulbs are more damaging to the environment than incandescent bulbs.

    http://www.reuk.co.uk/Toxic-Mercury-in-CFL-Bulbs.htm

    http://www.globalwarming.nottinghams...Lightbulb.html

    More Eco-Taliban short sightedness.
    Last edited by Andy K; 09-28-2007 at 04:50 PM. Click to view previous post history.


    -----------My Flickr-----------
    Anáil nathrach, ortha bháis is beatha, do chéal déanaimh.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Hollis, NH
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    732
    Images
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy K View Post
    CFL bulbs are more damaging to the environment than incandescent bulbs.

    http://www.reuk.co.uk/Toxic-Mercury-in-CFL-Bulbs.htm

    http://www.globalwarming.nottinghams...Lightbulb.html

    More Eco-Taliban short sightedness.
    Andy,
    you have brought this up in other threads. What you still fail to mention is that the coal fired plant that generates the electricity to power all those incandescent lights creates far more pollution and toxic waste than CFL bulbs ever do. As for the article where the woman paid $2000 to have the broken buld cleaned up frankly was hustled. After all, for years people had mercury filled thermometers - do you think they called in a hazmat team every time a thermometer was dropped and broken?

  3. #23
    copake_ham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    NYC or Copake or Tucson
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    4,092
    Images
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wooten View Post
    Oh boy,

    The Brits have got a "Hilary"
    I like Hillary - and will likely vote for her in our NYS primary and, if she gets the nomination, in the general election in November 2008.

    But, as one can see, she is a "lightening rod" for a lot of folk - including Dave. Sadly, over the next fourteen months certain folk will blame Hillary for everything and anything including their pet that gets run over and the rain that spoils their Sunday picnic! :rolleyes:


    Quote Originally Posted by dslater View Post
    Andy,
    you have brought this up in other threads. What you still fail to mention is that the coal fired plant that generates the electricity to power all those incandescent lights creates far more pollution and toxic waste than CFL bulbs ever do. As for the article where the woman paid $2000 to have the broken buld cleaned up frankly was hustled. After all, for years people had mercury filled thermometers - do you think they called in a hazmat team every time a thermometer was dropped and broken?
    Precisely.

    Andy keep beating the drum on this - which is why I dread these threads.

    He should just buy up enough cases of incandescents to last him his remaining life time and give it a rest!

    BTW: We began switching over to CF bulbs about ten years ago (when they cost a fortune) - we've only had to dispose of one (it broke).

    My only point in the earlier post is that I dislike the idea that the Brit gov't is mandating a change. I prefer to let social pressure and market forces manage this transformation - it seems to be working here. In fact, some utilities now offer the CF's at a deep discount because the energy savings will eliminate the need to build new generating plants!

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Hollis, NH
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    732
    Images
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by MikeSeb View Post
    The single most effective and perhaps simplest measure to encourage energy conservation would be to let prices for electricity vary according to demand. Electricity used during peak hours would cost more than that used off-peak. If consumers want to use more-expensive peak-hours current they'll be encouraged over time to replace less-efficient with more-efficient appliances and to change usage practices accordingly. 3 am may become the new clothes-drying hour!

    The market will determine resource usage with far greater efficiency than any government bureaucrat ever could. One wonders why this historical truth must continually be relearned. I suppose it is much easier for those who believe they know best about all things simply to write a government decree demanding the use of CF bulbs, rather than making one's most persuasive case that they are somehow "better", and letting consumers decide whether to adopt them.

    As for taxation as a means to realign incentives--more of the same, with the dead hand of government wielding the club to mandate someone's idea of what is best. If the mass of consumers believed that CF bulbs were cost-effective at doing what they purport to do, no incentives would be needed to force their adoption.

    God save us from those who are always telling us what's good for us. The impulse to control and regulate others must be deeply embedded within human DNA.
    Hmm - well I see a couple of problems with this - varying the price of electricity based on the time of day would be a bit difficult - consider how your electric meter works. Even if you could do that, all you would achieve is evening out demand throughout the day - you wouldn't reduce total consumption.
    The reason you need tax incentives is that for the average home user, it isn't necessarily clear that a CF bulb will save enough money to make it worthwhile to change. The goal or reducing energy consumption is a political goal - not an economic goal. Hence the need to use tax or subsidies create an economic incentive. Another argument for taxes is that pollution is a cost of manufacturing that doesn't figure into the price of energy. In economics, such costs are referred to as externalities. Applying a tax to energy consumption and using the resulting revenue for environmental cleanup, then the externality is turned into a genuine cost to the consumer.

    Dan

  5. #25
    copake_ham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    NYC or Copake or Tucson
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    4,092
    Images
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by dslater View Post
    Hmm - well I see a couple of problems with this - varying the price of electricity based on the time of day would be a bit difficult - consider how your electric meter works. Even if you could do that, all you would achieve is evening out demand throughout the day - you wouldn't reduce total consumption.
    The reason you need tax incentives is that for the average home user, it isn't necessarily clear that a CF bulb will save enough money to make it worthwhile to change. The goal or reducing energy consumption is a political goal - not an economic goal. Hence the need to use tax or subsidies create an economic incentive. Another argument for taxes is that pollution is a cost of manufacturing that doesn't figure into the price of energy. In economics, such costs are referred to as externalities. Applying a tax to energy consumption and using the resulting revenue for environmental cleanup, then the externality is turned into a genuine cost to the consumer.

    Dan
    Dan,

    I would have to disagree with part of your argument.

    First of all, many utilities already offer variable rate pricing based on time of day usage in order to shift and smooth out demand. This was long offered to industrial consumers and has now been provided to retail customers such as homeowners.

    For example, in Tucson, many working people sign up for time of day pricing because they do not use their air conditioners during the day at home. And those with swimming pools set their filtering systems to only come on late at night during the cheapest hours of usage.

    You have to keep in mind that utilities are tied-in via huge regional (and in North America - international) grids and "wheel power" based on varying demand across the system. This is both a strength and vulnerability but is generally preferable to a "stand alone" system.

    So yes, if demand is low in one particular area during cetain hours of the day - it's utility deliverer can buy power much more cheaply for that time of day rather than generate it's own. Not to mention the fact that we now have Independent Power Producers - that provide additional "flex" to the pricing model.

    In fact, electric energy is actively traded on the commodity markets with various financial tools available including forward contracts, hedges etc.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Calgary AB Canada
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    235
    Images
    8
    Universal Plug and Play (UPnP) appliances already made by Samsung and others can talk to each other over your power lines. Even the toaster and the Kettle. The system might turn off the compressor to your refridgerator while your electric stove is running. It might shut off your dryer while you are cooking during the electricity rush hour in the evening. This will reduce demand and the power companies will give you a lower rate for using the system. A substantially lower rate. Govenrments may well give tax incentives to peoplel who buy such appliances.

    This is not futuristic. Parts of Italy already charge more for high demand in the evenings.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Hollis, NH
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    732
    Images
    3
    Hmm - well that sounds interesting - who pays for the new meters that make this work? Even so, this just evens out demand - it doesn't necessarily reduce total consumption.

  8. #28
    copake_ham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    NYC or Copake or Tucson
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    4,092
    Images
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by dslater View Post
    Hmm - well that sounds interesting - who pays for the new meters that make this work? Even so, this just evens out demand - it doesn't necessarily reduce total consumption.
    The meters are cheap; the technology commonplace.

    Improved efficiency is the primary step to reducing total consumption from current levels - which BTW, was the core point of the original argument in favor of switching to CF bulbs.

    But you seem more intent on proving a point, whether correct or not, than learning from others.

    Kind of common here - now what was your complaint about Andy?

    'Nuff said - leaving thread.....

  9. #29
    Andy K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sunny Southend, England.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    9,422
    Images
    81
    DSlater, not everyone gets their electricity from coal fired power plants. I also find your thinking extremely flawed, 'Some power plants produce mercury, so that makes it ok to put a fragile, easily broken, mercury containing appliance in every room, in every home on the planet.' Also these bulbs contain electronics, so they have a highly polluting manufacturing process using extremely toxic processes. The old incandescent bulbs were glass and metal, no toxins, and far less polluting to produce.

    Yeah, lets swap one pollutant, CO2 which does not hurt human health, for one which can enter the food chain very easily and has a cumulative and permanent effect.

    http://www.newscientist.com/blog/env...Id=earth_rss20

    The law is that if you spill mercury you have to inform the authorities and get it properly cleaned up. Of course not everyone does because of the costs, so what do you think will happen when people break CFL bulbs? Thats right, they'll just be tossed in the bin to go to landfill. The mercury will accumulate and enter the food chain.

    Way to go Eco-Taliban, they really thought this one out, eh? :rolleyes:

    Quote Originally Posted by dslater View Post
    Hmm - well I see a couple of problems with this - varying the price of electricity based on the time of day would be a bit difficult - consider how your electric meter works. Even if you could do that, all you would achieve is evening out demand throughout the day - you wouldn't reduce total consumption.

    Many homes in Britain have what is known as a Day/Night meter. It gives two readings, so usage of cheap nighttime 'off-peak' electricity and more expensive daytime electricity can be measured. So people will run their electric storage heating at night ready to use during the following day. I think it is known as Economy 7 and Economy 10.


    Oh and George, you're damned right I'll keep beating the drum on this. I think avoiding mercury in the food chain is more important than CO2. If you want to be sucked into the Eco-Taliban's lies and propaganda thats up to you.
    Last edited by Andy K; 09-29-2007 at 06:16 AM. Click to view previous post history.


    -----------My Flickr-----------
    Anáil nathrach, ortha bháis is beatha, do chéal déanaimh.

  10. #30
    Gary Holliday's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Belfast, UK exiled in Cambridge UK.
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    816
    I share your scepticism on the ecology debate Andy, however in the short term, coal power plants are the main spource of energy production, so banning incandescents are the quickest, cheapest and easiest options.

    I share your views on incorrect disposal, I live in apartments where bottles for recycling are still lying at the bins for a year, people are bone idol and selfish.

    I am in no rush to put mercury energy bulbs in my home as they are expensive, dim and an ugly light source. I would like to see some tests, but is it more energy efficient to leave these CFL bulbs on? Turning them on all the time uses a lot of energy to ignite? I spend half my day turning lights off!

    Anyway, the real eco warriors are the termite pest control workers. Methane is much more of a hazard to the planet and termites are responsible for a lot of the production!
    Last edited by Gary Holliday; 09-29-2007 at 08:55 AM. Click to view previous post history.

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin