On 2007-01-18 19:06:49 +0000, T i m said:

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 18:11:45 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On 2007-01-18 17:22:09 +0000, T i m said:

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 10:12:43 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

I haven't yet found any low energy lamps that I would entertain having
in the house. I find the light quality poor and colour rendition
obtained distinctly artificial looking and strange to the point of
having a bilious effect.

I wonder what makes someone dislike the above so much whilst others
can use them without any 'issues' Andy (genuine question).

I know it's a genuine question. The genuine answer is that I find the
light artificial and bilious.

Strange, spose that's the same effect I get when I catch a bit of
Contamination St, Deadenders, Big ****ter etc .. ;-)

You sure it isn't the CFL in the lounge?




The minor cost savings, if any, are therefore irrelevant and the energy
savings are not significant in the overall context of things that can
be done.

Understood. *We* have done nearly all the things we could do re energy
saving (for our own cost saving if nothing else) so the laps are just
part of the package for us. I do know I have a few 'spare' CFL's but
the stock doesn't seem to have gone down for ages ..

When the 'fossils' do run out how will you cope with candle light or
yer solar charged LED light Andy ;-)

I don't buy into the argument that says that energy in the form of
electricity needs to be saved.

Possibly but I believe even you wouldn't *choose* to squander it?

I'm not particularly, because it is relatively expensive. However,
when one considers the pattern of usage, it becomes less and less
expensive. For example, lighting is predominantly used during the
shorter days of the winter, when heating is also generally required.
Therefore, in effect, one has added some electric heating to supplement
what is being provided by gas, oil or possibly electricity.

I don't hear much argument, other than on cost grounds, about using fan
heaters, storage heaters or other forms of electric heating. Seldom,
if ever, does one hear an ecological argument about that. Yet, in
using conventional bulbs, that is the equivalent to what is being done
with these.

We therefore have a weak ecological argument, possibly a slightly
stronger cost one and that's about it.




Replacing perfectly good technology in the form of tungsten lighting
which most people do seem to prefer
based on sales volumes really makes no sense;

Erm, well I like the fact that CFL's run cooler so less chance getting
burnt touching one or it melting something? Also CFL's don't seem to
fail as suddenly as filament so that could be another safety
consideration?

Ok... but I think that that is clutching at straws somewhat.




and when one learns that there is government sponsored coercion in
terms of forcing the issue via building regulation, it is very clear
that there is a rat.

I don't know about any conspiracy theories but I wouldn't be surprised
... ;-(

Governments. Opportunity to control. There's a rat.



If one were to say that use of fossil fuel were the *only* way to
produce electricity then that would
make it a discussion point.

Well I think that's where we are atm so it might make more sense to do
it now rather than later? *If* we all switched to CFL's now don't they
suggest they could close down an existing power station (or not build
a new one)? Would I be right to guess even you might see that as a
good thing Andy (especially if it was in your back yard)?

I don't buy that one either for a number of reasons.

It would be desirable to reduce the amount of coal burning electricity
generation. However, when one sets it in a global context, this is
irrelevant. The Chinese are opening a new coal fired station each
week. Rate of fossil fuel depletion is not going to be assisted by
this and CO2 emission and alleged global warming are not localised over
Beijing.



Aren't they doing similar with traffic lights .. converting them to
LED? Less visits by engineers to change lamps (so a lower carbon
long-term cost), less energy used (cheaper for the local council /
your taxes etc)? Not that we will ever see a reduction of course
;-(

I would buy the cheaper maintenance argument as a possible real
motivator. I would take the rest as PC marketing.



Focus should be on alternative sources of supply for electricity such
as nuclear fission and ultimately fusion generation and improving the
technology around those further.

Agreed, but in the meantime ..

In the meantime start building and pay attention to what to do about
the significant contributors - and I don't mean the airline industry.



Instead of this, we are presented with a "no gain without pain"
argument which really holds no water at all; and which in effect, is
very similar to the ancient practice of self flagellation as atonement
for sin.

I'm not really motivated by any external influences .. I chose to buy
/ fit / use CFL's when a basic one was £15 and because I mark them
with installation date know how much money they have saved me over
filament in their lives. Money I can spend on more interesting things
like beer or toys ;-)

That's a reasonable argument if it works for you.




If people want to buy these things and use them and if it makes them
feel good, then that's fine. I don't feel about to follow suit
because I find the aesthetics poor and the technical and ecological
justifications questionable at best.

Fair enough ..

As soon as the element of government compulsion comes into the mix with
these weak justifications, I close the shutters.

Well, I agree that might be taking things a bit too far .. less they
really have done their sums and have proven it does all add up?

I haven't seen an honest and convincing case that takes all or at least
the most significant factors into account.




p.s. I saw CFL based floodlight the other day .. I'm keeping my eye
out for one locally as the 300W flood lamp that covered the back
garden failed about 2 years ago ...

One exterior application is the only one that I have found as an
appropriate use for a CFL.

I have a lantern outside which illuminates an area where the dustbins
are stores. This is switched on only
when I need to go out after dark to put rubbish in the bins and is
switched off again afterwards.

Similarly those folk who have 4-6 filament lamps lighting up their
front garden / car park. Another ideal role for CFL (If they really
must light pollute in the first place that is)?

Yes. I don't think that either is necessary. There is way too much
light pollution as it is.

When one has looked at the night sky in the very north of Sweden or in
the middle of nowhere in southern Africa, northern and central Europe
are very disappointing in comparison.


I don't care about the light quality for that but it is inconvenient to
access the lantern to change a tungsten bulb.

Understood and thanks for your replies.

All the best ..

T i m