Dave Liquorice wrote:

If you are using the lights in winter, don't forget that the
incandescent lamps will make a contribution to the heating,

I really feel this is a red herring with ordinary and "normal" sized
domestic lighting.

Not at all. If we are to produce an accurate and credible statement of
the money saved by using CFLs, we need to take into account this, and
other effects. I don't know what the variability in usages of you
heating oil is, but it could well be considerably higher than the
difference in consumption caused by the use of CFLs. From a scientific
point of view, the temperature difference is easily demonstrable under
controlled conditions with a calorimeter. It would be disingenuous to
simply take the difference in electricity usage and claim that as a
'saving'. If the outside temperature around your house has been, on
average, a fraction warmer while using CFLs compared to incandescents,
then that could well mask the drop in heat input from the lighting.

Now, for some people, the cost of employing a handyman to replace the
bulbs could well be so high that that alone justifies the use of CFLs,
as the frequency at which they 'burn out' is lower (in most cases) than
incandescents.

Sid

"Dave Liquorice" typed


On 6 Jul 2006 23:48:15 -0700, wrote:

How long would it take for me to recoup that expenditure? (Currently
120w, maybe 6 hours/day. New fitting maybe 20w or so) We are talking
several years if it saves 10p per day, aren't we?

120W? I thought this fitting had 5 x 40W bulbs but I could be getting
confused by a lounge somewhere that seemed to have an awful lot of bulbs
in it...

Yeah.

Hall fitting 3 * 40w = 120w. Hall lamps lit much of dark waking time, so
cfls potentially appropriate. Unfortunately, this fitting would not take
cfls.

Lounge takes 5 * 40w. Lights switched frequently, room intermittently
used. I would prefer to read by incandescent light. Colour rendition
matters to me.

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 09:50:14 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

It's a great shame that successive governments in many countries have wasted
more than a generation (probably two) through not pursuing nuclear power
generation and the technology behind it.

On the contrary, it is a great shame that successive governments in
many countries have wasted two or three generations pursuing nuclear
electricity. The amount of money ****ed away on nuclear could have
been far better invested.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 10:04:55 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

No it doesn't. For six months of the year, the heat contribution within
the house means that the alleged saving is reduced to half.

I know a little about heat contributions, having been involved in a
few buildings which were heated by the lighting (the heating usually
only came on first thing to raise the temperature a little before
occupation) [1]. I have also been involved in buildings that were
not as sophisticated, but where the heat from the lights was
recovered to help reduce air-conditioning costs.

What all these buildings had in common was very high lighting
levels, for various reasons. Some people may like houses lit to
almost bright sunlight intensity, but I have not been in any yet and
don't expect to ever encounter any. The contribution of domestic
lighting to winter heating is negligible. The overshoot of typical
thermostats and thermostatic valves far outweighs anything from
lighting.

Increase the insulation and infiltration of houses dramatically
above the current standards, control the heating in individual rooms
with individual optimum stop/start controllers with PID control,
whether fed from a variable or constant temperature circuit is a
matter for discussion and heat gains from typical lighting schemes
might begin to be noticeable in an instrumented house.


[1] An example of this sort of thing is that Electricity Boards used
to demonstrate confidence in their product by insisting on all
electric buildings.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

typed


I would have thought the telescope guru could do it for a lot less
than £100.

The telescope guru is best left to low-voltage work in the observatory.

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 10:04:55 +0100 Andy Hall wrote :
No it doesn't. For six months of the year, the heat contribution
within the house means that the alleged saving is reduced to half.

I don't know how you do your arithmetic, but (a) I'm paying about three
times as much for electricity as for gas; (b) for a good bit of the
heating season the boiler isn't actually running as other heat sources
(TV, computer, cooking, me) are providing the required heat; and (c) as I
live in a single storey home, heat from lights goes up and makes the
ceiling warmer, with minimal effect on the room temperature.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

The message
from contains these words:

Given my disabilities, I don't think I can replace my hall lamp fitting
for less than about £100.

How long would it take for me to recoup that expenditure? (Currently
120w, maybe 6 hours/day. New fitting maybe 20w or so) We are talking
several years if it saves 10p per day, aren't we?

I would have thought the telescope guru could do it for a lot less
than £100.

Him?

HA!

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 12:53:56 +0100, David Hansen wrote
(in article ):

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 10:04:55 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

No it doesn't. For six months of the year, the heat contribution within
the house means that the alleged saving is reduced to half.

I know a little about heat contributions, having been involved in a
few buildings which were heated by the lighting (the heating usually
only came on first thing to raise the temperature a little before
occupation) [1]. I have also been involved in buildings that were
not as sophisticated, but where the heat from the lights was
recovered to help reduce air-conditioning costs.

What all these buildings had in common was very high lighting
levels, for various reasons. Some people may like houses lit to
almost bright sunlight intensity, but I have not been in any yet and
don't expect to ever encounter any. The contribution of domestic
lighting to winter heating is negligible. The overshoot of typical
thermostats and thermostatic valves far outweighs anything from
lighting.

Increase the insulation and infiltration of houses dramatically
above the current standards, control the heating in individual rooms
with individual optimum stop/start controllers with PID control,
whether fed from a variable or constant temperature circuit is a
matter for discussion and heat gains from typical lighting schemes
might begin to be noticeable in an instrumented house.


[1] An example of this sort of thing is that Electricity Boards used
to demonstrate confidence in their product by insisting on all
electric buildings.




All of which basically says that in comparison with other issues that can
easily be controlled in a building, any saving by CFL lighting isn't worth
having - one of my points in the first place.

Third order effect. Third rate light. Not even a third world benefit.

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 13:45:14 +0100, Tony Bryer wrote
(in article ):

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 10:04:55 +0100 Andy Hall wrote :
No it doesn't. For six months of the year, the heat contribution
within the house means that the alleged saving is reduced to half.

I don't know how you do your arithmetic, but (a) I'm paying about three
times as much for electricity as for gas;

Agreed

(b) for a good bit of the
heating season the boiler isn't actually running as other heat sources
(TV, computer, cooking, me) are providing the required heat;

Of which the lighting can be one.

However, if you add up all the other non boiler energy contributors, they
come to a lot more than the contribution even from tungsten lighting.

There is an argument that if you take a proportion of the heat contribution
from lighting out of the equation it will be replaced by gas contributed
heat, but that's a low order effect in the overall scheme.


and (c) as I
live in a single storey home, heat from lights goes up and makes the
ceiling warmer, with minimal effect on the room temperature.


Hmm.. OK, except that there are many other forms of lighting than those which
go in the ceiling.

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 12:34:37 +0100, David Hansen wrote
(in article ):

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 09:50:14 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

It's a great shame that successive governments in many countries have
wasted
more than a generation (probably two) through not pursuing nuclear power
generation and the technology behind it.

On the contrary, it is a great shame that successive governments in
many countries have wasted two or three generations pursuing nuclear
electricity.

Rubbish.

By investing reasonably in generating capacity, France now produces more than
75% of its electricity requirement with nuclear plant and is able to export
to the UK which now only has around 15% of power generated in this way and a
heavy dependency on fossil fuels.




The amount of money ****ed away on nuclear could have
been far better invested.





Not on anything that has the remotest chance of generating the amount of
electricity likely to meet the energy requirements needed in the future.

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 14:55:38 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

Rubbish.

Excellent, proof by assertion.

By investing reasonably in generating capacity, France now produces more than
75% of its electricity requirement with nuclear plant and is able to export
to the UK which now only has around 15% of power generated in this way and a
heavy dependency on fossil fuels.

France is a county where nationalised and semi-nationalised
industries are operated without exposure to the "real world". That
certainly includes electricity generation, where it is partly a
cover for the nuclear weapons lobby.

They have yet to work out what to do with the crap they their
nuclear "industry" produces. Suggest an nuclear waste dump in any
French village and see what the reaction is.

The amount of money ****ed away on nuclear could have
been far better invested.

Not on anything that has the remotest chance of generating the amount of
electricity likely to meet the energy requirements needed in the future.

An old refrain, but still far from correct. As various reports have
demonstrated the UK is the Saudi Arabia of sustainable electricity
generation. Instead of developing things like Salter's Duck party
politicians and officials have instead ****ed money away on an
imported fuel, with all the dangers that entails. For those who
don't understand the reference, there are no uranium mines in the
UK.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 14:33:08 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

All of which basically says that in comparison with other issues that can
easily be controlled in a building, any saving by CFL lighting isn't worth
having

Nice try. However, as one of the supermarkets is keen to say, every
little helps.

Even at ten pounds a go compact fluorescent bulbs were a worthwhile
investment. The price is now half to a third of that for most bulbs.
That certainly makes it worthwhile replacing the handful of fittings
that cannot take some designs of bulb with something that can. The
figures are very persuasive.

The "arguments" of the antis are so unpersuasive that I have just
bought two 11W GE Extra Mini bulbs for six pounds each. They will
fit in some bulkhead lights that were designed only to take GLS
bulbs.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 15:15:37 +0100, David Hansen wrote
(in article ):

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 14:55:38 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

Rubbish.

Excellent, proof by assertion.

By investing reasonably in generating capacity, France now produces more
than
75% of its electricity requirement with nuclear plant and is able to export
to the UK which now only has around 15% of power generated in this way and
a
heavy dependency on fossil fuels.

France is a county where nationalised and semi-nationalised
industries are operated without exposure to the "real world". That
certainly includes electricity generation, where it is partly a
cover for the nuclear weapons lobby.

Bogus connection.

As it is in any country with a nuclear industry, regardless of the ownership
status of them. The issue of whether there is a relationship or not with
nuclear weapons is not a reason not to have nuclear power generation.
After all, one does not avoid producing rocket fuel because it could be used
in missiles.




They have yet to work out what to do with the crap they their
nuclear "industry" produces. Suggest an nuclear waste dump in any
French village and see what the reaction is.

Again, not a reason not to have nuclear power generation.




The amount of money ****ed away on nuclear could have
been far better invested.

Not on anything that has the remotest chance of generating the amount of
electricity likely to meet the energy requirements needed in the future.

An old refrain, but still far from correct. As various reports have
demonstrated the UK is the Saudi Arabia of sustainable electricity
generation. Instead of developing things like Salter's Duck party
politicians and officials have instead ****ed money away on an
imported fuel, with all the dangers that entails. For those who
don't understand the reference, there are no uranium mines in the
UK.

One would have to be quackers to think that things like Salter's Duck are
commercially and acceptably going to produce the quantities of electricity
needed. If one looks at the energy production of industrialised nations,
the percentage figures for these technologies are minuscule.




Most industrialised nations have a situation where many natural resources
needed for their economy have to be imported. That has always been the case
and is likely to remain so. Uranium compounds are simply yet another
commodity with the economic risks and opportunities implied in that.

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 15:24:43 +0100, David Hansen wrote
(in article ):

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 14:33:08 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

All of which basically says that in comparison with other issues that can
easily be controlled in a building, any saving by CFL lighting isn't worth
having

Nice try. However, as one of the supermarkets is keen to say, every
little helps.

That's a very weak argument for anything when the overall context is orders
of magnitude larger



Even at ten pounds a go compact fluorescent bulbs were a worthwhile
investment. The price is now half to a third of that for most bulbs.
That certainly makes it worthwhile replacing the handful of fittings
that cannot take some designs of bulb with something that can. The
figures are very persuasive.

They might persuade you, but they certainly don't persuade me.

The savings are marginal and in the overall context of the energy
requirements for a house, are negligible.



The "arguments" of the antis are so unpersuasive that I have just
bought two 11W GE Extra Mini bulbs for six pounds each. They will
fit in some bulkhead lights that were designed only to take GLS
bulbs.


If you want to waste your money, that's up to you.

For me, the main issue is not the marginal cost benefit anyway.

- It is that the bulbs themselves are ugly - either they are fat, have stupid
spiral shapes or loops.

- The light quality is appalling.

Andy Hall typed


The "arguments" of the antis are so unpersuasive that I have just
bought two 11W GE Extra Mini bulbs for six pounds each. They will
fit in some bulkhead lights that were designed only to take GLS
bulbs.


If you want to waste your money, that's up to you.

For me, the main issue is not the marginal cost benefit anyway.

Anyway, my lightbulbs are rather cheaper from Screwfix.

- It is that the bulbs themselves are ugly - either they are fat, have
stupid
spiral shapes or loops.

Since all my lights are shaded, the shape is irrelevant apart from the
need to fit into pre-existing holders, which is where they fail.

- The light quality is appalling.

Agreed.

Maybe some people are unaffected by light quality. I am. Each to his own.

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

Andy Hall wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 12:34:37 +0100, David Hansen wrote
(in article ):

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 09:50:14 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

It's a great shame that successive governments in many countries have
wasted
more than a generation (probably two) through not pursuing nuclear power
generation and the technology behind it.
On the contrary, it is a great shame that successive governments in
many countries have wasted two or three generations pursuing nuclear
electricity.

Rubbish.

By investing reasonably in generating capacity, France now produces more than
75% of its electricity requirement with nuclear plant and is able to export
to the UK which now only has around 15% of power generated in this way and a
heavy dependency on fossil fuels.


25% according to the governments white paper.

Here is another thought...what is the comparative heat of a 17" Samsung
monitor versus a 1200 by whatever 17" LCD?

Would be nice to feel it would pay for itself in 6 years or so..

Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:

Given my disabilities, I don't think I can replace my hall lamp fitting
for less than about £100.

I didn't understand this, on two grounds.

(1) Why do you need to replace your lamp fitting?
I thought energy-saving bulbs normally use the same fitting.

(2) If in fact it is very difficult for you to replace your hall lamps,
I would have thought that was a very strong argument
for using energy-saving bulbs, which last much longer.


--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail (80k only): tim /at/ birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

wrote:

Now, for some people, the cost of employing a handyman to replace the
bulbs could well be so high that that alone justifies the use of CFLs,
as the frequency at which they 'burn out' is lower (in most cases) than
incandescents.

Another argument for CFLs, which I haven't seen mentioned,
as that they must significantly reduce the fire danger.
(We had a bad fire caused by the fact that someone left clothes
to dry over a wall-light.
Actually, the person who left the clothes switched off the light,
but someone else unkowingly switched it on again.)


--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail (80k only): tim /at/ birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

Timothy Murphy typed


Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:

Given my disabilities, I don't think I can replace my hall lamp fitting
for less than about £100.

I didn't understand this, on two grounds.

(1) Why do you need to replace your lamp fitting?
I thought energy-saving bulbs normally use the same fitting.

It uses mini globe bulbs. These are shorter than any cfls.
Even David Hansen says I'd have to replace it if I wanted to use cfls.

(2) If in fact it is very difficult for you to replace your hall lamps,
I would have thought that was a very strong argument
for using energy-saving bulbs, which last much longer.

My partner changes the lightbulbs (which he does not enjoy).

Unfortunately the cfls will not fit...

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
Timothy Murphy typed


Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:

Given my disabilities, I don't think I can replace my hall lamp fitting
for less than about £100.

I didn't understand this, on two grounds.

(1) Why do you need to replace your lamp fitting?
I thought energy-saving bulbs normally use the same fitting.

It uses mini globe bulbs. These are shorter than any cfls.
Even David Hansen says I'd have to replace it if I wanted to use cfls.

(2) If in fact it is very difficult for you to replace your hall lamps,
I would have thought that was a very strong argument
for using energy-saving bulbs, which last much longer.

My partner changes the lightbulbs (which he does not enjoy).

Unfortunately the cfls will not fit...

That is the best argument for fitting CFLs which have a FAR longer
service life, even if it does mean a new fitting. The fact that you are
unlikely to have to change them very frequently.

Even I do not like changing the bulb at the head of my stairwell, with
about 3 meters t fall, that needs a ladder to reach it.

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 17:30:13 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote
(in article ):

Andy Hall wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 12:34:37 +0100, David Hansen wrote
(in article ):

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 09:50:14 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

It's a great shame that successive governments in many countries have
wasted
more than a generation (probably two) through not pursuing nuclear power
generation and the technology behind it.
On the contrary, it is a great shame that successive governments in
many countries have wasted two or three generations pursuing nuclear
electricity.

Rubbish.

By investing reasonably in generating capacity, France now produces more
than
75% of its electricity requirement with nuclear plant and is able to export
to the UK which now only has around 15% of power generated in this way and
a
heavy dependency on fossil fuels.


25% according to the governments white paper.

I found it here

http://www.cslforum.org/uk.htm

Unfortunately the situation would seem to worsen with the end of life of
existing nuclear generating plant. This would suggest a higher dependency
on imported electricity in the medium term or increased natural gas
generation.

On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 21:33:13 GMT, "dennis@home"
wrote:


Yebbut how can a hapless (or is it hopeless) consumer get an idea of the
quality of the emitted light before spending £lots?

Buy a 49p one from Asda and have a look.

Anyway many of them produce close to daylight colour output

If there are I'd like to know what they are, I'd have an application
for them at work.

Even in conventional linear fluorescents daylight tubes 6,300K are not
stocked in DIY sheds or retail lighting shops.

so your red garments must look awful in the day.


Not so, light from daylight fluorescent tubes, even if you can get
them, has a completely different spectrum from natural daylight. Peaks
in the emission spectrum of the tube may/may not co-incide with peaks
or troughs in the spectral reflectance of the coloured components of
the cloth. Giving completely different subjective results.

This is without taking into consideration the different responses of
different people's eyesight.

Thats why when choosing gents suit materials it was normal to take the
book of samples out into the dayight.

DG

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 15:46:42 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

One would have to be quackers to think that things like Salter's Duck are
commercially and acceptably going to produce the quantities of electricity
needed.

A very 1970s claim, one that was made by the nuclear "industry" when
the Mad Woman of Finchley when she asked them to look at Salter's
Duck. Mildly amusing, but no more.

Renewables will be providing 18% of Scottish electricity next year
and there is no reason why that could not be 50% by 2020 with the
right government attitude
http://www.scottishrenewables.org.uk...tem.asp?id=113

Although some older engineers may be out of date that does not mean
that such things are impossible. This country was particularly badly
served by the old predict and provide approach. White elephants like
Inverkip and Torness were built. Since the Scottish electricity
system became largely reliant on a handful of large power stations
the obvious problems have manifested themselves.

Most industrialised nations have a situation where many natural resources
needed for their economy have to be imported.

Not if they can avoid it. Importing uranium is entirely unnecessary.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

yped


David Hansen wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 20:55:27 +0100 someone who may be Helen Deborah
Vecht wrote this:-

Yebbut how can a hapless (or is it hopeless) consumer get an idea of the
quality of the emitted light before spending £lots?

In the big red sheds they often have many of them turned on. Not a
perfect way, but worth looking at.

Maybe buy one at a ime, each time a different brand. Yes you spend £50
before filing the lights with decent bulbs, but a set of CFLs will save
you that much, so it ends up costing nothing really.

Good idea, but I'm almost housebound due to MS and do most of my
shopping online, so it's not really practical.

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 17:51:44 +0100 someone who may be Helen Deborah
Vecht wrote this:-

Even David Hansen says I'd have to replace it if I wanted to use cfls.

At the moment. However, even at current electricity prices that is
very worthwhile if one can DIY the fitting.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 17:51:44 +0100, Helen Deborah Vecht
wrote:

Timothy Murphy typed


Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:

Given my disabilities, I don't think I can replace my hall lamp fitting
for less than about £100.

I didn't understand this, on two grounds.

(1) Why do you need to replace your lamp fitting?
I thought energy-saving bulbs normally use the same fitting.

It uses mini globe bulbs. These are shorter than any cfls.
Even David Hansen says I'd have to replace it if I wanted to use cfls.


I wouldn't give up they are coming.

If you could change the lampholders you might get a better choice.

Take a look on here. I found their mini spiral candle lamps a good 60
watt Tungsten equivalent, and you don't see them (much) in a candle
lamp fitting.

DG

The message
from Timothy Murphy contains these words:

(1) Why do you need to replace your lamp fitting?
I thought energy-saving bulbs normally use the same fitting.

Do keep up at the back.

One of the two main complaints about CFL lamps is that they're
frequently /not/ compatible with exisiting fittings because they're too
long. I can't fit them into my plaster uplighters, my old bathroom
globes (or the new ones, strictly, but I've bodged it a bit). The PIR
lamp by the front door says it's not suitable for CFLs and the none of
the three bulkhead lamps in the house take them either because they're
too long.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

The message
from Timothy Murphy contains these words:

Another argument for CFLs, which I haven't seen mentioned,
as that they must significantly reduce the fire danger.

I much prefer the 7W 50mm CLF spots that Ikea sell for bedside lamps. I
once set a pillow smouldering with the 40W incandescent sort.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 12:34:37 +0100, David Hansen wrote
(in article ):

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 09:50:14 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

It's a great shame that successive governments in many countries have
wasted
more than a generation (probably two) through not pursuing nuclear power
generation and the technology behind it.

On the contrary, it is a great shame that successive governments in
many countries have wasted two or three generations pursuing nuclear
electricity.

Rubbish.

By investing reasonably in generating capacity, France now produces more
than
75% of its electricity requirement with nuclear plant and is able to
export
to the UK which now only has around 15% of power generated in this way and
a
heavy dependency on fossil fuels.


I recall once listening, while driving, to a R4 discussion about Electricity
generation with the (then) head of (then) CEGB (Lord) Marshall - he of the
gravelly voice;-
he said 'there are three reasons that the French have invested in nuclear
power stations; they've got no coal, they've got no oil and they've got no
choice!"

--

Brian

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
wrote:
Mark wrote:
On 6 Jul 2006 14:08:17 -0700, wrote:

That, plus opening the curtains by day except in summer maximises solar
gains..I have been TRYING to indicate to SWMBO that keeping the windows
SHUT in summer actually keeps the house cooler...along with the fact in
winter that thermostats do not control how FAST a house heats up, juts
how hot it is when it stops..and that opening windows if its too hot
doesn';t make it cooler, just sends the oil bill through the roof..

I dont understand why people can figure out the obvious, but they dont.
I've seen people open the door on a boiling hot day in a coolish room
in an attempt to cool it further.


Loads more that can be done as well, like heat exchanger ventilation..

Yes, complete climate control can be done with various added bits. One
can even replace a chunk of winter heating needs. If energy prices go a
long way north I guess this is the way domestic climate control will
go. Its worth doing now, but people have far better things to do with
the time, esp since there are no readyily available off the shelf
systems, so its not a quick simple thing.



You could also make something like a passive fridge, utilising heat from
direct sunlight to heat a refrigerant, and then cooling it again on the
north side of the house.

You mean ammonia absorption cycle? Equipment would be expensive. Or
something home made with propane, which would be a lot more afforable
for a useful output. Not sure what insurers would think about that
though.


NT

Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
yped


David Hansen wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 20:55:27 +0100 someone who may be Helen Deborah
Vecht wrote this:-

Yebbut how can a hapless (or is it hopeless) consumer get an idea of the
quality of the emitted light before spending £lots?

In the big red sheds they often have many of them turned on. Not a
perfect way, but worth looking at.

Maybe buy one at a ime, each time a different brand. Yes you spend £50
before filing the lights with decent bulbs, but a set of CFLs will save
you that much, so it ends up costing nothing really.

Good idea, but I'm almost housebound due to MS and do most of my
shopping online, so it's not really practical.

I dont see how it doesnt make any difference. You go to a supplier like
toolstation or screwfix (scr bulbs mostly good, ts mostly bad) and buy
one each of various bulbs. Any excuse eh.


NT

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 18:16:35 +0100, David Hansen wrote
(in article ):

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 15:46:42 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

One would have to be quackers to think that things like Salter's Duck are
commercially and acceptably going to produce the quantities of electricity
needed.

A very 1970s claim, one that was made by the nuclear "industry" when
the Mad Woman of Finchley when she asked them to look at Salter's
Duck. Mildly amusing, but no more.

If there were real commercial viability to these solutions significant
private investment would have been made and there would be significant
capacity.



Renewables will be providing 18% of Scottish electricity next year
and there is no reason why that could not be 50% by 2020 with the
right government attitude
http://www.scottishrenewables.org.uk...tem.asp?id=113

Although some older engineers may be out of date that does not mean
that such things are impossible. This country was particularly badly
served by the old predict and provide approach. White elephants like
Inverkip and Torness were built. Since the Scottish electricity
system became largely reliant on a handful of large power stations
the obvious problems have manifested themselves.

This is all very lovely and essentially the same position that Norway can
enjoy in terms of being self sufficient in energy from hydroelectricity.

If one looks at the issue on a UK or European wide basis, the equations
change considerably.




Most industrialised nations have a situation where many natural resources
needed for their economy have to be imported.

Not if they can avoid it. Importing uranium is entirely unnecessary.


Provided that suitable reprocessing and the means to use reprocessed
materials are in place, it may not be, technically. However, economics
currently imply that once through fuel cycles are going to be less expensive
than reprocessing for a very long time. That is before one gets to the
political debates about reprocessing.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Here is another thought...what is the comparative heat of a 17" Samsung
monitor versus a 1200 by whatever 17" LCD?

Would be nice to feel it would pay for itself in 6 years or so..

17" monitor might be rated at 130w, but in practice I dont think they
eat anywhere near that. I'll make a very rough estimate of 40w for my
old 17" crt, based solely on stick your hand on and see how warm it is.
What does a 17" lcd eat? If it were 15w that would be 25w saving.

25w for 8 hour workday = 0.2kWh
x5x50 = 50kWh/yr
@10p each thats £5 pa less leccy, if used 9-5 5 days. Roughly nothing.


NT

Derek ^ wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 17:51:44 +0100, Helen Deborah Vecht
wrote:

It uses mini globe bulbs. These are shorter than any cfls.
Even David Hansen says I'd have to replace it if I wanted to use cfls.


I wouldn't give up they are coming.

If you could change the lampholders you might get a better choice.

Take a look on here. I found their mini spiral candle lamps a good 60
watt Tungsten equivalent, and you don't see them (much) in a candle
lamp fitting.

DG

where is here?

Toolstation do minispirals that can replace golfs, but the light isnt
the best. Screwfix do candles that will often replace golfs, but the
shape and size is different. She just dont wanna use em.


NT

On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 17:33:44 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Here is another thought...what is the comparative heat of a 17" Samsung
monitor versus a 1200 by whatever 17" LCD?

Last time I looked there wasn't a vast difference in the rated powers
between CRT and same sized LCD. LCD's are surprisingly greedy, that big
back light...

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 18:55:01 +0100 someone who may be Guy King
wrote this:-

One of the two main complaints about CFL lamps is that they're
frequently /not/ compatible with exisiting fittings because they're too
long.

That rather depends on the fitting concerned. I still have some of
the first sort of such lamps, with a glass envelope around the
tubes. They have fitted in a variety of fittings, but not all.

When the sort without a glass envelope came out I was pleased, as
they fitted more fittings. Ditto when the type with bent tubes came
out. They can now be fitted in most fittings.

I can't fit them into my plaster uplighters,

What about the Extra Mini?

my old bathroom
globes (or the new ones, strictly, but I've bodged it a bit).

My bathroom globes, about 15 years old, have had energy saving lamps
in them since I got them. No modifications.

The PIR lamp by the front door says it's not suitable for CFLs

Nothing to do with the length of the lamp.

and the none of
the three bulkhead lamps in the house take them either because they're
too long.

Last night I fitted two of these in bulkhead fittings where GLS
bulbs were a tight fit. I have done the same in a number of other
houses. http://www.energysavers-direct.com/v...ail.asp?var=16


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 20:37:18 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

A very 1970s claim, one that was made by the nuclear "industry" when
the Mad Woman of Finchley when she asked them to look at Salter's
Duck. Mildly amusing, but no more.

If there were real commercial viability to these solutions significant
private investment would have been made and there would be significant
capacity.

You appear to misunderstand the effect that government has on
private investment. If government is encouraging something then the
private sector will not invest in something that competes.
Government can get money more cheaply and has more resources.

A good example is the wind turbine industry. The first ones were
erected in Scotland and there was a good chance of a useful export
business growing. However, government killed it off by promoting
nuclear electricity. Now we buy the knowledge from Denmark, although
we have some spanner plants.

It looks like Mr Liar is just as incompetent as his predecessors in
this respect. The wave and sea current industry looks set to go the
same way.

Note that the UK got very little exports out of nuclear. There was
hardly an export success to justify the policy.

If one looks at the issue on a UK or European wide basis, the equations
change considerably.

The proportions of generation change, but not the basic facts. For
example, Germany does not have as good wind resources as the UK, on
the other hand it has rather more land on which to grow energy
crops.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 15:59:08 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

For me, the main issue is not the marginal cost benefit anyway.

- It is that the bulbs themselves are ugly - either they are fat, have stupid
spiral shapes or loops.

- The light quality is appalling.

I'm glad to see that you now admit that your arguments against
compact fluorescent bulbs are a matter of personal prejudice. We all
have such things, but trying to justify them on spurious grounds is
not helpful.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

The message om
from "Dave Liquorice" contains these words:

Last time I looked there wasn't a vast difference in the rated powers
between CRT and same sized LCD. LCD's are surprisingly greedy, that big
back light...

Depends whether you run it at full brightness. Mine's only at 40%.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.