On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 11:21:50 -0500, Jim Yanik
wrote:

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.

True. Dumping 4 tons of mercury into landfills every year is not a
good thing. However, to put that in perspective, the coal that we use
to generate most of our electricity has an estimated 75 tons of
mercury mixed in, each year, two thirds of which is belched into the
atmosphere. If you include the mercury emissions from generating the
power needed to run an incandescent lamp, the CFL lamp dumps 1/4th the
mercury into the environment as the incandescent.
http://www.cflknowhow.org/cfl-mercury-information.html

Permit me to point out that US domestic and commerical electricity
consumption has been increasing quite constantly at the rate of about
1.5%/year. If there were any energy savings from the existing CFL
lamps in service, it would have appeared as a drop in the consumption
trend. It's a bit tricky to use, but you can dig the history and
trends out of:
http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/tablebrowser/#release=AEO2011

Tungsten, as used in incandescent lamps, may not be all that
environmentally correct:
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/science/87/8703sci2.html
There's not much known about the effects of tungsten in the
environment, but it is becoming yet another thing to worry about.

I wouldn't worry much about phosphorus as we're scheduled to run out
in 50-100 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_phosphorus

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 11:21:50 -0500, Jim Yanik
wrote:

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.

True. Dumping 4 tons of mercury into landfills every year is not a
good thing. However, to put that in perspective, the coal that we use
to generate most of our electricity has an estimated 75 tons of
mercury mixed in, each year, two thirds of which is belched into the
atmosphere. If you include the mercury emissions from generating the
power needed to run an incandescent lamp, the CFL lamp dumps 1/4th the
mercury into the environment as the incandescent.
http://www.cflknowhow.org/cfl-mercury-information.html

Permit me to point out that US domestic and commerical electricity
consumption has been increasing quite constantly at the rate of about
1.5%/year. If there were any energy savings from the existing CFL
lamps in service, it would have appeared as a drop in the consumption
trend. It's a bit tricky to use, but you can dig the history and
trends out of:
http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/tablebrowser/#release=AEO2011

Tungsten, as used in incandescent lamps, may not be all that
environmentally correct:
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/science/87/8703sci2.html
There's not much known about the effects of tungsten in the
environment, but it is becoming yet another thing to worry about.

I wouldn't worry much about phosphorus as we're scheduled to run out
in 50-100 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_phosphorus

--
Jeff Liebermann

But as I said, coal fired plants have been declining over the years in
Europe - for instance, we operate just 14 here in the UK now. France has
none, I believe. Apparently, the vast majority of increase in CO2 emissions,
and use of coal to fire power plants, is coming from India and China. These
are both technologically competent nations, who are ignoring any
responsibility they might have to reduce emissions. So why does that mean
that I have to suffer a '****ing into the wind' replacement for technology
that I am happy with, so they can carry on regardless ?

http://www.engineerlive.com/Power-En...0_years/21600/

Arfa

Arfa Daily wrote:
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'.


**Indeed. I just did a little research and found that some of these
issues HAVE been examined. The total manufacturing energy input for
a typical CFL is around 1.7kWhr. The total manufacturing energy
input for a typical incandescent is around 0.3kWhr. Considerably
less. Or is it?


The thing is, there are so many components to a CFL, and so many
processes to make those components, and so many processes to
extracting, refining and making appropriate the constituents *of*
those components, that I think it is probably an impossible task to
analyse the total energy budget of making one of these things, with
any accuracy.

**I believe that may well be an over-statement. At some point, we have to be
able to place some trust in those who do their investigations into such
things. Anyway, let's assume that the investigators have made an error
amounting to 100%. Even with such an error, CFLs leave ICs in their dust.
Let's assume that the investigators are completely inept and they have made
an error amounting to 1,000%. Even with an energy input figure of 17kW, CFLs
leave ICs for dead.


There will probably also be a degree of deliberate
distortion downwards to those figures by the greenies that would
produce them, to make them look better.

**You're making the assumption that those who have investigated the matter,
have an axe to grind either way. Bad assumption. If you can supply your
alternate data, please feel free to do so. Here is my reference:

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directo...L)_Downs ides


On the other hand, an
incandescent bulb uses - what - seven, eight maybe components, each
of which could be totally accurately pinned down on their production
energy costs. Bear in mind that the processes to produce the
components are also very simple and straightforward, unlike the
processes required to make the components of a CFL.

**Your point being?

It's not impossible to pin down the cost of manufacturing the relatively
small number of components in a CFL. Car manufacturers routinely do just
that, for what is a dramatically more complex device.




Let's put that into some kind of perspective:

A typical 100 Watt IC lasts for 1,000 hours (at best).
A typical 15 Watt CFL lasts for 5,000 hours (I've certainly
exceeding that figure quite comfortably).

I have to say that in my experience, you have been extremely lucky to
get that sort of life from CFLs.

**Luck has nothing to do with it. I only buy quality CFLs and I have 19 of
the suckers in service. If I had (say) 2 in service and not experienced a
failure, then I might agree with you. I have NINETEEN of them in and around
my home. And, FWIW: several of them are not installed according to
manufacturer's instructions. They are surviving nicely.

I have used all sorts over the
years, from cheap to expensive, and have never obtained anything like
that length of service from any of them, with the exception of some
very early ones that I installed in a day nursery that we once owned.
They were Dulux globe CFLs and very expensive. We owned that nursery
for twelve years, and most of them were still going when we sold it,
so I don't dispute that it is possible to make long-lasting CFLs. I
just don't think that overall, taken across the whole raft of
qualities and costs, they are doing it any more.

**I confess that I have not purchased a CFL for several years, so I can't
confirm. The damned things are so incredibly long lasting that I simply have
not had to purchase replacements. In fact, I fully expect LEDs to be
appropriately priced by the time I need to make any changes.

However, I have a
lot of low voltage halogen downlighters in my house, that I put in
more than ten years ago. Of the eight located above the stairwell,
and the further five along the upstairs corridor, only one has failed
in all that time, and that was only a few months ago. Maybe, like you
with your CFLs, I have been lucky with these halogens.

**Perhaps. I swapped out all my iron transformers for SMPS some years ago,
to increase efficiency. The SMPS seem to deliver a pretty accurate Voltage,
so I doubt that is an issue. As an aside, my mother has a number of 12 Volt
halogens in her kitchen. I receive at least 2 calls per year to replace
blown lamps. I believe that low Voltage halogen downlights are an utterly
evil blight on society. They are OK for directing light into specific areas,
but are hopeless at lighting a space, relatively inneficient and they don't
last very long.

Here in the
UK, there have been governmental drives to push CFLs, by heavily
subsidising the cost of them, and in some cases, almost giving them
away in supermarkets, and in others *actually* giving them away.

**There are no subsidies in Australia for CFls, though the government did
give the things away for a couple of years. I snagged a few, but found the
colour temperature horrible and the lamps were clearly cheap rubbish. The
Philips lamps I buy are regularly sold for around $5.00 each. That's for a
23 Watt lamp, that, IME, has a life of AT LEAST 3,500 hours (I expect at
least double that figure) and, after 6 years of operation, is registering
less than a 5% fall in light output. Whichever way you slice it, that is
exceptional value for money.

With
the best will in the world, these are cheap crap, so that is what the
general public are having foisted on them as a result of the drive to
try to get people to actually want them, and is probably why the
general experience is that they don't last anything like as long as
the figures that they would try to have us believe. Also, those
figures are only good - if at all- when the ballast is properly
cooled, which means having the lamp in service the 'right' way up.
Unfortunately, many lamp fixtures that they go in, don't do this, and
luminaires enclose them completely. Incandescents didn't care about
this, of course.

**Perhaps. In my last home, I used a 150 Watt IC lamp and managed to do
serious damage to the plaster ceiling in the process. The fitting survived
fine, as it was designed to cope. The plaster was not. A CFL solved the
problem.




Over 5,000 hours of use, the CFL has consumed 75kWhr + 1.7kWhr =
76.7kWhr. IOW: The energy cost of manufacture is almost
insignificant, even though is a little higher than 5 incandescents.

Over 5,000 hours, the IC lamp has consumed 500kWhr + 1.5kWhr =
501.5kWhr. I would argue that the energy cost of manufacture is a
spurious
argument.

Only possibly, if you feel you are able to trust the figures for
manufacturing energy budget.

**Do the math with a figure of 17kWhr. The CFL is STILL ahead by a country
kilometre.

As I have said, I do not because of the
complexity of arriving at a figure. Plus you also need to factor in
the full energy cost of recycling the toxins contained within it at
the end of its service life. There is zero cost for this with an
incandescent, as it does not contain anything potentially harmful to
the environment.

**Not entirely true, but you point is well made. CFLs MUST be properly
disposed of. Again, this is not an impossibly costly exercise. Thos whacky
Swedes managed 75% recycling back in 2007.

http://www.enerlin.enea.it/outcomes/rep_recycling.pdf

Like all such things, the rates of recylcing will increase and the cost will
decrease over time.




The pollution cost is another matter entirely. During operation, coal
fired generators (like those here in Australia) emit mercury. A
typical 100 Watt lamp will cause the emission of around 10mg of
mercury over it's life. 5 lamps (5,000 hours) will cause the release
of 50mg or mercury. By comparison, CFLs will cause the release of
around 7.5mg of mercury + 4mg of mercury contained within the
envelope. If the lamp is disposed of correctly, then the total
mercury release will be 7.5mg. Far less than that of IC lamps. Other
nations, that employ different power generation schemes will see
different results.

Again, these figures are only meaningful if you genuinely achieve a
figure of 5000 hours across the board. And that is the important
thing. *All* CFLs need to achieve that figure for the calculations to
be valid, and that ain't never gonna happen, as long as there are
cheapo Chinese ones flooding the market. In any case, in Europe, coal
fired power stations have been on the decline for many years. Most
are now gas or nuclear

**Philips cite 6,000 hours for their lamps. Most manufacturers of IC lamps
cite an average of 750 - 1,000 hours for their standard IC lamps. These can
be made to last longer, but at the cost of efficiency. Fundamentally,
however, I take issue with your constant reference to cheap, crappy lamps. I
have CONSISTENTLY stated that I refer only to quality lamps (like Philips).
It would be like you trying to argue that automobiles are fundamentally
unsafe, unreliable and uneconomical, by using ONLY Tata automobiles as your
reference. You should be using Toyota, Honda, Mecedes, Hyundai and the
others as part of your reference.

No more talk of cheap, ****ty lamps please. Whilst they are are available
and fools will buy them, they are not representative of state of the art in
quality or longevity.




And this does not take into pollution created at the point of
manufacture. That is an issue that should be dealt with locally.


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.

**It's not a mistaken belief. It's a fact. CFLs use FAR less energy
than incandescents. From cradle to grave. Vastly, hugely less energy.


On the face of it, they appear to, and as I said before, that is the
*only* angle that's been exploited by the greenies, to try to gain
them widespread acceptance.

**Incorrect. ALL green groups have expressed reservations about the proper
disposal of CFLs.


Personally, I believe that the situation
is far less clear than this rather simplistic assumption, when you
factor in the *true* costs.

**Fair enough. Cite these "true" costs you speak of. Numbers please.

Almost certainly, they use less energy if
you accept the simple picture, get the projected life from them, and
believe the equivalence figures for light output, that they put on
the boxes. And again, on this score, I understand that they are now
trying to legislate over here, to mark the boxes in lumens or some
such, probably because users are starting to doubt the quoted
equivalence figures. In reality, if you have a genuine like for like
in terms of light output, factor in the *real* costs of producing,
transporting, and disposing of properly at the end, and get the more
typical average service life of 2000 hours from them, then the saving
becomes much less significant, and for me, insufficient reason to ban
me from using incandescents.

**My CFLs are averaging far more than 2,000 hours. Do you have any data to
supplort your notion that QUALITY CFLs manage an average of 2,000 hours? Are
you aware of any consumer legal action against Philips? After Philips cite a
6,000 hour life for their product. Here in Australia, the penalties are
severe for companies engaged in misleading advertising of that nature.
Recently, LG was penalised several hundred thousand Dollars for making
misleading claims about the efficiency of their refrigerators. I'm certain
the legislators would be happy to tackle Philips, if you can supply solid
supporting evidence to back your claims (about QUALITY CFLs).




If it's really the case, then CFLs will win out the day
in the end.

**By a massive margin, in fact.


Distorted by the fact that CFLs are effectively government sponsored,

**Not in Australia. They compete in the market, like any other product. They
cost approximately 5 times as much as an equivalent IC lamp. They last 5
times longer and use 1/5th as much energy.

his might prove an intgeresting read for you:

http://www.choice.com.au/consumer-ac...ightbulbs.aspx

and that I cannot buy the bulbs I want any more, because they have
banned them to make sure that I can't. If it was still incandescents
vs CFLs on a level playing field, the take up of CFLs would be much
less, which was the reason in the first place that they found it
necessary to legislate to force people to use them.

**I agree with that. Most people are, fundamentally, greedy, self-serving,
fools. They'll choose the cheapest, upfront solution, without regard to
longevity or running costs.




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.

**Your opinion is duly noted. That comment is a political issue. I
recall EXACTLY the same arguments were made, here in Australia, when
leaded petrol was legislated out of existence. I susepct that, in 20
years, when we look back at this whole discussion, it will appear to
be a non-event. More efficient lighting will be the standard,
incandescents will be relegated to specialised applications (oven
lighting, etc) and the whole issue will be viewed for what it really
is - a storm in a teacup.


I fail to see how you equate leaded petrol to the situation with
CFLs. It is a different issue entirely, with very clear motives and
outcomes. You would have to be brain dead not to understand that
putting huge quantities of lead into the atmosphere at ground level
and in a form that people could breathe, is bad in every way.

**As is feeding excessive CO2 into the atmosphere. Too much CO2 is causing
excessive warming of this planet.

Removing lead from petrol had little if any impact on the general
public, because it was already possible to build engines that had no
requirement for lead in their fuel, without compromising performance.

**That was not the case here in Australia. Manufacturers had to alter their
production systems, costing millions of Dollars to cope. Most automobiles
suffered a performance fall when switched to unleaded fuel. Those who
retained their leaded fuel autos have to use expensive additives to
compensate.


It was, unlike CFLs, a classic example of a genuine *replacement*
technology, which suffered no disadvantages over the technology that
it was replacing.

**Not here in Australia. Costs rose for buyers.

There was not even any need to challenge this bit
of legislation, because the advantages were very clear to see in
large cities the world over. Even if you clung on to your car that
needed leaded petrol, this was still available at the pumps for some
years after unleaded came in, and after it was finally removed from
sale, there was still LRP (lead replacement petrol) available for
some long time after that. Finally, if you still wanted to run your
vintage engine, this could be achieved in most cases by the simple
expedient of altering the ignition timing, and in the worst case,
reducing the compression ratio a little, by fitting a thicker head
gasket.

**Incorrect. Leaded fuel vehicles require an additive to allow correct
operation of valves (seats). The simple expedient of altering timing is only
for making up for differences in octane, not lead.

CFLs are nothing like this. They are a substitute technology
which is unable to replace incandescents in a number of areas - such
as decorative light fittings - and having many other shortcomings in
comparison to incandescents, in exchange for the dubious possibility
that they in some way help to save the planet.

**Specialised IC lamps are still available in Australia. I don't know about
Europe. Fancy lamps, oven lamps and others are still available. For those
who refuse to change, halogen replacements are still available.





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.

**So? Northern Europe is not the whole world. Vast swathes of this
planet consume vast amounts of energy for air conditioning. Northern
Europe is a small player in that respect. Worse, CO2 emissions from
Northern Europe impact on those regions where a small amount of
warming will lead to serious problems. We only have one place that
we can all live. We all need to work together.



I'm having a bit of trouble picking the bones out of that one,
Trevor. You made a very clear statement that a disadvantage of
incandescents was that they generated heat that needed the use of
aircon plant to remove. I merely stated that this is not the case in
Northern Europe, where aircon is not common in the first place, and
where the exact opposite of what you contend, is true. In the case of
what you are stating, we are talking a double whammy in that the
lights waste energy in producing heat, and then your energy-thirsty
aircon plant has to be used to waste a bit more removing that heat.
Here, the heat is not 'wasted' for much of the year, as it partially
mitigates the required heating input from the central heating. 50
watts of heat pouring off a lightbulb into my living room, is 50
watts that my heating system has not got to put into my radiators. I
fail to see what your point is regarding Northern Europe against
'vast swathes of the planet etc'. The population density of Northern
Europe is much higher overall than that of many of these vast swathes
that you refer to, so the fact that we don't use huge amounts of
energy for aircon, equates to a much lower energy requirement per
person, taken overall.

**Apart from those places where geo-thermal energy is common, or
temperatures are too low, heat pumps (aka: air conditioners) are a far more
efficient method of heating a home than resistive heating.



And, just to reinforce the point: I do not consider lighting to be a
major problem in power consumption (and, therefore, CO2 emissions).
Nor do I consider appliances that use auxiliary power to be a major
issue either.


So why do you support the banning of a proven simple technology,
which did the job of providing even-intensity pleasing-quality light,
to everyone's satisfaction ??

**Points:

* IC lamps are NOT to everyone's satisfaction. I have ONLY used fluoro
lighting in my workshop for the last 40 years.
* IC lamps are unreliable and wasteful of energy.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

snip


On the other hand, an
incandescent bulb uses - what - seven, eight maybe components, each
of which could be totally accurately pinned down on their production
energy costs. Bear in mind that the processes to produce the
components are also very simple and straightforward, unlike the
processes required to make the components of a CFL.

**Your point being?

It's not impossible to pin down the cost of manufacturing the relatively
small number of components in a CFL. Car manufacturers routinely do just
that, for what is a dramatically more complex device.


But we're not talking cost here. We're talking energy budgets and planetary
pollution from industrial processes. Any fool can say "this transistor costs
us 20 cents. This capacitor costs us 5 cents" and so on. But it's an awful
lot more complex to start looking into the energy budget for refining the
silicon. For turning the silicon into P and N types. For refining the
plastic from the oil. For getting the oil out of the ground. For getting the
iron ore out of the ground. For refining the iron out of the ore, and then
converting it to steel. Transporting all the constituents. Manufacturing
them into a transistor. Then shipping that transistor to the CFL maker. And
on and on. And that's just one component out of a considerable number - see

http://www.pavouk.org/hw/lamp/en_index.html

My point obviously being that in comparison, an incandescent has a very few
constituent parts, all of which are simple, and have simple well defined
manufacturing processes, that could easily be energy budgeted.






Let's put that into some kind of perspective:

A typical 100 Watt IC lasts for 1,000 hours (at best).
A typical 15 Watt CFL lasts for 5,000 hours (I've certainly
exceeding that figure quite comfortably).

I have to say that in my experience, you have been extremely lucky to
get that sort of life from CFLs.

**Luck has nothing to do with it. I only buy quality CFLs and I have 19 of
the suckers in service. If I had (say) 2 in service and not experienced a
failure, then I might agree with you. I have NINETEEN of them in and
around my home. And, FWIW: several of them are not installed according to
manufacturer's instructions. They are surviving nicely.

I have used all sorts over the
years, from cheap to expensive, and have never obtained anything like
that length of service from any of them, with the exception of some
very early ones that I installed in a day nursery that we once owned.
They were Dulux globe CFLs and very expensive. We owned that nursery
for twelve years, and most of them were still going when we sold it,
so I don't dispute that it is possible to make long-lasting CFLs. I
just don't think that overall, taken across the whole raft of
qualities and costs, they are doing it any more.

**I confess that I have not purchased a CFL for several years, so I can't
confirm. The damned things are so incredibly long lasting that I simply
have not had to purchase replacements. In fact, I fully expect LEDs to be
appropriately priced by the time I need to make any changes.

Well, good luck with that one. As long as they have to keep putting any kind
of control electronics in them to make them run from AC line voltage, then
as long as they are not subsidised, they are never going to get as cheap as
incandescents, or have as low an energy budget to produce. Whilst there have
been some major advances in recent years in the light output and efficiency
of LEDs , they still have relatively poor colour rendition qualities for
home use, and still struggle to produce even omni-directional light as is
required for general lighting, due to the fact that the light is produced at
a flat surface. As to not experiencing the same longevity as you with my
CFLs, I thought that I carefully explained that I have purchased all
qualities of the things, and have not found the expensive 'quality' names to
be any longer lived than the cheapos. This seems to be the findings of
others on here, as well.

snip

are now gas or nuclear

**Philips cite 6,000 hours for their lamps. Most manufacturers of IC lamps
cite an average of 750 - 1,000 hours for their standard IC lamps. These
can be made to last longer, but at the cost of efficiency. Fundamentally,
however, I take issue with your constant reference to cheap, crappy lamps.
I have CONSISTENTLY stated that I refer only to quality lamps (like
Philips). It would be like you trying to argue that automobiles are
fundamentally unsafe, unreliable and uneconomical, by using ONLY Tata
automobiles as your reference. You should be using Toyota, Honda, Mecedes,
Hyundai and the others as part of your reference.

No more talk of cheap, ****ty lamps please. Whilst they are are available
and fools will buy them, they are not representative of state of the art
in quality or longevity.

Well no. That is an unfair slant in favour of the CFL argument. As long as
cheap crappy ones are available, *most* people - not just "fools" as you so
disparagingly refer to them - will buy them over the expensive quality ones,
because they don't understand the difference, as we do. It's human nature to
buy cheap, which is why the Chinese are doing so well on the back of
world-wide sales of cheap - and often crap quality - electronic goods,
offered for sale through all our nations' supermarkets. This is where the
whole thing breaks down as an argument about the eco validity of any of this
technology. The manufacturers of the cheap CFLs are in it purely to make
money. They have no concern at all for the 'green' credentials of their
products, except in as much as they will sell in their millions,
irrespective of their quality, just because the *are* CFLs. So whilst it is
true what you say in that the cheapo ones are not representative of the
state of the art, unfortunately, they *are* representative of what is being
sold in quantity to the general public, and their contribution to the
validity of the discussion, cannot be ignored until *all* CFLs that are
offered for sale, are indeed representative of the state of the art. I'm
sorry if that offends your sensibilities, but it *is* part of the overall
equation. In fact, your analogy with the cars, is self-defeating, because
you could look at it from the other angle, and say that if you take say BMW
as your reference, then all other cheaper makes are invalid because they are
not 'state of the art', and people who buy them are fools. The cheaper makes
will always be bought by the general public, because not everyone can afford
the safety and performance of a BMW, just like not everyone can afford to
pay £5 or whatever for a bulb to replace an incandescent that they are used
to paying 50 pence for. If there is a CFL costing 50 pence on the shelf
alongside the £5 one, you tell me, which one are most uninformed people
going to buy ? And it is for precisely this reason that the whole CFL thing,
taken on a world-wide basis, falls apart.




And this does not take into pollution created at the point of
manufacture. That is an issue that should be dealt with locally.


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.

**It's not a mistaken belief. It's a fact. CFLs use FAR less energy
than incandescents. From cradle to grave. Vastly, hugely less energy.


On the face of it, they appear to, and as I said before, that is the
*only* angle that's been exploited by the greenies, to try to gain
them widespread acceptance.

**Incorrect. ALL green groups have expressed reservations about the proper
disposal of CFLs.


But that is actually another comparatively minor issue. Important from the
pollution point of view, yes, but insignificant compared to the
manufacturing energy budgets and pollution-causing manufacturing processes,
that are NEVER mentioned by these groups, because they never even consider
these 'hidden' aspects.




Personally, I believe that the situation
is far less clear than this rather simplistic assumption, when you
factor in the *true* costs.

**Fair enough. Cite these "true" costs you speak of. Numbers please.



I cannot give numbers, because there are none that FULLY analyse ALL energy
inputs and pollution outputs for the hundreds of processes involved. And
when I say "costs", I am not talking monetary ones, as I explained earlier.
As I said, I am sure that it is just too complicated a situation to ever be
able to arrive at a real figure, but no matter how much you don't want to
believe it, you have to accept that there *are* many hundreds of process
steps and transport steps involved in CFL manufacture, compared to
incandescent manufacture, which *must* add up to a very significant amount,
that is being totally ignored in making the 'green' case for the things.
Whether it can be accurately quantified or not, if you stop and think about
it, it is common sense.



Almost certainly, they use less energy if
you accept the simple picture, get the projected life from them, and
believe the equivalence figures for light output, that they put on
the boxes. And again, on this score, I understand that they are now
trying to legislate over here, to mark the boxes in lumens or some
such, probably because users are starting to doubt the quoted
equivalence figures. In reality, if you have a genuine like for like
in terms of light output, factor in the *real* costs of producing,
transporting, and disposing of properly at the end, and get the more
typical average service life of 2000 hours from them, then the saving
becomes much less significant, and for me, insufficient reason to ban
me from using incandescents.

**My CFLs are averaging far more than 2,000 hours. Do you have any data to
supplort your notion that QUALITY CFLs manage an average of 2,000 hours?
Are you aware of any consumer legal action against Philips? After Philips
cite a 6,000 hour life for their product. Here in Australia, the penalties
are severe for companies engaged in misleading advertising of that nature.
Recently, LG was penalised several hundred thousand Dollars for making
misleading claims about the efficiency of their refrigerators. I'm certain
the legislators would be happy to tackle Philips, if you can supply solid
supporting evidence to back your claims (about QUALITY CFLs).


See my earlier comments regarding quality CFLs versus the reality of what
people *actually* buy ...






If it's really the case, then CFLs will win out the day
in the end.

**By a massive margin, in fact.


Distorted by the fact that CFLs are effectively government sponsored,

**Not in Australia. They compete in the market, like any other product.
They cost approximately 5 times as much as an equivalent IC lamp. They
last 5 times longer and use 1/5th as much energy.

his might prove an intgeresting read for you:

http://www.choice.com.au/consumer-ac...ightbulbs.aspx

and that I cannot buy the bulbs I want any more, because they have
banned them to make sure that I can't. If it was still incandescents
vs CFLs on a level playing field, the take up of CFLs would be much
less, which was the reason in the first place that they found it
necessary to legislate to force people to use them.

**I agree with that. Most people are, fundamentally, greedy, self-serving,
fools. They'll choose the cheapest, upfront solution, without regard to
longevity or running costs.


I don't understand this. By saying that, you make my case for me, and
utterly destroy your own ...






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.

**Your opinion is duly noted. That comment is a political issue. I
recall EXACTLY the same arguments were made, here in Australia, when
leaded petrol was legislated out of existence. I susepct that, in 20
years, when we look back at this whole discussion, it will appear to
be a non-event. More efficient lighting will be the standard,
incandescents will be relegated to specialised applications (oven
lighting, etc) and the whole issue will be viewed for what it really
is - a storm in a teacup.


I fail to see how you equate leaded petrol to the situation with
CFLs. It is a different issue entirely, with very clear motives and
outcomes. You would have to be brain dead not to understand that
putting huge quantities of lead into the atmosphere at ground level
and in a form that people could breathe, is bad in every way.

**As is feeding excessive CO2 into the atmosphere. Too much CO2 is causing
excessive warming of this planet.


That is by no means proven in science. Only in the media. There are many
reputable scientists who believe otherwise.



Removing lead from petrol had little if any impact on the general
public, because it was already possible to build engines that had no
requirement for lead in their fuel, without compromising performance.

**That was not the case here in Australia. Manufacturers had to alter
their production systems, costing millions of Dollars to cope. Most
automobiles suffered a performance fall when switched to unleaded fuel.
Those who retained their leaded fuel autos have to use expensive additives
to compensate.


There is little difference between engines that burn leaded and unleaded
fuel. For sure, there had to be some modification to the production and
design processes, but these occur for the manufacturers every time they
bring out a new model or engine. The monetary costs of doing this are
factored into a new design, so will actually not have been any particularly
burdensome problem for the manufacturers. Drops in performance of existing
engines when converted to run on unleaded fuel were actually fairly minor,
and most people here, at least, did not even bother converting because
leaded petrol was available alongside unleaded, for a reasonable time
period. Back when all this happened, cars were not that long-lived anyway,
so unless you had only just bought a new one, it was no great shakes that
the next one you bought would be produced with an unleaded petrol engine,
already designed in. The manufacturers knew this was coming, and had plenty
of time to carry out the required design alterations, and actually to
amortise the costs in their existing production, in readiness for the
legislation.





It was, unlike CFLs, a classic example of a genuine *replacement*
technology, which suffered no disadvantages over the technology that
it was replacing.

**Not here in Australia. Costs rose for buyers.

There was not even any need to challenge this bit
of legislation, because the advantages were very clear to see in
large cities the world over. Even if you clung on to your car that
needed leaded petrol, this was still available at the pumps for some
years after unleaded came in, and after it was finally removed from
sale, there was still LRP (lead replacement petrol) available for
some long time after that. Finally, if you still wanted to run your
vintage engine, this could be achieved in most cases by the simple
expedient of altering the ignition timing, and in the worst case,
reducing the compression ratio a little, by fitting a thicker head
gasket.

**Incorrect. Leaded fuel vehicles require an additive to allow correct
operation of valves (seats). The simple expedient of altering timing is
only for making up for differences in octane, not lead.


The lead was in the petrol as an anti-knock agent, as I recall



CFLs are nothing like this. They are a substitute technology
which is unable to replace incandescents in a number of areas - such
as decorative light fittings - and having many other shortcomings in
comparison to incandescents, in exchange for the dubious possibility
that they in some way help to save the planet.

**Specialised IC lamps are still available in Australia. I don't know
about Europe. Fancy lamps, oven lamps and others are still available. For
those who refuse to change, halogen replacements are still available.

Nope. Pretty much all outlawed here. You can't get a proper golf ball or
candle any more. You haven't been able to get pearlised bulbs of any
description for a long time. Truly specialised ones for ovens etc are still
available, because it is simply impossible to replace them with anything
else. Halogen 'Apollo nose-cones' are still available at the moment, and
capsule halogens still are, but only in clear envelopes, which are pretty
useless compared to frosted ones. I was looking around the other day to see
if I could still find any halogen replacements (the type where a halogen
capsule bulb is incorporated into a 'traditional' shaped incandescent
envelope), and the only ones of those that I could find were clear. These
give a very harsh light, whereas the pearlised ones, gave a very nice even
light




Arfa

On 25/09/2011 8:03 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
[snipped an awful lot]

**Perhaps. I swapped out all my iron transformers for SMPS some years ago,
to increase efficiency. The SMPS seem to deliver a pretty accurate Voltage,
so I doubt that is an issue. As an aside, my mother has a number of 12 Volt
halogens in her kitchen. I receive at least 2 calls per year to replace
blown lamps. I believe that low Voltage halogen downlights are an utterly
evil blight on society. They are OK for directing light into specific areas,
but are hopeless at lighting a space, relatively inneficient and they don't
last very long.

I think there is a place for halogen spot lights. In my kitchen area,
with a pine-lined cathedral ceiling, I have 4 halogens. They are well
placed above the critical spots where I need good lighting.

The 35W lamps from Ikea are just as bright as the old 50W. (Even the 20W
ones could be an option now).

I run them on electronic ballasts and on a trailing edge dimmer, for a
soft background light when the kitchen's closed
The dimmer has a soft start switch, very nice!
I have had no 35W lamps failing after 3 years which equates to an
estimated 2000 hrs on full power, and the dimming hasn't done any harm
to them.

I have, for now, substituted 2 of the halogens with LED lights from Deal
Extreme (MR16 4-LED 360-Lumen 3500K Warm White Light Bulb (12V)
Item Number 39027 49.5mm, $8.30) which consume only 6W (6W instead of 35
is a strong argument). They are bright enough but the yellowish colour
really needs to get used to. I don't know if I will keep them or get
some more white ones instead. Maybe someone has tried some more and
different ones? Let us know what you think. There is just too many too
chose from.

Tony

[snipped even more]

On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 11:02:28 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:

But as I said, coal fired plants have been declining over the years in
Europe - for instance, we operate just 14 here in the UK now. France has
none, I believe.

There are about 600 coal plants in the US. The numbers are a bit
misleading as coal fired power plants come in all shapes and sizes.
It's not the number, but the generation capacity that's important. In
the US, we built 10 new plants in 2010 for a total new capacity of
1.6GW (gigawatts). However, if you include decomissioned plants, the
net loss in capacity in 2010 was about -4.6GW lost. Most of the loss
was balanced by a transition to federally subsidized wind power. In
2010, there was also the cancellation of 10 additional plants mostly
due to legislative or EPA restriction. For example, California has a
ban on new coal plants (SB1368). Europe is doing much the same.
http://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/refshelf/ncp.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_phase_out
If the EPA gets its way, it's likely that most of the older US coal
plants will need to close to meet emission requirements.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Existing_U.S._Coal_Plants

The loss of -4.6GW of coal generation capacity is not going to make
much of a dent in the mercury emissions. At this time, the US gets
about 45% of about 4 trillion kw-hr of electricity from coal. A few
gigawatts of capacity here and there isn't going to change much.
http://www.eia.gov/coal/
Note that capacity loss is usually balanced by burning more coal to
produce more electricity at other plants. Therefore, closing a plant
does NOT constitute an overall decrease in emissions. Only a decrease
in generated mw-hr can decrease emissions.

If you accept my coal generation logic at face value, every product
that uses electricity also dumps mercury into the environment. For
example, my electric water heater would be considered a major
contributor to coal based environmental pollution and far more
significant than a CFL lamp. While this doesn't do anything to help
one decide between CFL and incandescent, it does highlight some
priorities on the process.

Apparently, the vast majority of increase in CO2 emissions,
and use of coal to fire power plants, is coming from India and China.

Yep. Something like 90% of the really obnoxious atmospheric pollution
comes from burning coal. There are technologies that drastically
reduce coal fired plant emissions. They're expensive, messy, use huge
amounts of water, and are being largely ignored by the larger plants.
Not so with the smaller plants, a few of which use one or more
technologies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_coal_technology
As far as I can tell, neither India or China are doing clean coal
plants.

These
are both technologically competent nations, who are ignoring any
responsibility they might have to reduce emissions. So why does that mean
that I have to suffer a '****ing into the wind' replacement for technology
that I am happy with, so they can carry on regardless ?

I don't have an answer to the "why". Most likely, both countries
economies will collapse without the generated power, which makes it
one of many "necessary evils".


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Hi Tony,

I have, for now, substituted 2 of the halogens with LED lights from Deal
Extreme (MR16 4-LED 360-Lumen 3500K Warm White Light Bulb (12V)
Item Number 39027 49.5mm, $8.30) which consume only 6W (6W instead of 35
is a strong argument). They are bright enough but the yellowish colour
really needs to get used to. I don't know if I will keep them or get
some more white ones instead. Maybe someone has tried some more and
different ones? Let us know what you think. There is just too many too
chose from.

I have replaced 6 x 50w Halgens in our kitchen with 6 x these ones 3.8w each

http://www.dealextreme.com/p/mr16-3-...hite-12v-30825

and I have to say I am happy on several fronts.

firstly it consumes only 23w compared to 300w of the originals.
secondly they run cool not burning hot
thirdly the light is WHITE not yellow and floods the kitchen rather than
being directional like the halogens were.

Our ceilings are 9ft and the halogens created a bright area that was
very narrow and left deep shadows to the sides of the area...

These LEDs `flood' the whole area and in effect create a daylight
environment much more pleasing to me.

I will add that whilst they ran on AC 12V they had a slight flicker I
found disturbing so I now run them off 12Vdc and they are great.

mick

On Sep 25, 11:52*am, "Arfa Daily" wrote:
snip



On the other hand, an
incandescent bulb uses - what - seven, eight maybe components, each
of which could be totally accurately pinned down on their production
energy costs. Bear in mind that the processes to produce the
components are also very simple and straightforward, unlike the
processes required to make the components of a CFL.

**Your point being?

It's not impossible to pin down the cost of manufacturing the relatively
small number of components in a CFL. Car manufacturers routinely do just
that, for what is a dramatically more complex device.

But we're not talking cost here. We're talking energy budgets and planetary
pollution from industrial processes. Any fool can say "this transistor costs
us 20 cents. This capacitor costs us 5 cents" and so on. But it's an awful
lot more complex to start looking into the energy budget for refining the
silicon. For turning the silicon into P and N types. For refining the
plastic from the oil. For getting the oil out of the ground. For getting the
iron ore out of the ground. For refining the iron out of the ore, and then
converting it to steel. Transporting all the constituents. Manufacturing
them into a transistor. Then shipping that transistor to the CFL maker. And
on and on. And that's just one component out of a considerable number - see

http://www.pavouk.org/hw/lamp/en_index.html

My point obviously being that in comparison, an incandescent has a very few
constituent parts, all of which are simple, and have simple well defined
manufacturing processes, that could easily be energy budgeted.





Let's put that into some kind of perspective:

A typical 100 Watt IC lasts for 1,000 hours (at best).
A typical 15 Watt CFL lasts for 5,000 hours (I've certainly
exceeding that figure quite comfortably).

I have to say that in my experience, you have been extremely lucky to
get that sort of life from CFLs.

**Luck has nothing to do with it. I only buy quality CFLs and I have 19 of
the suckers in service. If I had (say) 2 in service and not experienced a
failure, then I might agree with you. I have NINETEEN of them in and
around my home. And, FWIW: several of them are not installed according to
manufacturer's instructions. They are surviving nicely.

I have used all sorts over the
years, from cheap to expensive, and have never obtained anything like
that length of service from any of them, with the exception of some
very early ones that I installed in a day nursery that we once owned.
They were Dulux globe CFLs and very expensive. We owned that nursery
for twelve years, and most of them were still going when we sold it,
so I don't dispute that it is possible to make long-lasting CFLs. I
just don't think that overall, taken across the whole raft of
qualities and costs, they are doing it any more.

**I confess that I have not purchased a CFL for several years, so I can't
confirm. The damned things are so incredibly long lasting that I simply
have not had to purchase replacements. In fact, I fully expect LEDs to be
appropriately priced by the time I need to make any changes.

Well, good luck with that one. As long as they have to keep putting any kind
of control electronics in them to make them run from AC line voltage, then
as long as they are not subsidised, they are never going to get as cheap as
incandescents, or have as low an energy budget to produce. Whilst there have
been some major advances in recent years in the light output and efficiency
of LEDs , they still have relatively poor colour rendition qualities for
home use, and still struggle to produce even omni-directional light as is
required for general lighting, due to the fact that the light is produced at
a flat surface. As to not experiencing the same longevity as you with my
CFLs, I thought that I carefully explained that I have purchased all
qualities of the things, and have not found the expensive 'quality' names to
be any longer lived than the cheapos. This seems to be the findings of
others on here, as well.

snip

are now gas or nuclear

**Philips cite 6,000 hours for their lamps. Most manufacturers of IC lamps
cite an average of 750 - 1,000 hours for their standard IC lamps. These
can be made to last longer, but at the cost of efficiency. Fundamentally,
however, I take issue with your constant reference to cheap, crappy lamps.
I have CONSISTENTLY stated that I refer only to quality lamps (like
Philips). It would be like you trying to argue that automobiles are
fundamentally unsafe, unreliable and uneconomical, by using ONLY Tata
automobiles as your reference. You should be using Toyota, Honda, Mecedes,
Hyundai and the others as part of your reference.

No more talk of cheap, ****ty lamps please. Whilst they are are available
and fools will buy them, they are not representative of state of the art
in quality or longevity.

Well no. That is an unfair slant in favour of the CFL argument. As long as
cheap crappy ones are available, *most* people - not just "fools" as you so
disparagingly refer to them - will buy them over the expensive quality ones,
because they don't understand the difference, as we do. It's human nature to
buy cheap, which is why the Chinese are doing so well on the back of
world-wide sales of cheap - and often crap quality - electronic goods,
offered for sale through all our nations' supermarkets. This is where the
whole thing breaks down as an argument about the eco validity of any of this
technology. The manufacturers of the cheap CFLs are in it purely to make
money. They have no concern at all for the 'green' credentials of their
products, except in as much as they will sell in their millions,
irrespective of their quality, just because the *are* CFLs. So whilst it is
true what you say in that the cheapo ones are not representative of the
state of the art, unfortunately, they *are* representative of what is being
sold in quantity to the general public, and their contribution to the
validity of the discussion, cannot be ignored until *all* CFLs that are
offered for sale, are indeed representative of the state of the art. I'm
sorry if that offends your sensibilities, but it *is* part of the overall
equation. In fact, your analogy with the cars, is self-defeating, because
you could look at it from the other angle, and say that if you take say BMW
as your reference, then all other cheaper makes are invalid because they are
not 'state of the art', and people who buy them are fools. The cheaper makes
will always be bought by the general public, because not everyone can afford
the safety and performance of a BMW, just like not everyone can afford to
pay £5 or whatever for a bulb to replace an incandescent that they are used
to paying 50 pence for. If there is a CFL costing 50 pence on the shelf
alongside the £5 one, you tell me, which one are most uninformed people
going to buy ? And it is for precisely this reason that the whole CFL thing,
taken on a world-wide basis, falls apart.





And this does not take into pollution created at the point of
manufacture. That is an issue that should be dealt with locally.

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.

**It's not a mistaken belief. It's a fact. CFLs use FAR less energy
than incandescents. From cradle to grave. Vastly, hugely less energy.

On the face of it, they appear to, and as I said before, that is the
*only* angle that's been exploited by the greenies, to try to gain
them widespread acceptance.

**Incorrect. ALL green groups have expressed reservations about the proper
disposal of CFLs.

But that is actually another comparatively minor issue. Important from the
pollution point of view, yes, but insignificant compared to the
manufacturing energy budgets and pollution-causing manufacturing processes,
that are NEVER mentioned by these groups, because they never even consider
these 'hidden' aspects.



Personally, I believe that the situation
is far less clear than this rather simplistic assumption, when you
factor in the *true* costs.

**Fair enough. Cite these "true" costs you speak of. Numbers please.

I cannot give numbers, because there are none that FULLY analyse ALL energy
inputs and pollution outputs for the hundreds of processes involved. And
when I say "costs", I am not talking monetary ones, as I explained earlier.

On 25/09/2011 2:37 PM, Mick DaDik wrote:
Hi Tony,

I have, for now, substituted 2 of the halogens with LED lights from Deal
Extreme (MR16 4-LED 360-Lumen 3500K Warm White Light Bulb (12V)
Item Number 39027 49.5mm, $8.30) which consume only 6W (6W instead of 35
is a strong argument). They are bright enough but the yellowish colour
really needs to get used to. I don't know if I will keep them or get
some more white ones instead. Maybe someone has tried some more and
different ones? Let us know what you think. There is just too many too
chose from.

I have replaced 6 x 50w Halgens in our kitchen with 6 x these ones 3.8w
each

http://www.dealextreme.com/p/mr16-3-...hite-12v-30825


and I have to say I am happy on several fronts.

firstly it consumes only 23w compared to 300w of the originals.
secondly they run cool not burning hot
thirdly the light is WHITE not yellow and floods the kitchen rather than
being directional like the halogens were.

Our ceilings are 9ft and the halogens created a bright area that was
very narrow and left deep shadows to the sides of the area...

These LEDs `flood' the whole area and in effect create a daylight
environment much more pleasing to me.

I will add that whilst they ran on AC 12V they had a slight flicker I
found disturbing so I now run them off 12Vdc and they are great.

mick

Thanks Mick.
They are a bit more expensive, but worth a try.
(Even though with Deal Extreme I never know for sure if I get what's in
the description.)
Tony

"kreed"

** FFS - learn how to trim !!

The one advantage they have over incandescents is that they are not
affected by vibration.


** Low voltage incandescents are genuinely not affected.

But most CFLs are easily damaged by it.

After time, the glue fails and the glass tubes or spirals come loose from
the plastic case.

Then with vibration or handling, the feed wires break.

There simply is no quality control and a myriad of things to go wrong.

And the Chinese are making them.



..... Phil

"Trevor Wilson"

**I suggest you read this:

http://www.choice.com.au/reviews-and...ightbulbs.aspx


** A laughably worthless test, not in any way related to normal use.

Something the rabid green lunatics at Choice are FAMOUS for !!!

Look at the pic - all the CFLs are suspended in mid air !!

No light fittings, not even a ceiling above them.

The room is air conditioned too.

And NO on /off cycling at all !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not ONE of the KNOWN issues with CFLs will be revealed in such a test.


BTW:

One reason that Choice did not cycle the CFLs is that they found it VERY
difficult to do.

If you try to switch on 10 or more CFLs at once, it will trip the lighting
circuit breaker ( 8 amp) regularly - with over 200 it will not even be
possible at all.

CFLs have large inrush surges, up to 20 amps peak or more for long enough to
active the magnetic trip on lighting breakers.

Looks like the CFLs in that test were powered from a wall outlet (ie using a
16 amp breaker) and brought on in groups of 10 ( using several multi-way
power boards) until they were all lit and left like that for 12 months.

Total ********.

The other green lunatic drivel quoted in the article makes me wanna puke.



..... Phil

On Sep 25, 5:55*pm, "Phil Allison" wrote:
"kreed"

** FFS * - *learn how to trim !!

The one advantage they have over incandescents is that they are not
affected by vibration.

** Low voltage incandescents are genuinely not affected.

That is true (IE, automotive bulbs) , but to clarify to everyone, I
was referring to standard 240v domestic ones

But most CFLs are easily damaged by it.

After time, the glue fails and the glass tubes or spirals come loose from
the plastic case.

Then with vibration or handling, the feed wires break.

There simply is no quality control and a myriad of things to go wrong.

And the Chinese are making them.

.... *Phil

Yes, that is the worst part. Also means that they can claim anything
and not deliver and be immune. Would love to see anyone manufacturing
in Australia try that and get away with it.

On Sep 25, 6:20*pm, "Phil Allison" wrote:
"Trevor Wilson"

**I suggest you read this:

http://www.choice.com.au/reviews-and...ergy-and-water...

** A laughably worthless test, not in any way related to normal use.

Something the rabid green lunatics at Choice are FAMOUS *for *!!!

Look at the pic *- *all the CFLs are suspended in mid air !!

No light fittings, not even a ceiling above them.

The room is air conditioned too.

And *NO *on /off *cycling at all *!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not *ONE *of the *KNOWN *issues with CFLs will be revealed in such a test.


Not only that, but by the time the 9000 hours (375 days @ 24H a day)
was up, most of the CFL bulbs tested would have been obsolete and
would have been superseded by other designs, or sourced from another
Chinese manufacturer who was now the cheapest, and while they may look
the same, they would likely use a different circuit, and probably
different parts as well - again sourced from who is now the cheapest
supplier.

Economic crisis would make this situation worse, with companies
involved closing and downsizing all over the place.


It would be like doing longevity tests on motherboards or hard drives.
None of the units tested would still be current or on sale by the time
the test was finished.


BTW:

One reason that Choice did not cycle the CFLs is that they found it *VERY
difficult to do.

If you try to switch on 10 or more CFLs at once, it will trip the lighting
circuit breaker ( 8 amp) regularly *- * with over 200 it will not even be
possible at all.

CFLs have large inrush surges, up to 20 amps peak or more for long enough to
active the magnetic trip on lighting breakers.

Looks like the CFLs in that test were powered from a wall outlet (ie using a
16 amp breaker) and brought on in groups of 10 ( using several multi-way
power boards) until they were all lit and left like that for 12 months.

Total ********.

The other green lunatic drivel quoted in the article makes me wanna puke.

.... Phil

You would have loved 4 corners last week then, I had never seen such
blatant propaganda in support of the Gillard government and the carbon
tax.

"kreed"

But most CFLs are easily damaged by it.

After time, the glue fails and the glass tubes or spirals come loose from
the plastic case.

Then with vibration or handling, the feed wires break.

There simply is no quality control and a myriad of things to go wrong.

And the Chinese are making them.


Yes, that is the worst part. Also means that they can claim anything
and not deliver and be immune.


** Absolute nonsense.

Importers are liable for false advertising in exactly the same way that
manufacturers are.

The claims I see on CFL packs are vague and very limited or non existent.

Egs

What the **** does " non dimmable " mean ??

What does " not suitable for wet environments " mean ??

IMO, the people making the FALSE CLAIMS are the stinking greenies.



.... Phil

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

What the **** does "non-dimmable" mean?

It means the manufacturer does not claim "dimmability".

In practice, at least some CFLs are dimmable that don't claim to be -- for
example, the top-rated Home Depot lamps are.


IMO, the people making the FALSE CLAIMS are the stinking greenies.

And those false claims would be...?

I can think of one false claim -- that using less electricity puts less CO2
into the air. This is true if reduced consumption results in building fewer
hydrocarbon-powered electric plants. But, given load levelling across the
grid, and the need to run the steam generators at a constant level, I assume
there's little or no variation in the amount of CO2 put out by any one
plant.

I'm very much in favor of reduced CO2 emissions, and the development of
cheap, sustainable energy. But our society's basic problem is that we use
too much of everything, and generate too much waste of all sorts.

Portland General Electric is currently running an ad thanking its customers
for the "virtual" power plants said customers have "built" by using less
electricity.

William Sommer****** = ****WIT "

"Phil Allison"

What the **** does "non-dimmable" mean?

It means the manufacturer does not claim "dimmability".


** But all CFLs are dimmable.


IMO, the people making the FALSE CLAIMS are the stinking greenies.

And those false claims would be...?

** All of them.

The main one being that they can replace any incandescent bulb.

The makers make no such claim.


I can think of one false claim -- that using less electricity puts less
CO2
into the air.

** False.

The makers make no such claim.


I'm very much in favor of reduced CO2 emissions,


** Then, FFS - kill yourself.

Well, I guess we're never going to agree on any aspect of this. You seem
predisposed to take the wrong way, a number of points that I have repeatedly
made, but ho-hum, it's been an interesting line of chat, and at least it
hasn't descended into a screaming match as is so often the case in these
discussions :-)

As to the bulbs you have found online, I must admit that I hadn't managed to
come up with the eco halogens in a pearl envelope - if indeed they actually
have got one when the item is in your hand. All the rest of the ones that
you found, have clear envelopes, as I said, because the pearl envelopes have
been banned, though Christ knows for what eco-bollox reasons. I have a bar
of 4 R50 spots in the room I am in right now, and another two as wall
mounted uplighters in my lounge. These used to do a lovely job of providing
targeted light in the computer room, and accent light in the lounge, or
reduced light for TV watching, when they had a pearlised front. Since they
banned the pearlised ones, the clear-fronted version that is now the only
one available, looks awful. Instead of a nice even light - the whole purpose
of pearlising in the first place - you now get a harsh uneven set of rings
of light wherever they are pointing, and images of the filament. Trust me,
it is now very hard to find to find any light bulbs here, with the correct
physical size and glass properties, to make them acceptable in decorative
light fittings.

And not all CFLs are subsidised. Only the ones that are dirt cheap in the
first place. Then subsidised via the power companies under government
direction, via green taxes levied through our energy bills. These taxes are
also been extracted from us and wasted on the useless windmills and other
eyesore technologies, that are also excuses for companies to make obscene
amounts of money from the green mist hysteria that prevails now throughout
the civilised world. So, we have a cheap crappy CFL that is being made even
cheaper by the false price that's being set on it, to get people to buy
them. If you look at energy saving lightbulbs on the Homebase site that you
linked to, you will see that the 'quality' CFLs that you refer to, are all
up in the £3.50 to £5 bracket, as I said. Then, B&Q are flogging cheapo
subsidised ones for between 10 pence and a quid. Which ones, in the cash
strapped times that we are currently suffering, are most people going to
buy, given that they can no longer buy what they *really* want ?

Anyway, enough time spent on this now. Been enjoyable.

Arfa

On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 17:54:07 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:

Anyway, enough time spent on this now. Been enjoyable.
Arfa

Humor me for a moment. Take a digital camera photo of your favorite
CFL lamp. Turn off all the other sources of light. What color do you
get? Here's mine:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/FEIT-23w.jpg
See a problem perhaps?

Extra credit. Find various sheets of blank paper with an assortment
of brightness from about 85 to 105. Photograph those using either a
CFL lamp and an incandescent lamp source. What colors do you get?
(Note that the 105 brightness contains phosphors resulting in the
reflected light actually being brighter than the incident light).

You might want to buy a cheap LED UV flashlight and a diffraction
grating, for more fun with lighting.
http://www.scientificsonline.com/holographic-diffraction-grating-film-10036.html


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 10:20:24 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 17:54:07 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:

Anyway, enough time spent on this now. Been enjoyable.
Arfa

Humor me for a moment. Take a digital camera photo of your favorite
CFL lamp. Turn off all the other sources of light. What color do you
get? Here's mine:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/FEIT-23w.jpg
See a problem perhaps?

Extra credit. Find various sheets of blank paper with an assortment
of brightness from about 85 to 105. Photograph those using either a
CFL lamp and an incandescent lamp source. What colors do you get?
(Note that the 105 brightness contains phosphors resulting in the
reflected light actually being brighter than the incident light).

You might want to buy a cheap LED UV flashlight and a diffraction
grating, for more fun with lighting.
http://www.scientificsonline.com/holographic-diffraction-grating-film-10036.html

Or, from the same source (as well as Amazon, etc.) this thing
http://www.scientificsonline.com/precision-economy-spectrometer.html
which includes a nm scale. Some examples of what it shows at
http://home.comcast.net/~mcculloch-brown/astro/spectrostar.html

--
Rich Webb Norfolk, VA

"Jeff Liebermann = Nut case "


Humor me for a moment.

** Be better to put idiots like you in straight jackets.


Take a digital camera photo of your favorite
CFL lamp. Turn off all the other sources of light. What color do you
get?

** Irrelevant, totally.


Here's mine:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/FEIT-23w.jpg
See a problem perhaps?

** Nope.



..... Phil

Arfa Daily wrote:
Well, I guess we're never going to agree on any aspect of this. You
seem predisposed to take the wrong way, a number of points that I
have repeatedly made, but ho-hum, it's been an interesting line of
chat, and at least it hasn't descended into a screaming match as is
so often the case in these discussions :-)

**Provided there is some respect on both sides and an attempt to undestand
the other POV, I see no reason why a screaming match is necessary. I no
longer waste my time with those who choose to insult, rather than present a
cogent argument. It's better for my health.

Your comments about prices of CFLs have me intrigued. I did some more
research. Here are some prices in the US:

http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/...ghlight-_-CFLs

Prices appear to be somewhat lower than Australia and dramatically lower
than in the UK. I suggest that you should be complaining about CFL prices in
the UK. Clearly, something is seriously awry.

I accept personal preferences for ICs are valid. I accept that personal
preferences against CFLs are also valid. I also accept the testing done by
Choice and others, that prove the efficiency aspects of CFLs are
significantly in advance of ICs. I accept, in the abscence of evidence to
the contrary, that CFLs have a manufacturing energy cost that is
approximately 6 times that of ICs.

Having said all that, there is one aspect of our discussion that I find
deeply troubling. You're a smart guy. Yet you appear to be willing to reject
the overwhelming bulk of good, solid science that has shown that rising CO2
levels are causing the present warming we find ourselves experiencing. You
appear to be rejecting the science, in preference for the hysterical ravings
of those who have clear links to the fossil fuel industry. OTH, the
scientists who study and report on global warming, for the most part, do not
have links to the alternative energy business. They do what a good scientist
should do - report the science without regard to political or business bias.
Consider the NASA and EPA scientists who were issuing very clear warnings to
President Bush. Bush was a rabid global warming denier. We had the same
thing here in Australia. During the Howard government years, Australia's
premier scientific body (the CSIRO) was issuing clear reports to the
government that anthropogenic global warming was going to cause serious
problems for Australia and the rest of the planet. Yet the Howard government
was aligned with the Bush government, in that denial of the science was the
order of the day. In fact, the leftover ministers of the Howard government
are still denying the science, even today. Most are religious loonies, so no
one takes much ntice anymore.

Please do some reading on the topic. Unlike the present discussion on CFLs
(which is really a bit of a distraction), it is a very important issue.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Phil Allison screeched:

** Be better to put idiots like you in straight jackets.


Who the hell let you out of yours?


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

Humor me for a moment.

** Be better to put idiots like you in straight jackets.

Strait-jacket, Phil, not straight.

"William Sommer****** the ****wit PEDANT "


** Be better to put idiots like you in straightjackets.


Correct spelling.

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

"William Sommer****** the ****wit PEDANT "

** Be better to put idiots like you in straightjackets.

Correct spelling.

I did correct the spelling. You didn't have to ask again.

"Strait" means "narrow" -- the jacket greatly restricts its wearer's
movements. It does not hold the wearer "straight" -- quite the opposite.

"William Sommer****** the ****wit PEDANT "


** Be better to put idiots like you in straightjackets.

Correct spelling.

I did correct the spelling.


** No, you ****ing ****WIT.

The spelling IS correct !!!!!!

Pedantry is a mental illness.

On Sep 26, 8:28*am, "Trevor Wilson" wrote:
Arfa Daily wrote:
Well, I guess we're never going to agree on any aspect of this. You
seem predisposed to take the wrong way, a number of points that I
have repeatedly made, but ho-hum, it's been an interesting line of
chat, and at least it hasn't descended into a screaming match as is
so often the case in these discussions *:-)

**Provided there is some respect on both sides and an attempt to undestand
the other POV, I see no reason why a screaming match is necessary. I no
longer waste my time with those who choose to insult, rather than present a
cogent argument. It's better for my health.

Your comments about prices of CFLs have me intrigued. I did some more
research. Here are some prices in the US:

http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/...gation?storeId...

Prices appear to be somewhat lower than Australia and dramatically lower
than in the UK. I suggest that you should be complaining about CFL prices in
the UK. Clearly, something is seriously awry.

I accept personal preferences for ICs are valid. I accept that personal
preferences against CFLs are also valid. I also accept the testing done by
Choice and others, that prove the efficiency aspects of CFLs are
significantly in advance of ICs. I accept, in the abscence of evidence to
the contrary, that CFLs have a manufacturing energy cost that is
approximately 6 times that of ICs.

Having said all that, there is one aspect of our discussion that I find
deeply troubling. You're a smart guy. Yet you appear to be willing to reject
the overwhelming bulk of good, solid science that has shown that rising CO2
levels are causing the present warming we find ourselves experiencing. You
appear to be rejecting the science, in preference for the hysterical ravings
of those who have clear links to the fossil fuel industry. OTH, the
scientists who study and report on global warming, for the most part, do not
have links to the alternative energy business. They do what a good scientist
should do - report the science without regard to political or business bias.
Consider the NASA and EPA scientists who were issuing very clear warnings to
President Bush. Bush was a rabid global warming denier. We had the same
thing here in Australia. During the Howard government years, Australia's
premier scientific body (the CSIRO) was issuing clear reports to the
government that anthropogenic global warming was going to cause serious
problems for Australia and the rest of the planet. Yet the Howard government
was aligned with the Bush government, in that denial of the science was the
order of the day. In fact, the leftover ministers of the Howard government
are still denying the science, even today. Most are religious loonies, so no
one takes much ntice anymore.


On the contrary - few believe in it anymore at least in Australia.
This fraud has been thoroughly exposed for what it is and it is great
to see. Did you know that the head of the CSIRO is a former bankster,
from the same company that wants to be australia's carbon banker and
there is another sitting on the board there? The banksters cooked up
this scam and funded and promoted it behind the scenes over many years
as the next big cash cow for themselves, and to set up more control
over the people. In other words you and your business pays the tax,
and the big connected *******s get exemptions and you are driven under
and they end up with a monopoly and can charge what they want. This is
how the world works.

Scientists - like most other people in this world get jobs, pay and
research funding based on following the corporate line, and/or party
line, at least to the general public. Thats just how real life works
in this thoroughly corrupted world.




Please do some reading on the topic. Unlike the present discussion on CFLs
(which is really a bit of a distraction), it is a very important issue.

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

"William Sommer****** the ****wit PEDANT "

** Be better to put idiots like you in straightjackets.

Correct spelling.

I did correct the spelling.


** No, you ****ing ****WIT.

The spelling IS correct !!!!!!

Pedantry is a mental illness.


Phil...YOU are a mental illness.

kreed wrote:
On Sep 26, 8:28 am, "Trevor Wilson" wrote:
Arfa Daily wrote:
Well, I guess we're never going to agree on any aspect of this. You
seem predisposed to take the wrong way, a number of points that I
have repeatedly made, but ho-hum, it's been an interesting line of
chat, and at least it hasn't descended into a screaming match as is
so often the case in these discussions :-)

**Provided there is some respect on both sides and an attempt to
undestand the other POV, I see no reason why a screaming match is
necessary. I no longer waste my time with those who choose to
insult, rather than present a cogent argument. It's better for my
health.

Your comments about prices of CFLs have me intrigued. I did some more
research. Here are some prices in the US:

http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/...gation?storeId...

Prices appear to be somewhat lower than Australia and dramatically
lower than in the UK. I suggest that you should be complaining about
CFL prices in the UK. Clearly, something is seriously awry.

I accept personal preferences for ICs are valid. I accept that
personal preferences against CFLs are also valid. I also accept the
testing done by Choice and others, that prove the efficiency aspects
of CFLs are significantly in advance of ICs. I accept, in the
abscence of evidence to the contrary, that CFLs have a manufacturing
energy cost that is approximately 6 times that of ICs.

Having said all that, there is one aspect of our discussion that I
find deeply troubling. You're a smart guy. Yet you appear to be
willing to reject the overwhelming bulk of good, solid science that
has shown that rising CO2 levels are causing the present warming we
find ourselves experiencing. You appear to be rejecting the science,
in preference for the hysterical ravings of those who have clear
links to the fossil fuel industry. OTH, the scientists who study and
report on global warming, for the most part, do not have links to
the alternative energy business. They do what a good scientist
should do - report the science without regard to political or
business bias. Consider the NASA and EPA scientists who were issuing
very clear warnings to President Bush. Bush was a rabid global
warming denier. We had the same thing here in Australia. During the
Howard government years, Australia's premier scientific body (the
CSIRO) was issuing clear reports to the government that
anthropogenic global warming was going to cause serious problems for
Australia and the rest of the planet. Yet the Howard government was
aligned with the Bush government, in that denial of the science was
the order of the day. In fact, the leftover ministers of the Howard
government are still denying the science, even today. Most are
religious loonies, so no one takes much ntice anymore.


On the contrary - few believe in it anymore at least in Australia.

**The dribblers don't count. People who lack a decent education are not
representative of thinking adults. Nor are religious loonies like Alan
Jones, Christopher Monckton and George Pell.

This fraud has been thoroughly exposed for what it is and it is great
to see.

**Fraud? Do tell. Please provide your peer-reviewed science that proves that
the CSIRO, the IPCC, NASA, the US EPA, the British Academy of Science, the
US National Academy of Sciences, The German Academy of Science, The
Australian Bureu of Meteorology, The UK MET, The Royal Swedish Academy of
Sciences, The Netherlands Academey of Sciences and a host of other
organisations.

So, over to you: Supply your peer-reviewed science which proves that all
these guys (and many, many other respected scientific organisations) have it
so terribly wrong.


Did you know that the head of the CSIRO is a former bankster,
from the same company that wants to be australia's carbon banker and
there is another sitting on the board there?

**So? CSIRO has been successful at commercialising many of it's developments
over the years. It makes perfect sense to have people with commercial skills
on the board. The scientists report the science. The board does not.

The banksters cooked up
this scam and funded and promoted it behind the scenes over many years
as the next big cash cow for themselves, and to set up more control
over the people.

**Did they? Prove it.

In other words you and your business pays the tax,
and the big connected *******s get exemptions and you are driven under
and they end up with a monopoly and can charge what they want. This is
how the world works.

**Sure. It's how it has always worked. Nothing to do with global warming
though. Excessive CO2 emissions are driving the temperature of this planet
faster than at any time in the last 600,000 years. Nothing to do with
taxation, politics or the opinions of religious nutters.


Scientists - like most other people in this world get jobs, pay and
research funding based on following the corporate line, and/or party
line, at least to the general public.

**Is that so? Care to explain why the scientists at the CSIRO reported to
the Howard (AGW denying) government that AGW was a real problem? Care to
explain why the scientists at NASA and the US EPA were reporting to the Bush
(AGW denying) government that AGW was a real problem? According to your
twisted logic, the scientists at all three organisations should have
reported what their political masters wanted. To their credit, the
scientists did what all reputable scientists do - they reported the facts.

Thats just how real life works
in this thoroughly corrupted world.

**OK. Prove it.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 08:10:12 +1000, "Phil Allison"
wrote:

"Jeff Liebermann = Nut case "

Humor me for a moment.

** Be better to put idiots like you in straight jackets.

Hmmm... I was looking for a suitable costume for Halloween. That's
an American tradition, where we dress up in scary costumes and
terrorize people like you.

Incidentally, I really enjoy being accused of marginal sanity. It
demonstrates that you're paying attention.

Take a digital camera photo of your favorite
CFL lamp. Turn off all the other sources of light. What color do you
get?

** Irrelevant, totally.

Your brain self correct for color variations. Take a photo under
fluorescent tube lamps and you'll get a greenish tint (unless you have
a camera that automagically does color corrections). Your eyes can be
fooled. Your camera cannot, as it shows the true color.

Here's mine:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/FEIT-23w.jpg
See a problem perhaps?

** Nope.

Hint: It's yellow. It should be white or at least more like white
than a mix of red and green. I suspect that might be what is giving
Arfa problems. Photographing various CFL lamps, and selecting one
that is closest to white might be a fix.

I just found the package. It's a FEIT BPCE13T cheapo bulb. About
$1US as subsidized by PG&E (the local power utility).
http://energy-star-lighting.findthebest.com/detail/573/Conserv-Energy
2700K which makes it a "warm white".

.... Phil


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Trevor Wilson wrote:
**Fraud? Do tell. Please provide your peer-reviewed science that
proves that the CSIRO, the IPCC, NASA, the US EPA, the British
Academy of Science, the US National Academy of Sciences, The German
Academy of Science, The Australian Bureu of Meteorology, The UK MET,
The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, The Netherlands Academey of
Sciences and a host of other organisations.

**Should read:

"....Sciences and a host of other organisations are wrong."


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 09:36:51 +1000, "Phil Allison"
wrote:


"William Sommer****** the ****wit PEDANT "


** Be better to put idiots like you in straightjackets.

Correct spelling.

I did correct the spelling.


** No, you ****ing ****WIT.

The spelling IS correct !!!!!!

Pedantry is a mental illness.

You're doing exactly the same thing.

"Jeßus = TROLL "

You're doing exactly the same thing.


** Nonsense.

**** off - you ****ing retard.

On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 12:10:59 +1000, "Phil Allison"
wrote:


"Jeßus = TROLL "

You're doing exactly the same thing.


** Nonsense.

**** off - you ****ing retard.

Me, ****ing retards? Bimbos perhaps... I'll cop to that much at least.
Have a great day Phil!

Many people (balanced and otherwise) often state that recycled this-n-that
are great for the planet, yet those people have no idea where the power
comes from for the recycling facilities.. often coal generation.

Cars are still a huge air pollution contributor, but much worse are the
freighters operating on bunker oil, which pollute much more significantly
than all the worlds' autos.
Bunker oil is likely the filthiest fuel ever used, and is what freighter
ships use to transport most of the crap goods being produced these days.

So, as manufacturing of common products leaves one continent, more imported
goods are being transported from across the vast oceans.

When the low quality goods quickly fail, they're transported again by more
internal combustion engines to landfills and placed in the ground beside
fresh water resources.
Just because trash trucks operate in your neighborhood every week doesn't
mean the landfill is local.
Here in Pennsylvania, the landfills have been accepting waste from more than
12 other states, and it's easy to see that PA doesn't have 12 bordering
states.. so trash is trucked or transported across/thru entire states to be
dumped here.

As I've said for a number of years, job opportunities with real job security
are in the waste industry.
The cheap crap products that keep pouring into my, and your, country every
day have to be disposed of.

The biggest hoax of the last 50+ years is that products are cheaper because
they're made elsewhere (poor countries), instead of domestically.
The actual truth is that it's more profitable to have goods made elsewhere,
which involves much more than cheap labor.. it involves behind-closed-doors
deal making and power, influence and favoritism (our favorite communist
nation which holds huge domestic business debts).

China and other countries accept some of our waste products, then recycle
them with coal-generated power, then ship those products globally with
bunker oil.. so the recycled products have real-world costs that don't end
up in the cost effectiveness evaluations.. but keep perpetuating the
recycled-is-good mentality.

The total net gain is a loss.

LED and CFL lighting aren't the solutions, they only distract attention.

--
Cheers,
WB
..............


"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
...

There are about 600 coal plants in the US. The numbers are a bit
misleading as coal fired power plants come in all shapes and sizes.
It's not the number, but the generation capacity that's important. In
the US, we built 10 new plants in 2010 for a total new capacity of
1.6GW (gigawatts). However, if you include decomissioned plants, the
net loss in capacity in 2010 was about -4.6GW lost. Most of the loss
was balanced by a transition to federally subsidized wind power. In
2010, there was also the cancellation of 10 additional plants mostly
due to legislative or EPA restriction. For example, California has a
ban on new coal plants (SB1368). Europe is doing much the same.
http://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/refshelf/ncp.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_phase_out
If the EPA gets its way, it's likely that most of the older US coal
plants will need to close to meet emission requirements.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Existing_U.S._Coal_Plants

The loss of -4.6GW of coal generation capacity is not going to make
much of a dent in the mercury emissions. At this time, the US gets
about 45% of about 4 trillion kw-hr of electricity from coal. A few
gigawatts of capacity here and there isn't going to change much.
http://www.eia.gov/coal/
Note that capacity loss is usually balanced by burning more coal to
produce more electricity at other plants. Therefore, closing a plant
does NOT constitute an overall decrease in emissions. Only a decrease
in generated mw-hr can decrease emissions.

If you accept my coal generation logic at face value, every product
that uses electricity also dumps mercury into the environment. For
example, my electric water heater would be considered a major
contributor to coal based environmental pollution and far more
significant than a CFL lamp. While this doesn't do anything to help
one decide between CFL and incandescent, it does highlight some
priorities on the process.

Yep. Something like 90% of the really obnoxious atmospheric pollution
comes from burning coal. There are technologies that drastically
reduce coal fired plant emissions. They're expensive, messy, use huge
amounts of water, and are being largely ignored by the larger plants.
Not so with the smaller plants, a few of which use one or more
technologies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_coal_technology
As far as I can tell, neither India or China are doing clean coal
plants.


I don't have an answer to the "why". Most likely, both countries
economies will collapse without the generated power, which makes it
one of many "necessary evils".


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

"Rich Webb" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 10:20:24 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 17:54:07 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:

Anyway, enough time spent on this now. Been enjoyable.
Arfa

Humor me for a moment. Take a digital camera photo of your favorite
CFL lamp. Turn off all the other sources of light. What color do you
get? Here's mine:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/FEIT-23w.jpg
See a problem perhaps?

Extra credit. Find various sheets of blank paper with an assortment
of brightness from about 85 to 105. Photograph those using either a
CFL lamp and an incandescent lamp source. What colors do you get?
(Note that the 105 brightness contains phosphors resulting in the
reflected light actually being brighter than the incident light).

You might want to buy a cheap LED UV flashlight and a diffraction
grating, for more fun with lighting.
http://www.scientificsonline.com/holographic-diffraction-grating-film-10036.html

Or, from the same source (as well as Amazon, etc.) this thing
http://www.scientificsonline.com/precision-economy-spectrometer.html
which includes a nm scale. Some examples of what it shows at
http://home.comcast.net/~mcculloch-brown/astro/spectrostar.html

--
Rich Webb Norfolk, VA

Some interesting findings there. Today, this dropped into my email

http://www.ledlighting-eetimes.com/e...s_id=222907475

Looks as though it might address some of the points I made, particularly in
regard to the (typically) non-omnidirectional light from a LED lamp. I had
long wondered why the cooling core for the LEDs was not made spherical, so
that the light would be omni.

Arfa

Arfa Daily wrote:


"Rich Webb" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 10:20:24 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 17:54:07 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:

Anyway, enough time spent on this now. Been enjoyable.
Arfa

Humor me for a moment. Take a digital camera photo of your favorite
CFL lamp. Turn off all the other sources of light. What color do you
get? Here's mine:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/FEIT-23w.jpg
See a problem perhaps?

Extra credit. Find various sheets of blank paper with an assortment
of brightness from about 85 to 105. Photograph those using either a
CFL lamp and an incandescent lamp source. What colors do you get?
(Note that the 105 brightness contains phosphors resulting in the
reflected light actually being brighter than the incident light).

You might want to buy a cheap LED UV flashlight and a diffraction
grating, for more fun with lighting.
http://www.scientificsonline.com/holographic-diffraction-grating-film-10036.html


Or, from the same source (as well as Amazon, etc.) this thing
http://www.scientificsonline.com/precision-economy-spectrometer.html
which includes a nm scale. Some examples of what it shows at
http://home.comcast.net/~mcculloch-brown/astro/spectrostar.html

--
Rich Webb Norfolk, VA

Some interesting findings there. Today, this dropped into my email

http://www.ledlighting-eetimes.com/e...s_id=222907475


Looks as though it might address some of the points I made, particularly
in regard to the (typically) non-omnidirectional light from a LED lamp.
I had long wondered why the cooling core for the LEDs was not made
spherical, so that the light would be omni.

Arfa


Sounds good,It would cost me about aud $2000 for lamps for this house

Your point wrt LEDs only having limited directional output is important, for
most of the commonly available types.
It was easily seen that filament lighting was omnidirectional, and very
evenly dispersed by internal coatings applied to the envelopes.

The common T-1-3/4 LED is essentially good for a panel indicator, not a
space illuminating/lighting device.
Even the more powerful 1W and larger devices wouldn't throw any light if not
for the lenses and a good reflector, The reflector area needs to be about
30-50x that of the LED lens to throw much light for any distance
(counterproductive for a compact design).. and then the results are a bright
spot surrounded by a much dimmer halo.
Also, the higher output devices need to be attached to heatsinks.

The EE Times article image is half-assed, at best, and where do they get
writers/reporters today? They can't provide a link to go directly to the
manufacturers' products that they report on, but instead only provide a link
so you can go look it up yourself.

http://www.osram.com/osram_com/News/..._Advanced.html

This fuzzy image looks like an artist created it.. it might be expected that
the actual construction materials are clear.. I just hope it's not glass,
because every simpleton already knows that glass production is destroying
the planet.
It sorta looks like a hemisphere of LEDs and a reflector/diffuser over it.
There doesn't appear to be any obtrusive heat sinking like the flying saucer
shapes I've seen in the stores lately.
There you have it.. these lights will pay for themselves. Step right up,
folks.
This here is a new Dimension.

The listed efficiency of a 75W incandescent is shown as Zero.. but it's
actually 100% or more when it's turned off, and it might only cost $1
(although I regularly see them for lower prices).

So, maybe this is the root issue, that people today are too GD lazy to turn
off lights when they're not being used (doesn't matter that the govt has
strongly recommended it, for years now).

If the efficiency of a 75W IC lamp is zero, then watt about a 100W.. minus
25?
It's already been established that the heating value (of the mostly infrared
light) from IC lamps will reduce home heating system loads.

The Chinese (government-backed) factories could likely tool up within a
couple of weeks to closely copy this lamp, or a looky-like the same, and
flood the market.

Since few people are aware of the disclaimer that comes with nearly every
poduct produced today (and for recent decades).. "Specifications subject to
change".

Might wanna get the extended warranty on these new lights.. the "limited"
package warranty might look like swiss cheese.

One of my curiosities will be how tolerant the new LED lamps will be of line
voltage spikes/surges, regardless of what the predicted lifetimes are.

--
Cheers,
WB
..............


"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...


Today, this dropped into my email

http://www.ledlighting-eetimes.com/e...s_id=222907475

Looks as though it might address some of the points I made, particularly
in regard to the (typically) non-omnidirectional light from a LED lamp. I
had long wondered why the cooling core for the LEDs was not made
spherical, so that the light would be omni.

Arfa

Wild_Bill wrote:
Your point wrt LEDs only having limited directional output is
important, for most of the commonly available types.

**Wrong. Luxeon emitters have been available for many years, with a 120
degree spread.

It was easily seen that filament lighting was omnidirectional, and
very evenly dispersed by internal coatings applied to the envelopes.

The common T-1-3/4 LED is essentially good for a panel indicator, not
a space illuminating/lighting device.
Even the more powerful 1W and larger devices wouldn't throw any light
if not for the lenses and a good reflector,

**Nor does ANY light source, you nong. You may also care to note that I
posted photographs that disproved your last nonsensical claim about such
things. You failed to acknowledge this fact.


The reflector area needs
to be about 30-50x that of the LED lens to throw much light for any
distance (counterproductive for a compact design)..

**Here is a photo of the two torches from my previous posting:

http://s1112.photobucket.com/albums/k497/Zaphod1000/

Look at the size difference. Look at the amount of light "thrown" by each
torch onto a dark wall. Which is greater? Which is the more useful, more
portable torch?

When will you cease making insane, unsupportable statements?


and then the
results are a bright spot surrounded by a much dimmer halo.

**The results are what the designers want them to be.


Also, the higher output devices need to be attached to heatsinks.

**So? The CPU in my computer must be attached to a heat sink. It ain't
rocket science. If I dropped both torches, whilst swtiched on, the LED torch
has a much better chance of survival.


The EE Times article image is half-assed, at best, and where do they
get writers/reporters today?

**This would be a pot, kettle, balck kind of moment. Your half-arsed
comments are now entering into legend. Shall we review them?


They can't provide a link to go directly
to the manufacturers' products that they report on, but instead only
provide a link so you can go look it up yourself.

http://www.osram.com/osram_com/News/..._Advanced.html

This fuzzy image looks like an artist created it.. it might be
expected that the actual construction materials are clear.. I just
hope it's not glass, because every simpleton already knows that glass
production is destroying the planet.
It sorta looks like a hemisphere of LEDs and a reflector/diffuser
over it. There doesn't appear to be any obtrusive heat sinking like
the flying saucer shapes I've seen in the stores lately.
There you have it.. these lights will pay for themselves. Step right
up, folks.
This here is a new Dimension.

The listed efficiency of a 75W incandescent is shown as Zero.

**No, it is not. Read the cite again. CAREFULLY. Don't try to interpret what
is written.

.. but
it's actually 100% or more when it's turned off, and it might only
cost $1 (although I regularly see them for lower prices).

**Sheer idiocy.



So, maybe this is the root issue, that people today are too GD lazy
to turn off lights when they're not being used (doesn't matter that
the govt has strongly recommended it, for years now).

If the efficiency of a 75W IC lamp is zero,

**The efficiency of a 75 Watt IC almps is NOT zero. It is something like 2%
~ 5%.


then watt about a 100W..
minus 25?
It's already been established that the heating value (of the mostly
infrared light) from IC lamps will reduce home heating system loads.

**They MIGHT. In Winter AND if the lamps are placed floor level and/or if
there are some air circulation systems in place. Either way, using IC lamps
for heating is hit and miss, at best. Heat pumps are dramatically more
efficient. By as much as 400%, in fact.


The Chinese (government-backed) factories could likely tool up within
a couple of weeks to closely copy this lamp, or a looky-like the
same, and flood the market.

Since few people are aware of the disclaimer that comes with nearly
every poduct produced today (and for recent decades)..
"Specifications subject to change".

Might wanna get the extended warranty on these new lights.. the
"limited" package warranty might look like swiss cheese.

One of my curiosities will be how tolerant the new LED lamps will be
of line voltage spikes/surges, regardless of what the predicted
lifetimes are.

**Any sensible designer takes such things into account. My halogen
downlights are operated via similar technology to that which drives LEDs.
They're reasonably well protected against damage.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Here is a photo of the two torches from my previous posting:

http://s1112.photobucket.com/albums/k497/Zaphod1000/

Look at the size difference.

**The halogen torch is on the left.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au