"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
4...
"Arfa Daily" wrote in
:



BTW: The discussion also involves LEDs. IMO, CFLs are an interim
step. They have far too many drawbacks to be a long term solution.
Incandescents are, of course, no solution at all.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au


But actually, what exactly is the problem that we're trying to find a
solution to ? I saw some figures a few weeks ago that said that if
every single light bulb in the UK was changed to a CFL, the total
saving in energy would amount to the output of one small power
station. I suppose that you could argue that any saving is worth
having, but I sometimes think that this religion of 'green' has
completely overtaken common sense, and in some cases, the
disadvantages of a substitute technology such as CFLs, needs to be
weighed against the perceived disadvantages of what it's trying to
replace. The problem with green technology is that its advocators are
often zealots, who seek to portray the alternatives that they are
pedaling as the only solution to a problem which often, only they see.
They never tell the full story behind these technologies, being
selective in the extreme. CFLs are a good example of this, where the
*only* aspects that have been promoted, are the fact that they consume
less energy for the same amount of light output as an 'equivalent'
incandescent - and therein lies a can of worms before we start - and
that they are supposedly longer lived. The huge amounts of
manufacturing processes, and shipping energy for all the component
parts, and all the other hidden energy inputs, are politely ignored.
Not to mention the true disposal costs, if this is done properly. No
one really understands the real manufacturing costs either, because
governments are making sure that the true price is subsidised by
collecting additional 'green' taxes via the energy companies, from the
likes of you and I. If ever these subsidies are removed, CFLs will
become a major expense to a household, unless they use really crappy
quality Chinese imports that give poor light quality and poor starting
characteristics, and are much shorter lived than people are currently
being persuaded is the case.

Arfa



the manufacture of CFLs produces much more pollution than making
incandescent lamps. it probably outweighs any savings from the use of CFLs
over I-lamps.
you don't need -any- mercury in making I-lamps,nor do you need phosphors.


--
Jim Yanik


Yes. This is kind of my point. And when I was saying that 'background' items
like shipping costs are politely ignored, I was referring to the multiple
shipping operations that are required for the many components in a CFL, and
the many raw materials contained in those components, just to get all the
bits and pieces from the individual specialist manufacturers, to the places
where the lamps are assembled. In the case of an incandescent lamp, we are
talking a few components, simply made from a few raw materials. With a CFL,
we are talking semiconductors comprising silicon, dopant chemicals, plastic,
metal. Capacitors comprising metal foil, plastic, rubber, maybe paper, metal
leads and other chemicals in the electros. Coils comprising processed iron
powder, copper wire, insulation, copper foil, epoxy adhesive, steel
leadouts. Then there's the complex glass tube, and the chemical phosphors
and mercury vapour inside it. Tungsten electrodes. Then the pcb material
that its all mounted on. Lots of soldered joints. And then the plastic
enclosure for the ballast. And then the 'normal' bits that an incandescent
has anyway. Every single one of those components, and the manufacturing
processes for *their* component parts, involves energy input for the
process. They all need workers who have to be moved from their homes and
back again each day, They have to be heated / cooled, fed and watered, and
then lit as well. And when they've made their bits of the lamp, these have
to be shipped on somewhere else. These are the energy costs that the general
public are never made aware of. If they were, they might start to question
the perceived wisdom that they've been fed, that these things are actually
'green'.

If people want to use CFLs in the belief - mistaken in my opinion - that
they are in some way helping the world to use less energy, then that's fine.
If it's really the case, then CFLs will win out the day in the end. But I
think that it is utterly wrong that the existing technology has been banned
completely on thin evidence and a less than truthful declaration of the
energy required to make and dispose of the things, the only factor being
pushed, being the lower energy consumption when they are in use, as though
this is the be-all and end-all of their right to exist, and to be forced on
us.

The point that Trevor makes about aircon to mitigate the heat output of
incandescents, holds no water here in Northern Europe. Unlike in Australia,
it seldom becomes hot enough up here for more than a few days a year, that
aircon is needed. And that is only in the summer, when it's light for 16
hours of the day anyway, so there's not much lighting being used. OTOH, for
much of the year, it is cool or cold enough to require heating in houses,
and in this case, the complete opposite of Trevor's premise, is true, in
that the heat output from the incandescent light bulbs, serves to mitigate
heat input requirement, from the central heating system.

Arfa