We wanted to be able to vary the brightness of the lights in the
dining room depending whether we were having visitors or trying to
work in there. I replaced the switch with a dimmer switch and it
meets our needs perfectly. But, even when I was fitting it I did
wonder if I was wasting my money given that we won't be able to get
incadescent bulbs for much longer, so will I need to remove it again
when we're forced to use CFL bulbs or is there an alternative that
will still work with the dimmer?

On 27 Oct, 09:42, Kevin wrote:
We wanted to be able to vary the brightness of the lights in the
dining room

Switch to multiple sets of small lamps (downlighters?) and switch them
separately, with each lamp either full on or full off.

Some CFLs will work with some dimmers.

Kevin
wibbled on Tuesday 27 October 2009 09:42

We wanted to be able to vary the brightness of the lights in the
dining room depending whether we were having visitors or trying to
work in there. I replaced the switch with a dimmer switch and it
meets our needs perfectly. But, even when I was fitting it I did
wonder if I was wasting my money given that we won't be able to get
incadescent bulbs for much longer, so will I need to remove it again
when we're forced to use CFL bulbs or is there an alternative that
will still work with the dimmer?

CFLs are not the problem - Megaman and Varilight both make dimmable CFLs

http://www.varilight.co.uk/
http://www.megamanuk.com/

There are three categories of dimmers IME:

a) Brain dead knob, diac and triac. These are fairly simple and *can* work
OK with the above.

b) Smart dimmers - ones with buttons, IR receivers, radio receivers. These
can be more finnicky as they need to draw a tiny amount of power when "off"
to keep the circuitry ticking. This residual current can cause CFLs (even
dimmable ones) to flash occasionally. The dimmable CFLs try to cope with
this, buy YMMV

c) "LV" dimmers. Designed for small loads and dimmable SELV PSUs. Obviously
the best choice, but you are usually back to a knob dimmer with not smart
features.

The dimmable CFLs are getting better. Otherwise, just buy loads of tungsten
bulbs and stockpile them.

--
Tim Watts

This space intentionally left blank...

On Oct 27, 9:42*am, Kevin wrote:
We wanted to be able to vary the brightness of the lights in the
dining room depending whether we were having visitors or trying to
work in there. *I replaced the switch with a dimmer switch and it
meets our needs perfectly. *But, even when I was fitting it I did
wonder if I was wasting my money given that we won't be able to get
incadescent bulbs for much longer, so will I need to remove it again
when we're forced to use CFL bulbs or is there an alternative that
will still work with the dimmer?

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...26_Switchbanks

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 02:42:42 -0700 (PDT), Kevin had
this to say:

We wanted to be able to vary the brightness of the lights in the
dining room depending whether we were having visitors or trying to
work in there. I replaced the switch with a dimmer switch and it
meets our needs perfectly. But, even when I was fitting it I did
wonder if I was wasting my money given that we won't be able to get
incadescent bulbs for much longer, so will I need to remove it again
when we're forced to use CFL bulbs or is there an alternative that
will still work with the dimmer?

Stock up with incandescent bulbs now - while you can still get 'em.

--
Frank Erskine

Stock up with incandescent bulbs now - while you can still get 'em.


That's my plan, on the other hand we will run out at some point and
it's useful to know what the options are.

Thanks for the replies. The Wiki is especially informative, I wish
I'd realised it was there earlier.

Kevin wrote:
Stock up with incandescent bulbs now - while you can still get 'em.


That's my plan, on the other hand we will run out at some point and
it's useful to know what the options are.

Thanks for the replies. The Wiki is especially informative, I wish
I'd realised it was there earlier.

I am going to try and miss out the cfl stage for dimming lights. I
believe that LED are the medium term future.

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:27:09 +0000 someone who may be Frank Erskine
wrote this:-

Stock up with incandescent bulbs now - while you can still get 'em.

I encourage people to do this too. The sooner those inefficient
lamps are cleared from the shelves the better.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 03:55:31 -0700 (PDT), Kevin had
this to say:

Stock up with incandescent bulbs now - while you can still get 'em.


That's my plan, on the other hand we will run out at some point and
it's useful to know what the options are.

Well if you get sufficient, by the time they 'run out' there'll
possibly be some sort of _effective_ replacements.

--
Frank Erskine

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:05:43 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:27:09 +0000 someone who may be Frank Erskine
wrote this:-

Stock up with incandescent bulbs now - while you can still get 'em.

I encourage people to do this too. The sooner those inefficient
lamps are cleared from the shelves the better.

;-)

T i m

On 27 Oct, 09:42, Kevin wrote:
We wanted to be able to vary the brightness of the lights in the
dining room depending whether we were having visitors or trying to
work in there. *I replaced the switch with a dimmer switch and it
meets our needs perfectly. *But, even when I was fitting it I did
wonder if I was wasting my money given that we won't be able to get
incadescent bulbs for much longer, so will I need to remove it again
when we're forced to use CFL bulbs or is there an alternative that
will still work with the dimmer?

Apart from previously mentioned Varilight and Megaman CFLs which don`t
dim to zero very well.

Expanding range of halogen, which is a type of incandescent, GLS
alternatives from Halogena style to the Osram GLS style halogens, 42W
halogen in 60w GLS Pearl style envelope. These are likely to be around
for the forseeable future, at least until something better than
current crop of CFLs and LED arrives.

Switching does not give the same versatilty as dimming but there is a
lot to commend more than one lighting circuit per room if your
starting with open walls.

Cheers
Adam

Adam Aglionby wrote:
Switching does not give the same versatilty as dimming but there is a
lot to commend more than one lighting circuit per room if your
starting with open walls.

Or bring all the wiring from switches and light fittings back to one
accessible junction box?

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 14:26:32 +0000 someone who may be John Rumm
wrote this:-

If enough people bulk buy, then the inflated sales figures will convince
the manufactures there is enough demand that cares about bulb type to
carry on making them.

You mean the manufacturers will break the law?

Profit will always win out against the greenwash.

It is always good when the best people can do is "sloganise".

Manufacturers may try and get the law changed, they do have a lot of
power in the undemocratic halls of the EU. However, I doubt if they
have the power to change this particular and very sensible law.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

Jim
wibbled on Tuesday 27 October 2009 13:45

Adam Aglionby wrote:
Switching does not give the same versatilty as dimming but there is a
lot to commend more than one lighting circuit per room if your
starting with open walls.

Or bring all the wiring from switches and light fittings back to one
accessible junction box?

That's what I'm doing. Well, 4 boxes, one per corner to avoid massive cable
runs. It will give me some possibilities to stick relays in later to do
funky stuff (like turn off the kids' lights after only being left on for 3
weeks and 23 minutes).

--
Tim Watts

This space intentionally left blank...

John Rumm
wibbled on Tuesday 27 October 2009 14:54

David Hansen wrote:
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 14:26:32 +0000 someone who may be John Rumm
wrote this:-

If enough people bulk buy, then the inflated sales figures will convince
the manufactures there is enough demand that cares about bulb type to
carry on making them.

You mean the manufacturers will break the law?

They will - however they won't need to really since the laws bend. You
make them in areas without controls - import them for "specialist
purposes" - high temperature lamps, heating lamps, rough handling lamps
etc.

Ah, like that famous compost accelerator, ammonium sulfamate. Not a
weedkiller at all.


--
Tim Watts

This space intentionally left blank...

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 14:54:46 +0000 someone who may be John Rumm
wrote this:-

Its not the best I can do - I could give you many detailed and reasoned
arguments as to why current alternative technologies are not *yet*
adequate replacements for incandescent bulbs in a broad range of
applications. However there is no need, since they have been well
rehearsed here in the past.

They have certainly been well rehearsed and shown to be invalid here
in the past.

The fact that an inappropriate and immature
technology is being mandated over another

We must wait for the best, instead of going ahead with the good
enough, has been an argument for inaction for a long time. However,
other than in a few circumstances it is not a convincing argument.

There are indeed some applications where compact fluorescent lamps
are not the best choice at the moment, but engineering continues to
advance. For instance, the earliest "glass jar" lamps were no use on
stairways, due to the long start time. However, for the past decade
or so lamps have been available which start rapidly enough for
people not to break their limbs on stairs. Many of the arguments
rehearsed here might have been valid 20 years ago, but are not now.

Compact fluorescent lamps will probably never be suitable for all
uses and even better lamps will undoubtedly come into use. However,
that is not an argument for slowly banning inefficient old lamps,
which is what is happening.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 14:40:33 +0000, David Hansen wrote:
Manufacturers may try and get the law changed, they do have a lot of
power in the undemocratic halls of the EU. However, I doubt if they
have the power to change this particular and very sensible law.

Is the problem that they can't sell them - or that they can't make them?
If the former, maybe they could continue production and just trade bulbs
for chocolate bars or something.

In article . com,
Jules writes:
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 14:40:33 +0000, David Hansen wrote:
Manufacturers may try and get the law changed, they do have a lot of
power in the undemocratic halls of the EU. However, I doubt if they
have the power to change this particular and very sensible law.

Is the problem that they can't sell them - or that they can't make them?
If the former, maybe they could continue production and just trade bulbs
for chocolate bars or something.

The law is supposed to be no manufacture or import into the EU.
Selling remains perfectly legal.

However, I caught the tail-end of the reports a few weeks back
about the legislation having been wrongly enacted in the UK and
currently being unenforceable. Didn't catch any details of what
they got wrong though.

Around me, Waitrose was still sticking to the ban, but pretty
much everyone else had 100W light bulbs back on the shelves
again (although having no use for them myself, it's not
something I normally notice at all).

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:51:34 +0000 (UTC),
(Andrew Gabriel) had this to say:

In article . com,
Jules writes:
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 14:40:33 +0000, David Hansen wrote:
Manufacturers may try and get the law changed, they do have a lot of
power in the undemocratic halls of the EU. However, I doubt if they
have the power to change this particular and very sensible law.

Is the problem that they can't sell them - or that they can't make them?
If the former, maybe they could continue production and just trade bulbs
for chocolate bars or something.

The law is supposed to be no manufacture or import into the EU.
Selling remains perfectly legal.

However, I caught the tail-end of the reports a few weeks back
about the legislation having been wrongly enacted in the UK and
currently being unenforceable. Didn't catch any details of what
they got wrong though.

ISTR that the Statutory Instrument for banning the manufacture or
import of light bulbs was tagged on to an enabling Act which didn't
cover light bulbs... :-)

--
Frank Erskine

In article ,
Frank Erskine writes:
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:51:34 +0000 (UTC),
(Andrew Gabriel) had this to say:

The law is supposed to be no manufacture or import into the EU.
Selling remains perfectly legal.

However, I caught the tail-end of the reports a few weeks back
about the legislation having been wrongly enacted in the UK and
currently being unenforceable. Didn't catch any details of what
they got wrong though.

ISTR that the Statutory Instrument for banning the manufacture or
import of light bulbs was tagged on to an enabling Act which didn't
cover light bulbs... :-)

Oh dear. You couldn't make it up...

How may politicians and civil servants does it take to change a light bulb?

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 23:14:21 +0000 (UTC),
(Andrew Gabriel) had this to say:

In article ,
Frank Erskine writes:
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:51:34 +0000 (UTC),
(Andrew Gabriel) had this to say:

The law is supposed to be no manufacture or import into the EU.
Selling remains perfectly legal.

However, I caught the tail-end of the reports a few weeks back
about the legislation having been wrongly enacted in the UK and
currently being unenforceable. Didn't catch any details of what
they got wrong though.

ISTR that the Statutory Instrument for banning the manufacture or
import of light bulbs was tagged on to an enabling Act which didn't
cover light bulbs... :-)

Oh dear. You couldn't make it up...

Actually I'm seriously surprised that nobody seems to have challenged
this.


How many politicians and civil servants does it take to change a light bulb?

I was a (technical) civil servant for a while, but based in an outpost
an awful long way from Whitehall, and have been known to change light
bulbs (well, fluorescent tubes) _by myself_ (shock horror) rather than
wait for somebody to come along and do it via triplicate paperwork and
bids to HM Treasury...

AND fit up/wire workbenches and install radio and other stuff in cars,
all above the call of duty, just to get the job done.

I think I did change an incandescent light bulb once at work - in an
anglepoise lamp :-))

--
Frank Erskine

In message , Frank Erskine
writes
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 02:42:42 -0700 (PDT), Kevin had
this to say:

We wanted to be able to vary the brightness of the lights in the
dining room depending whether we were having visitors or trying to
work in there. I replaced the switch with a dimmer switch and it
meets our needs perfectly. But, even when I was fitting it I did
wonder if I was wasting my money given that we won't be able to get
incadescent bulbs for much longer, so will I need to remove it again
when we're forced to use CFL bulbs or is there an alternative that
will still work with the dimmer?

Stock up with incandescent bulbs now - while you can still get 'em.

Lightbulbs2U are where I got mine from

--
geoff

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:27:09 +0000 someone who may be Frank Erskine
wrote this:-

Stock up with incandescent bulbs now - while you can still get 'em.

I encourage people to do this too. The sooner those inefficient
lamps are cleared from the shelves the better.

Simplistic view of supply/demand.

Bill

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 14:54:46 +0000 someone who may be John Rumm
wrote this:-
Compact fluorescent lamps will probably never be suitable for all
uses and even better lamps will undoubtedly come into use. However,
that is not an argument for slowly banning inefficient old lamps,
which is what is happening.

I hate the people who like to ban things. All it means is that they think
they know how better than me how I should live. They can ********. If I want
to use traditional light bulbs I will. I've got 50 years' supply, so they
can't stop me. If there was any real connection between the type of bulb I
use and global warming it might be different, but there isn't.

I see that they want to stop us eating meat as well. Sounds like I'll be
rearing lambs in secret then.

Is there any aspect of our lives that these morons don't want to mess around
with?

How the hell do they think they can get C02 emissions down when the world's
population is increasing like it is? Not a prayer.

Bill

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 00:05:01 +0000, Frank Erskine
wrote:
In article ,
Frank Erskine writes:
ISTR that the Statutory Instrument for banning the manufacture or
import of light bulbs was tagged on to an enabling Act which didn't
cover light bulbs... :-)

Oh dear. You couldn't make it up...

Actually I'm seriously surprised that nobody seems to have challenged
this.


Challenge it? Why? The fact it is tacked on to the end of an
unrelated Bill does not make it any less of a law. Far from it.

There is a surprisingly large proportion of our laws that are passed
in this way. The alternative, to wait for a dedicated slot in the
Parliamentary programme, could delay passing legislation for months or
even years.

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 03:41:10 -0000 someone who may be "Bill Wright"
wrote this:-

I hate the people who like to ban things. All it means is that they think
they know how better than me how I should live.

I take it you are against the ban on murder?

How the hell do they think they can get C02 emissions down when the world's
population is increasing like it is? Not a prayer.

If we wish to decrease population in order to reduce emissions then
it makes sense to start with those who are emitting the most? Yes?

That means starting with rich westerners.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 04:12:25 +0000 someone who may be John Rumm
wrote this:-

Why ban them at all? If you want to indulge in social engineering, why
not take a two pronged approach 1) make the new technology better than
what it replaces, and then raise the price of the old technology via
taxation etc.

I imagine that the usual suspects would object if people proposed
higher taxes with respect to lamps. They certainly complain about
higher taxes in all other forms of environmental measure.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:46:29 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 04:12:25 +0000 someone who may be John Rumm
wrote this:-

Why ban them at all? If you want to indulge in social engineering, why
not take a two pronged approach 1) make the new technology better than
what it replaces, and then raise the price of the old technology via
taxation etc.

I imagine that the usual suspects would object if people proposed
higher taxes with respect to lamps. They certainly complain about
higher taxes in all other forms of environmental measure.

Better than rushing through a ban on incandescents though. I try to
be "environmentally responsible" but it makes no sense for people to
have to replace light fittings and switches which work perfectly with
new ones because they can no longer get lightbulbs that fit.

If I was "in charge" I would first try to ensure that all fittings and
switchgear sold were compatible with energy effecient bulbs before
even thinking of phasing out the less efficient bulbs.

I think the ban was really introduced as a result of lobbying from the
manufacturers of CFLs, rather than due to any environmental concerns.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
[Reply-to address valid until it is spammed.]

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:32:25 +0000 someone who may be Mark
wrote this:-

I think the ban was really introduced as a result of lobbying from the
manufacturers of CFLs

Really.

On the one hand they have production lines which churn out
established designs. These are sold for a relatively low price.

On the other hand they churn out newer designs, sold for a higher
price, but I suspect the profit per unit sold isn't great.

If I was a lamp manufacturer I would lobby for me to be able to keep
producing the old designs, while still selling the new design at a
higher price.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:32:25 +0000, Mark
wrote:

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:46:29 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 04:12:25 +0000 someone who may be John Rumm
wrote this:-

Why ban them at all? If you want to indulge in social engineering, why
not take a two pronged approach 1) make the new technology better than
what it replaces, and then raise the price of the old technology via
taxation etc.

I imagine that the usual suspects would object if people proposed
higher taxes with respect to lamps. They certainly complain about
higher taxes in all other forms of environmental measure.

Better than rushing through a ban on incandescents though. I try to
be "environmentally responsible" but it makes no sense for people to
have to replace light fittings and switches which work perfectly with
new ones because they can no longer get lightbulbs that fit.

If I was "in charge" I would first try to ensure that all fittings and
switchgear sold were compatible with energy effecient bulbs before
even thinking of phasing out the less efficient bulbs.

I think the ban was really introduced as a result of lobbying from the
manufacturers of CFLs, rather than due to any environmental concerns.


Well that trumps all other discussion doesn't it.

They'll lie their collective heads off just to * Get Money * each and
everything they say may be taken as just a salesman's puff.

Derek

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
David Hansen wrote:
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 14:54:46 +0000 someone who may be John Rumm
wrote this:-
Why ban them at all?
Because they can get away with it. They let people chose whether to fly in
aeroplanes because there's be a rumpus if they didn't, but they know they
can get away with the lightbulb thing without too much fuss.

Bill

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 03:41:10 -0000 someone who may be "Bill Wright"
wrote this:-

I hate the people who like to ban things. All it means is that they think
they know how better than me how I should live.

I take it you are against the ban on murder?
That isn't remotely comparable and you know it. Use your bloody common
sense.

Bill

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:49:32 -0000 someone who may be "Bill Wright"
wrote this:-

I take it you are against the ban on murder?

That isn't remotely comparable and you know it. Use your bloody common
sense.

I note that you were unable or unwilling to answer the point.

It seems that there are some things you are content that there is a
ban on. Therefore you presumably do not hate people who like to ban
things, but only hate people who ban things you don't like being
banned. If that is in the case we are now in the realm of politics,
rather than absolutes.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

David Hansen
wibbled on Wednesday 28 October 2009 18:06

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:49:32 -0000 someone who may be "Bill Wright"
wrote this:-

I take it you are against the ban on murder?

That isn't remotely comparable and you know it. Use your bloody common
sense.

I note that you were unable or unwilling to answer the point.

It seems that there are some things you are content that there is a
ban on. Therefore you presumably do not hate people who like to ban
things, but only hate people who ban things you don't like being
banned. If that is in the case we are now in the realm of politics,
rather than absolutes.




I would feel quite safe, short of doing a national survey, that the vast
majority of the UK population believe that murder is bad and are not
unhappy about it being illegal.

The same cannot be said on anything like the same scale for:

Lamp shennanigans as we are discussing,
HIPs
Part P

Tim


--
Tim Watts

This space intentionally left blank...

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:27:09 +0000 someone who may be Frank Erskine
wrote this:-

Stock up with incandescent bulbs now - while you can still get 'em.

I encourage people to do this too. The sooner those inefficient
lamps are cleared from the shelves the better.

Just thought I'd chuck in 2p on the 'environmental' debate.

(1) There has been plenty of action on the supply of CFLs but a remarkable
lack of action on the disposal, even though they allegedly contain harmful
chemicals and should not just be ditched in land fill. Apparently you have
to take them to a specialist disposal point instead of having them collected
with rubbish and recyclables. Yeah, right. Sure to be 100% compliance with
that one. Then again it is easier to make a few manufacturers change their
product than make the teeming millions in the UK dispose of specialised
rubbish sensibly. Especially if you don't supply an easily accessible
infrastructure such as regular collections door to door. Does every used AA
and AAA battery with harmful chemicals go for specialised disposal or do the
majority go to landfill? Cleaning that lot up should keep the next
generation gainfully employed.

(2) This week I watched a recording of a talk - "Climate change & extinction
by Richard Leakey (recorded from the Royal Society)". It was suggested that
much of the carbon based pollution came from impoverished nations (Third
World?) with soaring birth rates and no alternative source of energy to the
burning of wood. Policing their carbon useage is not something that can be
achieved by consumer legislation. It was also suggested that there would be
major climate change within the next 20 years in Africa, with major rivers
drying up. To me this makes all the fuss about CFLs akin to trying to empty
the Lake District of water using a tea spoon. Also allegedly much of the
melting of polar ice caps is due to carbon from burning wood (presumably by
the 3rd world) coating the snow and ice and absorbing more heat from the
sun. A scary talk.

(3) On pricing - ISTR the cost of incandescent bulbs dropping enormously
once CFLs became available. Presumably because if there was no price
difference everyone would buy CFLs because they were cheaper to run. On that
basis I would suggest that banning old style bulbs might be a good idea to
prevent new and more efficient technology being held back by the dumping of
old technology onto the market. Strange how the incandescents dropped from
£3 to 30p so quickly. I don't understand why New Labour didn't follow the
usual route and add a surcharge to the incandescent bulbs to bring the price
back up. They could then raise taxes and claim to be green at the same time.
Then waste the extra money.

Should we start cross posting to uk.political.rant.yet.again ?

Cheers

Dave R

David WE Roberts
wibbled on Wednesday 28 October 2009 22:19


"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:27:09 +0000 someone who may be Frank Erskine
wrote this:-

Stock up with incandescent bulbs now - while you can still get 'em.

I encourage people to do this too. The sooner those inefficient
lamps are cleared from the shelves the better.

Just thought I'd chuck in 2p on the 'environmental' debate.

(1) There has been plenty of action on the supply of CFLs but a remarkable
lack of action on the disposal, even though they allegedly contain harmful
chemicals and should not just be ditched in land fill. Apparently you have
to take them to a specialist disposal point instead of having them
collected with rubbish and recyclables. Yeah, right. Sure to be 100%
compliance with that one. Then again it is easier to make a few
manufacturers change their product than make the teeming millions in the
UK dispose of specialised rubbish sensibly. Especially if you don't supply
an easily accessible infrastructure such as regular collections door to
door. Does every used AA and AAA battery with harmful chemicals go for
specialised disposal or do the majority go to landfill? Cleaning that lot
up should keep the next generation gainfully employed.

I was at the dump today. Dutifully sorted a load of crap prior to moving. I
found the bin for batteries - but I did not noticed a place for CFLs. Maybe
I'll ask tomorrow. T Wells dump is fairly fully featured, eg they take
asbestos and have skips and bins for pretty much every other category.

(2) This week I watched a recording of a talk - "Climate change &
extinction by Richard Leakey (recorded from the Royal Society)". It was
suggested that much of the carbon based pollution came from impoverished
nations (Third World?) with soaring birth rates and no alternative source
of energy to the burning of wood. Policing their carbon useage is not
something that can be achieved by consumer legislation. It was also
suggested that there would be major climate change within the next 20
years in Africa, with major rivers drying up. To me this makes all the
fuss about CFLs akin to trying to empty the Lake District of water using a
tea spoon. Also allegedly much of the melting of polar ice caps is due to
carbon from burning wood (presumably by the 3rd world) coating the snow
and ice and absorbing more heat from the sun. A scary talk.

Scary. Short of nuking them out of existence, what can you do. The poor sods
don't really have the luxury of the debate of "hmm, CFL or tungsten". Life
is running at a whole different level for a lot of them.



--
Tim Watts

This space intentionally left blank...

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:49:32 -0000 someone who may be "Bill Wright"
wrote this:-

I take it you are against the ban on murder?

That isn't remotely comparable and you know it. Use your bloody common
sense.

I note that you were unable or unwilling to answer the point.

It seems that there are some things you are content that there is a
ban on. Therefore you presumably do not hate people who like to ban
things, but only hate people who ban things you don't like being
banned. If that is in the case we are now in the realm of politics,
rather than absolutes.

Well of course we are. You know perfectly well that murder is unarguably an
evil, whereas most of the banning that the environmentalists want to do is
arguable at best. Your comparison is fatuous.

Bill

On 28 Oct, 22:19, "David WE Roberts" wrote:
"David Hansen" wrote in message

...

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:27:09 +0000 someone who may be Frank Erskine
wrote this:-

Stock up with incandescent bulbs now - while you can still get 'em.

I encourage people to do this too. The sooner those inefficient
lamps are cleared from the shelves the better.

Just thought I'd chuck in 2p on the 'environmental' debate.

(1) There has been plenty of action on the supply of CFLs but a remarkable
lack of action on the disposal, even though they allegedly contain harmful
chemicals and should not just be ditched in land fill. Apparently you have
to take them to a specialist disposal point instead of having them collected
with rubbish and recyclables. Yeah, right. Sure to be 100% compliance with
that one. Then again it is easier to make a few manufacturers change their
product than make the teeming millions in the UK dispose of specialised
rubbish sensibly. Especially if you don't supply an easily accessible
infrastructure such as regular collections door to door. Does every used AA
and AAA battery with harmful chemicals go for specialised disposal or do the
majority go to landfill? Cleaning that lot up should keep the next
generation gainfully employed.

(2) This week I watched a recording of a talk - "Climate change & extinction
by Richard Leakey (recorded from the Royal Society)". It was suggested that
much of the carbon based pollution came from impoverished nations (Third
World?) with soaring birth rates and no alternative source of energy to the
burning of wood. Policing their carbon useage is not something that can be
achieved by consumer legislation. It was also suggested that there would be
major climate change within the next 20 years in Africa, with major rivers
drying up.

Not actually had the benefit of seeing the lecture , but a brief look
at Dr Richard Leakey FRS previous experience is palentology,
anthropology and museum and government administration.

Difficult to see where he could speak with any authority on climate
change.

Strongly think it unlikely that the population of Africa can keep up
with the `developed` world`s appetite for coal burning power stations
and carbon emmisions.

Mortality is certainly a problem to the African continent, soaring
birth rates are a more northern issue.



To me this makes all the fuss about CFLs akin to trying to empty
the Lake District of water using a tea spoon. Also allegedly much of the
melting of polar ice caps is due to carbon from burning wood (presumably by
the 3rd world) coating the snow and ice and absorbing more heat from the
sun. A scary talk.

Scary if you believed any of this total bunkum, really.

Cheers
Adam



(3) On pricing - ISTR the cost of incandescent bulbs dropping enormously
once CFLs became available. Presumably because if there was no price
difference everyone would buy CFLs because they were cheaper to run. On that
basis I would suggest that banning old style bulbs might be a good idea to
prevent new and more efficient technology being held back by the dumping of
old technology onto the market. Strange how the incandescents dropped from
£3 to 30p so quickly. I don't understand why New Labour didn't follow the
usual route and add a surcharge to the incandescent bulbs to bring the price
back up. They could then raise taxes and claim to be green at the same time.
Then waste the extra money.

Should we start cross posting to uk.political.rant.yet.again ?

Cheers

Dave R

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:19:42 -0000 someone who may be "David WE
Roberts" wrote this:-

(1) There has been plenty of action on the supply of CFLs but a remarkable
lack of action on the disposal, even though they allegedly contain harmful
chemicals and should not just be ditched in land fill.

I have not checked the figures myself, but I have heard a number of
people state that more mercury is emitted in generating the extra
electricity needed to power old fashioned lamps, assuming that
generation is at the UK mix.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 08:19:32 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:19:42 -0000 someone who may be "David WE
Roberts" wrote this:-

(1) There has been plenty of action on the supply of CFLs but a remarkable
lack of action on the disposal, even though they allegedly contain harmful
chemicals and should not just be ditched in land fill.

I have not checked the figures myself, but I have heard a number of
people state that more mercury is emitted in generating the extra
electricity needed to power old fashioned lamps, assuming that
generation is at the UK mix.

Probably true.

It's also true that coal fired power stations emit more radioactivity
than nuclear ones.

So, the solution is simple, want it spelled out ?

Derek