What science supports this?

[robertthebard]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...2/s1851776.htm

This was originally posted by Wellard in the General Discussion forum, but I don't understand what science supports the claim that outlawing incadescent bulbs will cut down on Carbon Dioxide emmissions. I found nothing in about an hour search that says they produce the gas. I'm against all light, due to my constant headaches, but I'm not going to go out and try to ban light in general. I'd like to know what science they are using for the figures in the article.

The only article I found that even remotely supported it was an article that also said we were going to have a rash of Cat 4 and 5 hurricanes last year...I'll let the the last year's weather speak for how seriously I'm going to take that argument. Conservation doesn't bother me. I conserve a lot of energy around my home, but I don't see the connection between incadescent bulbs, and carbon dioxide. What am I missing?

[PurpleXVI]

Incandescent lights do not directly produce carbon dioxide.

However, they use considerably more power than LED lights do to produce the same amount of light, and most modern power production creates CO2 by burning fossil fuels. Less fuel consumed at power plants means less CO2.

[Mack_Attack]

Purple people eater nailed it on the head.

Less coal burned at those power plants is a good thing.

[robertthebard]

In the article I mentioned in my initial post, the author indicated that changing just three bulbs in every house here, in the US, would shut down 11 power plants. My next logical question then is this; would that happen? Are 11 power plants going to close, and put that many people out of work? So it's conservation at any cost, including the economy? Less people working means less people spending money. Plus, I don't see power plants being shut down for any reason. I don't know if they run them according to a supply/demand type thing, as that answer would suggest, of if they produce x amount of energy per day, period. Just a thought, as I don't know. But I don't think the power plant throws another chunk of coal on the fire, figuratively speaking, just because I turn on a light.

[PurpleXVI]

I'll admit that I don't know enough about power generation to know exactly how that part works, but if there's excess power being produced, that's not being bought, then it might shut down some plants.

Producing things that aren't getting bought will just lose them money.

As for hurting the economy? Screw the economy. We need to cut down on fossil fuel consumption or the economy will be screwed good and proper once production starts to drop anyway. Switching to greener power alternatives will generate new jobs, anyway, biofuel, hydrogen fuel cells, wind power, hydroelectric power, solar furnaces, nuclear power plants. All those things need to be constructed and maintained.

Besides, even if some jobs are lost, it's better to have a less active economy that is sustainable for longer, than a violent peak that subsides in a short amount of time.

[wellard]

If a 75watt bulb is replaced by a 20 watt bulb that gives out the same light (aprox) then there is a 55 watt of energy saving per bulb. How many bulbs in a house? 10 or 20 or more?

Multiply that by (aprox) 110 million homes just in the USA alone and the reduction in power needed is HUGE!

You are looking for a catch Rob when there is not one to be found. Yes the new bulbs cost a little more but you will save that money inside a few months on energy costs. The bulbs last WAY longer than the 125 year old technology bulbs you use now. No power generators will be lost it will just slow down the need for new ones to be built.

And of course even less power hungry LED bulbs are on there way to a house near you!. Hey new technology aint all bad Rob mmmmkay [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[robertthebard]

I know new tech isn't all bad...I'm waiting to get my new computer, so I can play NWN 2...I'm also not much of a "Damn the Torpedoes" kinda guy when it comes to energy consumption. But with all the bad science on both sides of the global warming issue, I'd like to think that a government that takes a step like that does so with some kind of science to support it, rather than just saying, "Group X says so, so it must be true". Just like Group Y, Group X will test the political climate, and give the results it expects in that climate, to continue getting research grants.

[wellard]

Fair enough Rob and even a greeny/ red such as I was stunned by the simplicity of it all, I thought there had to be a catch too. The fact that it is going to be brought in to law by the far right wing party that is in power stuns me as well [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img] It has left all the greens and labour party over here mumbling and cursing!

[ 02-20-2007, 04:22 PM: Message edited by: wellard ]

[Olorin]

One thing that is sometimes is overlooked when comparing the costs of the new florescent light bulbs is the need to replace some fixtures. While compact florescents work great in most lamps, I've found that they do not always work in ceiling fans or desk lamps.

I remember the first compact florescent I bought, I tried to use it in my desk lamp in my dorm room. The bulb was so much heavier than an incandescent, it overwhelmed the spring in the desk lamp, and so I could not adjust where it was pointing. I've also run into problems with the florescent not fitting into existing fixtures (either because of the wider base section or because they were too long to fit inside a fixture.

Not that I'm advocating keeping incandescent light bulbs around; I just want to point out that there will be a transition as we need to design light fixtures around the dimensions of the new bulbs, as they don't always fit in ones made for the old ones.

[PurpleXVI]

The costs of refitting will be easily outweighed in time by the savings on power. It's an obvious investment, and the sooner it's done on a worldwide basis, the better.