CFLs Compulsory for All ??


** Anyone seen tonight's news ??
Our fuckwit pollies have all climbed on a VERY dodgy Greenie bandwagon with
this asinine idea.
Like that episode of "Yes Minister" where Sir Humphrey explained the
mysteries of " Politicians logic " to the minister like this .....
" Imagine a very serious problem has been identified .....
So, WE politicians must do * SOMETHING * about it and soon !!!
NEXT: along comes an idea that seems to be in the right direction ...
Immediately the worried pollies all howl in unison
THIS * IS * SOMETHING !!!!!
Therefore * WE * must do it !!!! "
The plain truth is that CFLs consume enormously more energy in their
creation and distribution than the familiar incandescent bulb.
PLUS - dead ones generate ENORMOUSLY more and far more SERIOUS
environmental pollution than tiny bit of glass and burnt tungsten wire does.
PLUS - they are a absolute pig to dim.
PLUS - they generate harsh, fluorescent tube type light the nobody likes
in their homes.
PLUS - they are often slow to light up which can be a serious safety hazard
in many situations.
Anyone care to add to the list of NEGATIVE impacts ??
BTW:
Bet Leo gets all fired up.
....... Phil
Reply to
Phil Allison
Loading thread data ...
Yes, REAL fluorescent tubes are far better than the compact types if you really want more lumens per watt.
MrT.
Reply to
Mr.T
yes true, even allowing for economies of scale and influenced hugely by point of manufacture...
But - how do we get our hands on a full economic (thermodynamic/CO2) analysis of the differential of CFLs vs incandescents ?
Or better still,
Has Turnbull ever commissioned one ?
If not why not ?
Publish and get damned for ignoring it - I say !
Give em hell, cause in the long run they will make hell for us here soon !
. . . .
Well it would be a lukewarm hell with not much land,
Price of ocean view lunar is looking up for the long term maybe, negative gearing might be a prob though,
--
Regards
Mike
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Mike
They explode! They dont like brownouts; Frightened the shit out of me when doing the dishes and the one in the kitchen decided to leave the planet. Huge bang and particles everywhere. They have small amounts of mercury in them.
Reply to
ab
"Phil Allison"
** Forgot to mention the HORRIBLE power factor problem with most CFLs.
Just checked out a Philips "Genie" 11 watt CFL.
Consumes 80 mA rms at 240 volts by taking sharp, 250 mA current spikes at each AC voltage peak.
Makes the PF = 0.56
Bet this lamp is not legal to sell in the UK or Europe where such harmonic currents are regulated by law.
Can you get PFC ones here ?
For how much?
........ Phil
Reply to
Phil Allison
Take the time to listen to the shit radiated at HF from some of these lamps, especially when they get a bit tired and the ESR of the internal 400V cap gets up a bit.
I have used several of these lamps as movable work lights over a bench, their claims to longevity are bullshit.
Reply to
Fun Tyme
As they age (tube starts to blacken at the ends) they can start to emit IR radiation, this can play havoc with IR remote controls on equipment.
Reply to
kreed
"Phil Allison" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@mid.individual.net:
Any reliable links to total life energy comparisons between the 2 technologies? You're gonna get plenty of doubters otherwise.
Also, my first thought was that technology and market forces would solve the technological shortcomings of CFL's. But then I realised that would no way happen for just the tiny Australian market...
Reply to
Geoff C
"Geoff C"
** Only a real world survey of actual CFLs in actual use could ever reach a correct conclusion - hypothetical math exercises are all purest bollocks !!!
CFLs do not last their claimed service lives, in most cases.
CFLs lose light output during their life - unlike incandescent lamps.
CFLs do NOT generate the equivalent light output of the incandescent lamp size printed on their packets - says " Guide only - actual light output not equivalent " on the Philips Genie pack.
Disposing of circa 50 of million of them each year would be a MAJOR environmental pollution problem - safely disposing of fluoro tubes is a big enough one right now.
The CFLs we have here are not PFC, not " lead free " and have poisonous materials in them ( ie mercury).
( The humble incandescent lamp is inherently PFC, has no poisonous materials and hence is not a pollution problem. )
PLUS !!!!
The ONUS is on the makers of CFLs and those promoting the idea that we must use them where ever possible to PROVE there is a significant overall social benefit to be had.
They have had years to do this already.
The silence is deafening.
....... Phil
Reply to
Phil Allison
Guess what going to happen here in the not too distant future?
Reply to
Dave
Also they get in the way of your remote control as they age, with Us having to get up and shudder "EXERCISE"
The reality is they should give the lights out free, saving us having to upgrade power stations and then they can up the electricty supply charges...As they always do!!!
Reply to
Jonno
They do. I got a mail out the other day saying they will even come around and install a couple of them for you free as well. It is part of some goverment program. There was a company at an eco show I went too, and I have also seen them in shopping centres, that gives away an eco pack with a couple of CFLs and a water saving shower head. Details escape me though...
They don't charge enough for electricity, nor water for that matter.
I pay extra for accedited Green Power which comes from 100% wind :-D
Dave :)
Reply to
David L. Jones
I though it was WIND!
Reply to
Jonno
Make it yourself, thats what we need to raise the tech level of middle australia, its shouldnt be hard but the propoganda is that it is,
As far as you know, factored in the 50% losses to your home from whatever source ?
Who can trust accreditation, what practical difference does it make at the switchyard - other than a policy shift to make more wind generators "some time in the future" because more people pay for the "green option" ?
--
Regards
Mike
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Mike
Still HEAPS cheaper than putting solar cells on my roof.
Accedited green power is government guaranteed and is audited. Government jokes aside, you can be fairly confident that what you pay for is what you get. Saying "who can trust it" and continue to use fossil fuels is just silly.
It makes zero difference at the switch yard, your actual power could be coming from anywhere, but that's not the point. The point is you are paying for new renewable energy infrastructure and the power it provides into the grid.
"New" green power costs you extra, "old" green power costs you nothing extra, so why not switch?
If everyone made the switch they would have to build more renewable capacity, at the moment there is a lot of spare capacity which is why the new desalination plant in Sydney will use 100% green energy. Switch to Green Power now, soak up the excess capacity, and make the bastards build new infrastructure! :->
Dave :)
Reply to
David L. Jones
Cricky Governemnt accredited means no accreditation. Ask your self, how accurate are the wattmeters. Theyre Government accredited, though I bet they lack in accuracy. Years of running and saying theyre "acurate" like speed cameras without proper testing labs in place, means "we say theyre accurate", but it may not be so.
Reply to
Jonno
Says who?
You sound like you are succumbing to the 'soften the electorate' propaganda, so when they decide to double the charges to fund yet another stupid cock-up of an idea proposed by consultants and committees to replace or fix the broken, underfunded current infrastructure then you won't complain.
Governments don't want to carry the cost of the infrastructure any more, instead trying to form private partnerships (and NSW has seen some really great examples of how that can fail).
Reply to
swanny
I do believe my name, and only my name was in the post above :->
I think both services are cheap and that is why people just piss it away. 12cents per kWh for non-replaceable fossil fuel electricity that took millions of years to produce and who's output destroys our planet is *ridiculously cheap* IMHO. If it was more expensive the majority might actually take some notice of how much they use and hence help reduce our impact.
As for water, recycled water (in Sydney anyway) is supplied at a loss, and people just piss that away too thinking they can use as much as they want because it's recycled, and there are no usage restrictions to stop them.
The only thing I am succumbing to is the threat fossil fuel electricity poses to this planet. Reduction is the #1 thing we can do to reduce our impact, and if they have to raise the price to make people realise then I won't complain.
instead
examples
Indeed, privatisation is getting beyond a joke.
Dave :)
Reply to
David L. Jones
**IME, the Philips meet their claim. I checked mine with a light meter. 23 Watt = 125 Watt incandescent. I found the lifespan of the 125 Watters to be abysmal. 3 months, at best. The 23 Watters have been running for 2 years and still going strong. I agree that lower Wattage lamps are probably better with incandescent. At higher powers, CFLs rule. I even replaced some PAR23s with CFLs. Superb, but a long warmup is a PITA. These are branded Nelson and have a crap colour temperature.
**Every incandescent I have has lead in it. Lots. As much as fifty or sixty soldered joints.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Reply to
Trevor Wilson
"Trevor Wilson"
** Bet it is really a tin/lead alloy
Soon be tin with no lead.
....... Phil
Reply to
Phil Allison

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.