navitron
 
Renewable Energy and Sustainability Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Anyone wishing to register as a new member on the forum is strongly recommended to use a "proper" email address. Following continuous spam/hack attempts on the forum, "disposable" email addresses like Gmail, Yahoo and Hotmail tend to be viewed with suspicion, and the application rejected if there is any doubt whatsoever
 
Recent Articles: Navitron Partners With Solax to Help Create A More Sustainable Future | Navitron Calls for Increased Carbon Footprint Reduction In Light of Earth Overshoot Day | A plea from The David School - Issue 18
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Revolutionary Heatball  (Read 4095 times)
martin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15733



WWW
« Reply #15 on: November 19, 2010, 06:46:49 PM »

As a dedicated libertarian, part of me agrees, part differs...... I think it's wrong to bring in any other comparisons - we're talking light bulbs here, nothing else! The fact is that you can get the same amount of light for a quarter of the power by changing bulb "type", so although it may go against the grain in one way, I'd put it in the same category as "smokeless zones" - a slight inconvenience for the greater good....... As Ivan says "Freedom to be wasteful in energy causes suffering" - and if you do the sums, the amount of energy saved by a switch to more energy efficient bulbs is colossal, so on balance, I'm in favour of them disappearing from the market. I also wholeheartedly agree that we need energy taxes, and encouragement for the uptake of renewables and "saving energy" at every opportunity as well! Cool
Logged

Unpaid volunteer administrator and moderator (not employed by Navitron) - Views expressed are my own - curmudgeonly babyboomer! - http://www.farmco.co.uk
Baz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1391


« Reply #16 on: November 19, 2010, 07:26:35 PM »

My local screwfix has some small 'heat wiggles' around 7 and 15W for only 19p, though I imagine they don't last too long at that price.
If you object to a few watts to enable old people to read then you must be incandescent about people who make permanent energy wasting biomachines ie breed like rabbits.
Logged
martin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15733



WWW
« Reply #17 on: November 19, 2010, 07:38:19 PM »

"If you object to a few watts to enable old people to read" - as someone who has a 92 year old registered blind mother who is quite happy with her energy savers I don't think that holds water at all - the insinuation being that the elderly need energy guzzlers - there is no hardship from using more modern bulbs, and it is fallacious to suggest that there is!
As I said, it's a simple move to replace lightbulbs, and collectively has a terrific effect for something so simple  - doesn't mean we don't need other measures too.........blobbie culls would be good........ Wink
Logged

Unpaid volunteer administrator and moderator (not employed by Navitron) - Views expressed are my own - curmudgeonly babyboomer! - http://www.farmco.co.uk
Ivan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2262


« Reply #18 on: November 20, 2010, 01:21:34 AM »

My grandmother is 96 and housebound. She spends her day reading and watching the TV. For over a decade she'd had 6 x 100W lights in her living room, and as her eyesight deteriorated, she complained that it wasn't enough to read by (tiny room, too). The lights are on for 15hours a day most days. She's one of these people who will not try new-fangled things, but several years ago, I managed to get hold of a 26W CFL. I pointed out to her that it was 50% brighter than her current 100W bulbs, so I placed it in the bulb nearest her chair. She liked it. Over the next few months, I swapped all of the others for 20W CFLs, and she's never complained.

But I agree, all incandescents, electric heaters, cars etc should be heavily taxed. I take quite a harsh view. As Ken pointed out, compared to man-hours, a barrel of oil should cost 5000 or so. Until we realise the true cost of fossil fuels we should be forced to be more energy-efficient.
Logged

www.epogee.co.uk - Solar PV & Solar Thermal Training / MCS
HalcyonRichard
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 752


« Reply #19 on: November 21, 2010, 02:46:37 PM »

Hi Ivan and Martin,
                           I am still against a ban. It just gets peoples back up. We all seem O.K. without
incandescants but some people are not. When the first non incandescant passes the incandescant Turin
test - then maybe we should consider the options.

Martin I totally disagree with looking at things in isolation. An ad-hoc fragmented approach just absorbs
time and money with poor results.

A way to nudge behaviour in the "right" direction would be :-

Tax incandescants adding 10p tax every three months. This would not ban them and still allow freedom of
choice. after 10 years the tax would be 4 per bulb. Hopefully by this time a decent replacement at a
decent price would exist. And we have a gently rising price not a shock to customers or producers. Giving
both time to switch to alternatives.

Use the considerable amout of money raised to produce the result required. Use it to fund research at
universities for new lighting technologies and manufacturing technologies. Aim to be the world leader
in super efficient lighting. Manufacture in the U.K. and license the technology world wide.


Considering the considerable time spent by Eurocrats banning incandescants this is a far better way to
produce energy savings. Maybe the Eurocrats should concentrate on finding a way to nudge people into buying fewer cars. This would be 10,000 times more effective. Also Nudge remaining owners to drive less miles.
One mile in a car uses 1 kWh approx. Car sharing encourage as much as possible. One day a week working
from home would save 1000's time more than a light bulb ban.

Our politicians increased car production using the car scrappage scheme. facepalm

It seems our leaders lack imagination !

Regards Richard
Logged

Laws are for the guidance of wise men and the obeyance of fools - Richard Burton upon Trent
Baz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1391


« Reply #20 on: November 21, 2010, 06:11:56 PM »

Disney channel have started adverts telling kids to switch off lights and put TV fully off not standby at night. Power used by TV running Advert 10 times a night  = energy used by TV in standby for 24 hrs. Then the next 10 adverts are for plastic rubbish toys. And the teen star fronting the campaign probably lives a rampantly consumer lifestyle that all the viewers aspire to.
No chance of an advert like "stop badgering your parents to get a bigger TV, junk fashion clothes and don't open the window if you are too hot turn down the radiator."
Logged
SteveH
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1221



« Reply #21 on: November 21, 2010, 07:23:51 PM »

 Ooh... those marketing men are so cute... Grin
Logged

Preveli, South Crete.
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
Simple Audio Video Embedder
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!