Will Tube Amps Be Banned Next?

[coda]

Australia says lights out to incandescent bulbs

Last Updated:

Tuesday, February 20, 2007 | 12:17 PM ET

Australia has announced it will ban incandescent light bulbs in
three years in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, becoming
the first country to do away with this technology, which has been in
use for more than a century.

Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull made the announcement Tuesday,
saying replacing incandescent light bulbs with fluorescent bulbs would
cut 800,000 tonnes from Australia's current emissions levels by 2012.

A
model of an 1879 street light burns in the Edison Museum in Edison,
N.J., in front of a portrait of inventor Thomas A. Edison. Australia
announced on Tuesday it would become the first nation to ban the
venerable technology.
(Mike Derer/Associated Press)

"It'll
be illegal to sell a product that doesn't meet [an energy efficiency]
standard, so that will happen by 2009 [or] 2010," Turnbull told ABC
radio in Australia. "So by that stage, you simply won't be able to buy
incandescent light bulbs because they won't meet the energy standard."

Opposition parties welcomed the ban but said it would still leave
the government six million tonnes short of its target to reduce
emissions to 597 million tonnes annually, or 108 per cent of 1990
emission levels.

The standard incandescent bulb, developed for the mass market more
than 125 years ago, consists of a metal filament glowing white-hot and
surrounded by an inert gas. They have become a target of advocates for
energy efficiency because they lose most of their energy as heat.

Turnbull said the switch to fluorescent bulbs would lower household lighting costs by 66 per cent.

Lawmakers in two U.S. states California and New Jersey and in
the United Kingdom have also proposed bills to ban incandescent bulbs.

One Change, an Ottawa-based not-for-profit organization, is among
those spearheading the move to fluorescent bulbs in Canada with a
program called Project Porchlight.

The group is working with volunteers and community groups to give
one fluorescent light bulb to every household in Canada. The group,
with the backing of Hydro Ottawa, has replaced 250,000 bulbs in Ottawa.
They've also begun similar campaigns in Whitehorse, Thunder Bay and
Guelph.

article link

[michael hurd]

Interesting, people I have talked to in Thunder Bay ( used to live there ) have gotten compact fluorescents to replace all incandescents. They simply tell Thunder bay hydro how many bulbs they have, and they are mailed a package with compact fluorescents.

[mark1101]

The article is somewhat conflicting. It cites greenhouse gas emisions and a failure to meet their reduction target as a reason to ban light bulbs. Then it changes gears and goes on about efficiency not really connecting the two issues. But....I understand.

How does a light bulb emit pollutants? Is it the manufacturing process they are trying to eliminate....or the disposal of spent ones...or something else? I get the inefficiency part.

[michael hurd]

It is the reduction of power useage that they are trying to address. Less power needed = less reliance on coal burning power plants = less emissions. Fortunately here in Northwestern Ontario, we have an abundance of power, with many hydro-electric dams. ( 3 on the Nipigon River alone )

We sell our excess power back to the grid. IMO they should address larger centers first, rather than relatively small areas. ( Thunder Bay is the largest city from Toronto to Winnipeg, MB )

[mark1101]

Ah...so due to inefficient use of power more greenhouse gases are created from increased power generation...and lightbulbs are on the radar screen.

When we moved into our house in 2005 it had way more lights than the previous one. I installed a lot of those twisted flourescent types in many of the fixtures. I think the ones I used put out the equivalent of 75 watt bulbs but only draw like 19 watts. The problem is they put out a weird color of light somewhere in between a white tube light and a regular incandescant bulb. The wife hates the look of them showing in fixtures like hanging lights and ceiling fans. I put them everywhere they don't show, plus a few more places that most people wouldn't notice. They definitely last longer than regular bulbs.

[mike stehr]

Hopefully I'm long gone before the tube nazi's come and take vacuum tubes from door to door.

Don't forget the PCB capacitors, a$$holes.......

[fini]

I'm hoping for fluorescent EL84s...

[edwinr]

There IS an alternative...

[Good2BHome]

There IS an alternative...

Yes and the amplifier is called Gasoline

[Good2BHome]

dupe

[Guest BobG]

I thought this article in Fast Company was very interesting. Talks about WalMart's initiative to convert America to cfl bulbs - even though it will eventually cost them a bunch of sales.

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/108/open_lightbulbs.html

[Strabo]

That's all well and good but are they also addressing the environmental cost of dealing with the mercury in all those CFL's?

Which is worse, burning extra coal in a plant that currently runs 90% cleaner than it did 15 years ago, or the gallons (???) of mercury that will end up who knows where at this point (land fills?) as people dispose of their burned out CFL's?

IMO they should wait until LED's are perfected for home use before taking legal measures.

Edit, wasn't California debating this also?

[michael hurd]

"IMO they should wait until LED's are perfected for home use before taking legal measures."

I agree wholeheartedly...I have a headlamp ( flashlight that goes on your head ) that contains a 1 watt Nichia white LED, I can light up objects at over 400 feet away, this with 3 AAA batteries, and a run time of 12 hours on a set.

As soon as they can perfect the reflectors and cooling of big white LED's and the cost comes down, you should see these in the home.

[CaptnBob]

Uh, how will these flourescent lamps work with the scr dimmers a lot of homes have?

[mas]

And I would expect the fluorescents to be replaced within the next decade with LEDs that are an order of magnitude more efficient than the fluorescents.

I believe in a free market and I disagree with social engineering, but I don't see a dramatic difference between this and so many other government dictates such as the wearing of car seat belts.

And in partial support of their position, if they only mandated it as a purchasing requirement for government use, it would be a practical step.

The irony is that the average consumer has not availed themselves of information that demonstrates the advantages of such a change as so many cry about the cost of energy. It is a shame that so many see themselves merely as helpless victims instead of making any number of small lifestyle changes that can have a significant effect on their quality of life, be it walking, having a garden, choosing to eat more whole foods, fruits and vegetables, using a setback thermostat, sealing leaks in their home, and a seemingly endless variety of small steps that are easily incorporated based upon an awareness and a bit of self-interest and common sense.

It seems to me that everyone needn't expect to change the world. If they would only take a few more steps to take care of themselves, it would reduce the overall load so that greater options were available for all. After all, if each is more self-sufficient and reduced demand on an already overtaxed social system, that is just a bit less that we need to complain about the amorphous 'they' for not doing!

But, bottom line, that is only my suggestion that I find appropriate for myself. I have no intent to attempt to institutionalize those suggestions and social engineer in the name of some divine enlightenment. But I might enter into a debate over their merits or shortcomings! After all, I will support your right to be wrong, as long as you allow me to exercise my foibles as well. And, unlike so many others, I will do that despite some strange occurrence that may result in my thinking that my convictions represent the thinking of the most enlightened mind(s) in the history of the universe.[]

Oh, and as far as the human caused global warming crowd, take a moment and investigate topics such as solar variability, events (among others) such as the Maunder Minimum, and the recent experiment for which the silence was deafening, as it does challenge the urban myth perpetrated by folks such as Al Gore as he complains about each individual's carbon footprint as he flies about the world in his private chartered jet, and others who were only 30 years ago predicting a global winter: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

But, I've got to run. I have a meeting with my lawyer to see if we can gain traction on my case suing Baskin-Robins for the audacity of selling me FROZEN ice cream and causing a severe case of brain freeze! My lawyer said something about the onus being upon us to prove a nexus that the ice cream caused it rather than it being a pre-existing condition.

[]

[mas]

If they chose to offer a more complete solution they could easily do so.

How many remember the past practice where many utility companies supplied replacement light bulbs upon return of the burned out incandescent? They could easily institute a deposit creating an incentive for the recycling of the bulbs and other toxic conveniences such as batteries. It has worked in some communities.

The major user of fluorescents of all sorts is currently business and commercial buildings, and there is no program that I have ever encountered in any of the firms to currently recycle their fluorescents.

Again, a bit of common sense and education might result in more availing themselves of the recycling of such toxic material, be it batteries or whatever, just as used oil is done. And it would be nice if the structure could come from the free market and all of the parties involved, rather than as an imposition.

The bottom line, recycling fluorescent light bulbs and batteries need not be an insurmountable hurdle. Just as it shouldn't be now. After all, with their lifecycles, how big of a bin would you need? A shoebox for a years worth of spent items would probably be overkill. I mean, I don't find putting spent oil into a used milk jug and dropping it off at a gas station such an overbearing imposition.

[oldtimer]

Are you saying Manbearpig is not real? That Gore is being disingenuous? If incandescents are banned then I hope they also ban halogens, since they create more heat and use a lot of energy. Might as well be consistent. Have your lawyer call my lawyer, in eight months maybe we can do lunch....

[ben.]

I can't stand CFL. Football needs to have four downs and that's all there is to it. The 20 yard end zone is disturbing as well.

[Parrot]

Which is worse, burning extra coal in a plant that currently runs 90% cleaner than it did 15 years ago, or the gallons (???) of mercury that will end up who knows where at this point (land fills?) as people dispose of their burned out CFL's?

Yeah, it's hilarious. I read something about it the other day, California mandating fluorescent bulbs. Only problem is, they have also outlawed the disposal of fluorescent bulbs! LOL!

[russ69]

The light bulb is as much fault as the car is for drunk drivers. The problem in California is that they would rather burn coal than make a nice clean nuke power plant. I wish a light bulb would come on in Sacramento.

Thanx, Russ