Proposed ban on LCD and Plasma screens ? - Page 3

Sure, coal fired plant *can* be slower than gas plant, particularly gas
turbines. But it isn't that slow. Even for chain grate combustion...hour or
so at most. Fair bit quicker for pulverised fuel.

The main reason why domestic lighting changes will have minimal aggregate
effect on GHG is simply that proportionally their contribution to total
energy usage is close to zip, simple as that.

For once I agree entirely with Phil, and I'm glad someone quoted him and
thus defeated my killfile list on this occasion!

Coal feeders in power stations use variable speed drives and can (and
do) change load in seconds. Getting a boiler to raise steam temperature
may take a few minutes, but the load change on a grid system is very
gradual unless a generator drops off the system due to a fault. See if
you can get hold of a load graph. The bigger the grid the more stable it
is. I think nearly all coal fired power stations in Australia would use
pulverized coal. I doubt any would use moving grates.

Peak loads caused by reverse cycle air conditioners are the main problem
on a grid. That's when you'd run a peaking plant such as gas or oil. Oil
is very expensive. Most grids get around this now by getting industry to
shut down non-essential plant, this is done by the grid controller using
an automated control system.

Dorfus

On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 14:47:35 +1000, "Phil Allison"




This is taken directly from the Greenhouse Office website in their FAQ
section re Halogens.

    * Good quality halogen lights will continue to be available, but
halogen lights that use too much energy will be phased out.


And thats the only referance I can find re halogen lights and any ban.

Given that there is no definition of what constitutes a halogen light
that uses too much energy its hard to know what they are talking
about,re whats going to be phased out.

"Mauried"



**  Yep -  and it basically says that halogens are to be banned.





** The efficiency of small halogen bulbs ( ie dichroic downlights) is hardy
any better than that of standard incandescent bulbs.

The only " halogens"  you can expect to escape the ban are large wattage
types ( ie PAR lamps etc ) used mainly for outdoor lighting & entertainment
purposes.




.......   Phil

"Phil Allison"




** It has come to my attention ( via the marvels of Google and Wiki ) that
there is another class of small halogen bulbs -  called " Halogen IR"   for
halogen-infrared.

Very few examples exist on the market anywhere ( apart from a special
headlamp bulb used in a Toyota vehicle)  but they may find a whole new
market if the usual kind of halogen bulbs are banned en masse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halogen_lamp#Halogen_infrared





.......  Phil

I don't know about "very few" - Osram have had their Decostar IRC halogen
bulbs out for quite a while, and there are probably other brands.

  Firstly, they're different lamp technologies, and secondly, incandescents
have NOT been banned.  Sure they've talked about it, but it was just that- talk.



  I've read that lighting accounts for about 8% of our energy usage.  (read
about it on the Internet, so it must be true).
  Though that 8% makes up for everything, just account for worst case and see
how insignificant the change to CFL would be.



  I'm sure they have an exemption, and in fact, if they're huge energy users,
they have their own plant.
  If that's the case, (since they technically don't draw from the grid) they
would be independent of this.  (not sure though, so feel free to dispute).

The proposal is so silly, John, that I hope it's "just talk" but the manager
at my local lighting wholesaler did say there was word in the industry that
you wouldn't be able to buy incandescent globes from next year, so for him
it's real enough.

"Sleazy"




 **  Must be right off with the Pixies.

 The phase out is set to begin in 2009 with no more on shelves by 2010.

 Expect to see MASSIVE  hoarding before then.

 Of course, eBay sellers will have a field day, as will UK lamp suppliers.



......   Phil

The Devil made me do it.

users,
they

Do you in fact know of ANY that have built their own power station?
Alcoa in Portland had a special transmission line installed for them, at
taxpayer expense of course. And they get a special electricity rate far
lower than domestic users pay.

MrT.

  CSR (the sugar people) have a coal power generation plant in their refinery.
  At least the one in sydney we visited did (a gazillion years ago).
  I can't remember the power it was capable of generating, but it was
relatively small. (Relative to power generation stations)



  When your power bill is in the order of a bazillion dollars a year, they
jump over hoops, and the GovCo gets into the act by saying "their" substidy is
good because it creates many more jobs (and much more taxes).
  It gets paid for one way or another.

  In Alcoa's case, they determined that power lines from the main grid (and
along with other subsidies) was cheaper than doing it themselves.

  At the end of the day, it always comes down to two things: Dollars and Cents.

substidy is

As long as you ignore how much the taxpayer is subsidising some jobs, whilst
saying too bad to thousands of others!
What makes an Alcoa job more important than a Telstra one for example?


(and


Of course it is, when you are being subsidised by other users and taxpayers!


Cents.

No, greed and corruption!

MrT.

  It makes more money for govco.  And they're the only ones who count.




  But, after some time, they're going to make that money back via pay tax on
the people who work there.  (where they wouldn't if alcoa wasn't there).
  Not only that, they're going to keep making money once it's paid off.

  Only cost is in the meantime (short term), they're down n Gazillion dollars.
  That's of no consequence, because they can make up the shortfall with little
money spinners like another fuel levy, or more speed cameras or something
equally as benign to society.




  And the difference is??

Crappo, Telstra made 4 Billion dollars a year for the government before it
was sold.


taxpayers!

on

And they didn't from Telstra workers WITHOUT a subsidy?
And what about all the other companies and workers that recieve NO
subsidies?




I can't see how if the electricity subsidies need to be increased as the
cost of generation increases.
But you're welcome to the fantasy.



dollars.
little

Which of course they would still get WITHOUT the drain of uneconomic
industries.


and

With our CEO's and politicians, nothing.

MrT.

Alcoa built a power station in Anglesea, where there are coal
deposits, to supply their Point Henry smelter.

On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 15:04:00 +1000, John Tserkezis



Just to note that our local Coles and Kmart stores are no longer
selling incandescents, only CFLs.  The Coles manager "informed" me
that incandescents will be banned soon.  

So it may be true or perhaps Coles like the bigger profit margins on
the CFLs.

  I think it's more of a pre-emptive strike than anything else.



  Oh yeah. :-)  That sounds MUCH more plausible than the "banning real soon
now" lines.

Typical! Yes, undoubtedly the big boys see a ramp they can fleece us with
(nice mixed metaphor). Here Woolies still have plenty of stocks. Have not
tried Coles.