peter dublin

It's true about that trade-off
Aero-Tech etc make legal "rough service" bulbs for the mining industry etc (that can be used domestically)
20 000 hrs plus, but as you say with that trade off.

However there is a bigger picture
It does not have to occur below about 5000 hours anyway
Yet 1000 hours is the standard (750 hrs for 100W, US)
This relates to the Phoebus Cartel between the major manufacturers that limited lifespan to increase sale and profits
Paul here (Paul Wheaton) amusingly covers this on his video Mr Stinkypants


As it happens recent research in Germany and USA with different books has also covered this
Links via
http://freedomlightbulb.org/p/how-bans-are-wrongly-justified.html#industrypol

The same manufacturers then went on to lobby for the ban on patent expired cheap relatively unprofitable incandescents,
as also covered there and on Paul's video

paul wheaton wrote:

Maybe of interest since that video link no longer works,
http://freedomlightbulb.org/2012/05/lightbulb-conspiracy-documentary-by.html
video in different languages, video interview with the director, and background documentation

Just published, a comprehensive university study from Virginia, supporting Paul's overall stance:
Consumers are not "Irrational", and Switchover Environmental Benefits (also of other Products) are "Negligible"
http://freedomlightbulb.org/2012/08/energy-efficiency-regulations-lambasted.html

paul wheaton wrote:
My brand new video that spends a fair bit of time on CFL brightness comparison
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gjvOOlHmsU

How about putting the video on bottom (or top) of http://www.richsoil.com/CFL-fluorescent-light-bulbs.jsp ?
Would also be interesting to see your take on the replacement LEDs being pushed more and more

As you may know, Philips had a big "Earth day" (April 22, I think) launch of their L-Prize LED bulb

About that Philips LED, its quality issues, and how
Philips won the US Govmt prize for it:
http://dunday.com/2012/03/lots-of-public-money-for-doubtful.html

The lobbying, the evading of rules, the poor quality of the bulb on
testing - as referenced with competition rules, patents, lobbying
finance records, the prize committee's own lab test document etc...

arild jensen wrote:Max
being originally from Ontario near lake Simcoe I am quite familiar with the power generation system you live with. Your hydro is not coming mainly from coal fired generators. Much of your power is from hydro-electric dams and the nuclear plants. ( yeah I know, that's another hot button for ecologists but lets save that for another thread) Where I live now our power is 100% hydro-electric so there is zero carbon dioxide release associated with power generation. A tird dam is presently being planned for expansion.

Max Kennedy wrote:Arild, Ontario has many coal plants and it all feeds into the same grid therefor a portion is indeed coal, that's one of the MANY problems with centralized generation.

I found out about Ontario for other reasons,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/10/earth-hour-is-it-worth-the-effort/
About the Earth Hour pointlessness in "Switch off lights and save CO2",
including that candles effectively give off similar CO2 amounts
(http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2009/0327/does-lighting-candles-for-earth-hour-defeat-the-purpose)

Ontario = The government's plan to eliminate coal-fired power by the end of 2014
Since 2003, Ontario has shut down 10 of 19 coal units. (ontario.ca/energy)

http://www.energy.gov.on.ca/docs/en/MEI_LTEP_en.pdf#page=4
Coal = estimate 9% of Ontario electricity generation 2010 (12% installed capacity)
Most is Nuclear and Hydro - without the CO2 emissions
And the coal plant issue is of course covered here already...

Max Kennedy wrote:
(edited for below answers)
1. The premise that Light Bulb Bans don't save Coal or CO2 emissions is a dubious assertion at best, though studies are referred to they aren't specifically cited so as to determine what exactly is being said in them or if like with Fox news the context of the statements are being badly skewed.

2. Having switched and followed my energy use it has definately made a difference in my energy bills

3. Electric heating bad (and expensive).... Heating with lights is NOT cost effective regardless of the energy source.

Thanks Max,
though I think you were a bit hasty there...

1. While it is as said a bit of a tongue-in-cheek assertion, it is, in practice, the case.
And not by "Fox News" reference - there are as linked Dept of Energy references, if you care to check before criticising.. http://ceolas.net/#li171x
They are hardly against banning bulbs, and while one can argue with 1, 2, 3 % grid electricity references , it is clearly in that ball park, also from the other institutional references supplied.
Therefore, in that context, when the night working and other coal plant / grid supply factors are considered, it does become "a very small slice of the energy pie" as your Canadian physics professor Peter Blunden puts it.
Also - again , if you look at the comments and references before criticising -
there are several other specific and Canadian institutional links above -which as said also point out the CO2 increase when electricity has low emission origins and the standard heating does not
And your James Hansen reference is more environmental than here relevant electrical engineering references.

2. These "Well my bills are great" type replies,
firstly, are not relevant in what is presumably a society measure to overall save society energy (unless going into people's homes is a priority),
secondly, I would still doubt in overall great energy saving terms (having lived in Scandinavia and also measured own savings)
re less used bulbs in average 30-40 light households, the power factor (not same as power rating) of common CFLs, and other factors as via the above link
thirdly, is a cause for congratulation if you are happy - but does not mean others have to do the same - ie voluntary rather than forced.

3. "Heating with lights is NOT cost effective"
another stock response - but of course noone chooses to heat their room with incandescents
(though see Paul Wheaton's personal space heating experiment elsewhere on this website )
- the point being that the heat is simply a useful extra (http://ceolas.net/#li6x )
and that use with air conditioning is optional and might be preferred anyway for light quality etc reasons


Everyone can agree on that it is good to save energy.
However, as mentioned,
"unnecessarily leaving a light bulb on is a waste of energy, the personal choice of what light bulb to use is not a waste of energy",
given that the future supply (also by environmentally friendly sources) is there as covered previously, and voluntarily paid for by the users.
Particularly with electricity, generation and distribution savings are more relevant,
and if nevertheless targeting the bulbs, market competition and taxation/subsidy policies are in turn more relevant than regulations to save energy, for reasons given.

arild jensen wrote:
Carbon dioxide is a commercial product when it is compressed into dry ice. Several companies provide compressed carbon dioxide in tanks. Have all these commercial uses of CO2 been abandoned? Supposedly methane has a far greater greenhouse efect than CO2 yet I hear absolutely nothing about methane capture or abatement. Why?

peter dublin wrote:
A guy in Georgia Tech developed in 2008 a CO2 (carbon) collection system for gasolene powered cars
http://www.gatech.edu/newsroom/release.html?nid=71443
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-9984648-48.html
- but he was apparently afterwards refused further research funds, he (or someone representing him) claimed, this was politically motivated,
in the alternative fuel efficiency and electric/hydrogen switching policies sought by federal government
- I can't find my original source for that, but as also seen on online search, nothing seems to have happened afterwards, at least that I could find...

I got in touch with the Georgia Tech research team out of curiosity.
Yes, they were refused further funding on that basis, yet as can be seen by online reports at the time, the original solution seemed viable enough.
I have some doubts about CO2 emission reduction itself in affecting climate change, but of course "ordinary" pollution can also be removed in such processes - and for "green government" it seems odd to exclude such ways, for politically preferred automobile alternatives that keep emitting both CO2 and traditional pollutants:
either emitting them directly via gasolene and equivalents, or indirectly, electric cars powered by fossil fuel electricity or by hydrogen produced from such electricity.

Arild
(jeg har selv boet på Fredriksberg, lige i hjertet af København, en dejlig tid)

Re burning methane,
that's an interesting one, also given the apparently extensive sea deposits (clathrates, hydrates)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_clathrate
-admittedly may not be undergoing much release as greenhouse gases, but therefore also presumably easier to collect...

Re the light bulb heat issue,
interestingly well covered by Canadian research
( heat savings, and how CO2 emissions are increased rather than reduced by light bulb switchover)

Not least shown by BC Hydro themselves
"BC Hydro's own figures undercut environmental value of CFLs"
http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2011/01/27/bc-hydros-own-figures-undercut-environmental-value-of-cfls/
"To Switch or Not to Switch: A Critical Analysis of Canada's Ban on Incandescent Light Bulbs""
(Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto 2007-2008 ), by Professor Bryan Karney, Energy Scientist Michael Ivanco, and Graduate student Kevin Waher. article http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/346692
"Compact bulbs not as green as once thought"
findings by The Canadian National Research Council, Manitoba Hydro, and the University of Manitoba Physics Department:
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/compact_bulbs_not_as_green_as_once_thought-40835597.html

also Finland, UK, Iceland and other research, as per linking via the above post

Aaron Oakley wrote:I agree that consumers should have the choice to buy/use whatever light source suits their values, and that the government should not be regulating the light bulb supply. Peter, I don't know what energy source you are considering has no future shortage, but surely you are not talking about coal. Coal is a finite resource, albeit a very abundant resource here in the US.

...... there are quite a few coal-fired boilers being converted to natural gas combusters....as I mentioned earlier, there is an 80% cost increase just to capture the CO2, that does not include the cost of sequestration.

Thanks Aaron,
RE abundant future energy there's the sun, wind, perhaps nuclear fusion....
RE coal, as you say the gasification is one way to reduce emissions - so there's a way that can be done, regarding your first comment above
Certainly, the direct dealing with CO2 emissions is expensive and problematic as you say, I just mentioned it as something one should remember in an overall view.

I would myself belong to those who question the point of reducing CO2 emissions to deal with climate change,
but in any case it is (rightly or wrongly) also more politically correct at least in "green government" circles to denounce CO2 treatment of fossil fuels,
rather than switching fuels.
A guy in Georgia Tech developed in 2008 a CO2 (carbon) collection system for gasolene powered cars
http://www.gatech.edu/newsroom/release.html?nid=71443
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-9984648-48.html
- but he was apparently afterwards refused further research funds, he (or someone representing him) claimed, this was politically motivated,
in the alternative fuel efficiency and electric/hydrogen switching policies sought by federal government
- I can't find my original source for that, but as also seen on online search, nothing seems to have happened afterwards, at least that I could find...