The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Ban the bulb  (Read 8450 times)

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8124
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Ban the bulb
« on: 26/08/2009 13:55:34 »
Looks like TNS will have to change the "New Theories" icon   

Quote
From September 1, it will be illegal to import conventional pearl or frosted bulbs of any shape or wattage. Traditional incandescent bulbs of 100 watts will also be banned under European law aimed at reducing energy bills and carbon dioxide emissions. 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk


 

Offline Variola

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1063
  • Everyone should beware of The Pox...
    • View Profile
Ban the bulb
« Reply #1 on: 26/08/2009 13:56:39 »
All I have to say on that it...

FFS!!!  ::) ::) ::)
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8124
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Ban the bulb
« Reply #2 on: 26/08/2009 14:22:54 »
Pssst wanna buy a 100 Watt bulb ...

 

lyner

  • Guest
Ban the bulb
« Reply #3 on: 26/08/2009 14:23:28 »
Now, I do know "FFS".
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8124
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Ban the bulb
« Reply #4 on: 26/08/2009 14:47:09 »
Presumably the dinky incandescent bulbs in my fridge and microwave oven will be exempt from the ban,
 otherwise I'll need a torch (flashlight) when I want a cheese sandwich.
« Last Edit: 26/08/2009 14:48:42 by RD »
 

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6890
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
Ban the bulb
« Reply #5 on: 26/08/2009 15:12:12 »
It's all very well getting rid of these bulbs in favour of energy savers, but they take some time to reach full effect, and even then just don't do the job as well as the old fashion bulbs.

Who will foot the bill for all the accidents caused by poor lighting, like when I go arse over tit down the stairs one winters eve?
 

Offline glovesforfoxes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 372
  • Matthew 6:21
    • View Profile
Ban the bulb
« Reply #6 on: 26/08/2009 16:12:06 »
the planets' welfare is much more important than the individuals.
 

Offline Variola

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1063
  • Everyone should beware of The Pox...
    • View Profile
Ban the bulb
« Reply #7 on: 26/08/2009 16:30:12 »
the planets' welfare is much more important than the individuals.

Unfortunately banning light bulbs is a toothless dragon exercise and only pays lip service to the problem of energy use.
 

Offline rosy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1018
  • Chemistry
    • View Profile
Ban the bulb
« Reply #8 on: 26/08/2009 17:04:28 »
<fog>Which planet besides Earth is involved in this?</fog>

Also, this Daily Mash article made me laugh lots.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=774&Itemid=59

But in any case, banning incandescents seems like an odd move. For myself, I find them just as satisfactory in all respects as the incandescents - sure, they're often not quite as bright and take a little longer to get started, but equally they don't fail nearly so often so I don't need to spend so much time standing on a chair (how do we trade bulb changing injuries against tripping up because the bulb hasn't warmed up enough injuries, Don?)
On the other hand I know at least two people who can't tolerate the degree of flicker you get from the compact fluorescents and, whilst in one's own home one might be able to change the fittings to take halogens or something, in the shared, rented accomodation occupied by the majority of my mates that isn't an option.

Taxing the hell out of incandescents seems to me like a more sensible option, leaving the choice open but unfavourable.
 

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6890
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
Ban the bulb
« Reply #9 on: 26/08/2009 17:14:26 »
Taxing the hell out of incandescents seems to me like a more sensible option, leaving the choice open but unfavourable.

AGHhhhhhhhhhhh...... Don't give Gordon 'can I tax the air' Brown any more ideas on how to filch our money!
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8124
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Ban the bulb
« Reply #10 on: 26/08/2009 17:21:06 »
sure, they're often not quite as bright

Does anybody know where I can get an adapter to connect three 20W fluorescents into the socket where I used to plug a 60 watt incandescent ?.


how do we trade bulb changing injuries against tripping up because the bulb hasn't warmed up enough injuries

Trips* down the stairs are far more frequent than trips up a ladder to change bulbs.  [* pun intended]
 

Offline that mad man

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 724
    • View Profile
    • My music
Ban the bulb
« Reply #11 on: 26/08/2009 18:51:37 »
RD.

A 60w incandescent lamp should produce around 800 lumen's and a 20w CFL around 1200 lumen's so you shouldn't need 3. The only problem I have found with the CFL's is that most will not fit in some of the older light fittings.

 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8645
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Ban the bulb
« Reply #12 on: 26/08/2009 18:58:45 »
"It's all very well getting rid of these bulbs in favour of energy savers, but they take some time to reach full effect"
Want a race?
My LED lamp vs your tungsten lamp?

My problem with these lights is that they don't conduct electricity (no, I haven't gone mad).
My light has a timer switch which is run buy a tiny current that flows through the lamp.
It doesn't work with a fluorescent lamp.
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8124
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Ban the bulb
« Reply #13 on: 27/08/2009 05:03:46 »
A 60w incandescent lamp should produce around 800 lumen's and a 20w CFL around 1200 lumen's so you shouldn't need 3.

OK I'll compromise, a "T" or "Y" shaped adapter so I can use two florescents where previously one 60 or 100 watt incandescent was used. Even when the fluorescent reach full brightness, after about a minute, I don't think they as bright as advertised, e.g. "equivalent to a 60 watt bulb".
« Last Edit: 28/08/2009 16:21:09 by RD »
 

Offline Make it Lady

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4050
  • Hands-on fun for everyone!
    • View Profile
Ban the bulb
« Reply #14 on: 28/08/2009 19:05:49 »
This is all very well but what picture should we use for "new theories?" A drawing board would be good. What did inventors of the drawing board go back to when they were inventing the drawing board?
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8124
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Ban the bulb
« Reply #15 on: 29/08/2009 00:50:06 »
This is all very well but what picture should we use for "new theories?"

What about one of the earliest naked scientists: Archimedes in his bath...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Archimedes_bath.jpg

Or given the content of "New theories" a photo of a collection of nuts  :).
« Last Edit: 29/08/2009 00:57:28 by RD »
 

Offline John Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 602
    • View Profile
Ban the bulb
« Reply #16 on: 29/08/2009 10:16:37 »
(Warning. This post carries a Grumpy Old Git alert and includes high levels of ranting)

Being a bit of an environmentalist, I changed all my bulbs about 3 years ago, before they became cheap. I paid 12 quid each for six GU10 fitting bulbs and another 30 quid for 4 x 80 LED spots in my kitchen alone! That’s about three times as much for the bulbs as the fittings they fit. And that was from a really cheap place I found that posted them from Ireland!

Anyway, the point I was going to make is, I don’t know whether CFLs have improved in the last 3 years but the ones I bought are sh1t! In the kitchen, for instance, the GU10s take about a full 2 mins to brighten, which often means I have left the kitchen before I can see. As a consequence, we now tend to leave the kitchen lights on all evening, massively increasing our carbon footprint. Sort of defeats the object. And despite glovesforfoxes’ sentiment, I quite value the welfare of my arse and my tit when one falls over the other.

And another thing. I thought they were supposed to last 10 years. I bought my mum some and cheerily told her I would probably inherit them back of her before she ever got to change them. But I buy a new CFL bulb probably once a month. And don’t get me started on the bloody dimmable ones. I went through three in our bedroom in about 12 months and now have a halogen bulb, which is only marginally better than a tungsten. I have a pile of non-working CFLs in a drawer somewhere because you’re not supposed to put them in the rubbish and I always forget them on the rare occasions I go to the municipal dump.
 
« Last Edit: 29/08/2009 10:26:09 by John Chapman »
 

Offline JimBob

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6564
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • Moderator
    • View Profile
Ban the bulb
« Reply #17 on: 29/08/2009 11:19:32 »
I do not know about the UK replacements but the ones we are urged to use here in the US, halogen bulbs, are as bad environmentally as the incandescent bulbs - they contain mercury - so what is the advantage here ???? less CO2 but more Mercury in the environment???
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8645
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Ban the bulb
« Reply #18 on: 29/08/2009 13:46:34 »
Halogen bulbd don't have mercury in them- they have one of the halogens (there's a clue in the name).
The Fluorescent lamps (whether you are talking about the new ones or the older long tube ones) do contain some mercury.
However, all the bulbs in my house have a lot less mercury in them than I have in my  teeth.
The bit of mercury in the bulbs is less of a problem than the CO2. Also, of course, there's a significant side benefit to the bulbs- they raise awareness of the issues.

There's also the mercury emitted by fossil fueled power plants to consider.
 

Offline JimBob

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6564
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • Moderator
    • View Profile
Ban the bulb
« Reply #19 on: 29/08/2009 18:56:05 »
I respectfully disagree - I am aware halogens are noble gases and perhaps I am in error amusing the bulb shown below is a halogen bulb even though that is the way it was marketed. The problem lies in what I read on the packaging of HALOGEN bulbs - see below.

The mercury pollution IS a problem - "Birds and mammals that eat fish are more exposed to methylmercury than any other animals in water ecosystems. Similarly, predators that eat fish-eating animals are at risk. Methylmercury has been found in eagles, otters, and endangered Florida panthers. Analyses conducted for the Mercury Study Report to Congress suggest that some highly-exposed wildlife species are being harmed by methylmercury. Effects of methylmercury exposure on wildlife can include mortality (death), reduced fertility, slower growth and development and abnormal behavior that affects survival, depending on the level of exposure. In addition, research indicates that the endocrine system of fish, which plays an important role in fish development and reproduction, may be altered by the levels of methylmercury found in the environment." -- http://www.epa.gov/mercury/eco.htm

Humans fall into the 'mammal' category. As top of the chain predators, they get concentrated amounts of mercury.  The concentration map below for the US shows levels of mercury potentially damaging to humans who eat fish and drink the water. See map, bottom.






the image below is from http://www.epa.gov/mercury/eco.htm as well.





 

Offline Make it Lady

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4050
  • Hands-on fun for everyone!
    • View Profile
Ban the bulb
« Reply #20 on: 29/08/2009 19:07:56 »
This is all very well but what picture should we use for "new theories?"

What about one of the earliest naked scientists: Archimedes in his bath...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Archimedes_bath.jpg

Or given the content of "New theories" a photo of a collection of nuts  :).
I think I can see his nuts
 

Offline JimBob

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6564
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • Moderator
    • View Profile
Ban the bulb
« Reply #21 on: 29/08/2009 19:50:31 »
I think you mind is just smutty - like mine. But I am unable to see his 'nads.
 

Offline that mad man

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 724
    • View Profile
    • My music
Ban the bulb
« Reply #22 on: 29/08/2009 22:49:20 »
Thanks for that link JimBob.  :)

Although the data is a bit old this makes interesting reading from the same site.
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t3/reports/volume2.pdf

Page 20, Table ES-3, Best Point Estimates of 1994-1995 National Mercury Emission Rates by Category.

I was surprised to see lamp breakage at 1% of total and a whopping 86.9% for combustion sources alone. Around half the electricity in the USA is generated by coal power which produces around 45% of the mercury emissions, addressing that I would have thought a priority. Maybe the US emission laws have changed since that report?

In a twisted bit of logic, you use mercury CFL's to help reduce the overall mercury pollution.

I agree, still too much being put out though.

« Last Edit: 29/08/2009 23:30:57 by that mad man »
 

Offline John Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 602
    • View Profile
Ban the bulb
« Reply #23 on: 29/08/2009 22:56:28 »
Hi JimBob

I do not know about the UK replacements but the ones we are urged to use here in the US, halogen bulbs, are as bad environmentally as the incandescent bulbs - they contain mercury - so what is the advantage here ???? less CO2 but more Mercury in the environment???

Bored Chemist is correct. I'm afraid the bulb shown in your picture is not a halogen. It is a CFL. If you look at the product code in the bottom left hand corner of your photo (under the barcode) it says PLG266CFL. I don't know what the 'PLG' stands for, but the the 26 is 26 watts, the second 6 refers to the product being a 6 pack, and the CFL is self explanatory. The front of the packaging, which can be seen here, more clearly states that it is a CFL.
 
 

Offline JimBob

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6564
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • Moderator
    • View Profile
Ban the bulb
« Reply #24 on: 30/08/2009 02:27:52 »
OK, I stand corrected - but I did say in the beginning "... and perhaps I am in error assuming the bulb shown below is a halogen bulb even though that is the way it was marketed." That is what I was told by the clerk at Home Depot. My package is also older and not as well marked. It was bought at least 3 years ago.

I still maintain that mercury is a very serious environmental problem in light bulbs.

 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Ban the bulb
« Reply #24 on: 30/08/2009 02:27:52 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length