He must have read our protest thread about 'You and Yours'. Peter -
http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=55&page=1#Item_18" >You and Yours!!!!!

I didn't know it was Gordon Brown's decision. We do still have a parliamentary democracy and David Milliband is the environment minister with responsibility for this area of government policy.

Some of us have been arguing the case for a while. This was from a year and a half ago:

http://www.vitaltrivia.co.uk/2005/10/36" >http://www.vitaltrivia.co.uk/2005/10/36

Jeff

Can you substantiate your comments re: embodied energy versus energy consumed.

Electricity is NOT in principle bad for the environment. In fact it has two overwhelmimg advantages (1) It allows the local need for power/heat to be fulfilled while entirely creating any pollution at remotely located power stations (2) Large power stations permit vastly greater efficiencies through application of advanced large-scale technology, including reduction/capture of pollution and harnessing of v large non-CO2 emitting generators like hydro or nuclear. On the basis of our capacity to meet the world's expected energy needs over the next 50 years, given the technology likely to be PROVEN on a large scale, nuclear will have to play a vast role - unless the globe is to regress to poverty. Other technologies, however admirable, simply don't have the potential to do this in the timescale.

The decision to ban incandescent bulbs is a typical piece of ignorant political hypocrisy. (1) It neatly protects interests of european companies specialising in low-energy bulbs, guaranteeing their exploitation of the consumer. Those with long memories will know that for a century the incandescent bulb makers' oligopoly rigged the market at high prices. Take away the competitive cheap chinese incandescent bulbs and watch the results! (2) virtually all energy consumed is converted immediately to heat. In europe, all domestic lighting in winter is an off-set to domestic heating requirements. If you do the calculations for a well-insulated house, you will find that the lighting constitutes a significant heating contribution in the range 0.5 - 1.5kW. That is not wasted.

Posted By: funcrusherElectricity is NOT in principle bad for the environment

Agreed - in fact the simpicity of its use and pinpoint control would win the day hands-down, if not for the current cumbersome methods of production and distribution.

Another special advantage of electricity is that its transfer doesn't depend upon temperature differentials and so can deliver heat energy at any temperature you like. Other means of delivering energy by means of the heat contained in a material medium e.g water, glycol, air, rock/concrete can only deliver heat at a temperature a bit lower than that of the material medium - unless you use a heat pump to 'pump' the temperature above 'natural' . It's always a battle in any heat input/recovery/recycle system to maintain the heat energy at every descending step as undiluted, as high-grade, as possible. High-grade (higher temperature) heat energy is so much more useful, and can be handled with much less elaborate machinery, than low-grade, diluted, lower-temperature heat energy. There may be no loss of energy in the system, but if it's become diluted to low temperature, it can't be used so can only be allowed to leak away into the environment as heat pollution.

A special downside of electricity is EMF polution and the uncharted but probably profound effect it has on the body-mind. There's absolutely no escaping it on earth or indeed within the solar system and beyond - we're all bathed in EMFs of an extreme range of unatural frequencies and power-levels. Maybe one day the unprecedented insanity of the 20th century may be attributed to the advent of radio and all that followed, along with mercury amalgam fillings. It's no solution to shield or otherwise reduce EMFs to lowest-possible power-levels, because the new wave of research into resonance phenomena shows that the weaker and more subtle a signal becomes, the more significance an organism may read into it, as its most subtle perception systems come into play - a likely explanation for homeopathy, for example.

Posted By: funcrusherElectricity offers very low or non-carbon generation not available to most other forms of heating (except geo thermal)

Yes, we can look beyond fossil-fuel-burning power stations, however nicely scrubbed their exhausts. Assume bio-mass-burning, wind/wave, geo, hydro, PV, thermocouple (one day), and of course nuclear, but what about the embodied energy of such power stations/widfarms etc and the distribution network - and the distribution losses? What ratio of point-of-use energy delivery to point-of-production embodied-plus-generation energy then results? Less than the old 3:10, but still........... And how does that compare with local CHP, local mini-hydro etc?

I'm glad I started this thread now, have read some interesting comments, just how much energy does it take to make a 60watt incandescent and CFL equivalent? A valid point but I want to see the proof.
Chris, wondered when LED's would get a mention, they are not quite there yet, how about a ban on CFL's by 2016 in time for the zero carbon home, that should speed up the development of LED's. I suppose somebody's going to tell me that LED's are bad for the environment.
In my communications with the energy minister did say that if they ban incandescents they would have to sort out the recycling issue of CFL's, I'm sure that will all be part of the consultation document!
Chris, you're not a closet supporter of scrooge are you?

Posted By: Chris WardleI hope this ban will include Christmas tree lights to stop these idiots festooning their houses with thousands of watts every Yuletide.

Oh Yes Please - I SO AGREE WITH THIS

Posted By: Chris Wardlejust don't see why he needs to eat it under a roof with a damn illuminated sleigh on it.

Posted By: Peter Awondered when LED's would get a mention, they are not quite there yet

Have you seen the Luxeon 2 and Cree led lights? 3W for the equivalent of 30W halogen. http://www.dotlight.de/shop/product_info.php/cPath/203_210_268/products_id/867 . I have a selection of them under test at the moment - the Luxeon 2 lights are just strange (looking) and get hot, but the Cree chip lights are brighter and cooler to the touch. These are the first LED lights that I could say are direct replacements for existing halogens.

Posted By: nigelYou may find this interesting.

http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_efficacy" >wikipedia

Eh? why?

Nigel, this link goes to Searchmachine.com

Banning the incandescent bulbs would be OK if the alternatives were as good. You cannot match a 100w trad bulb with a low energy. You need about 30 watts. Who decided that 20 watts low energy was equivalent to 100w traditional? Its just not true.

Posted By: adrian hollister
Have you seen the Luxeon 2 and Cree led lights? 3W for the equivalent of 30W halogen. http://www.dotlight.de/shop/product_info.php/cPath/203_210_268/products_id/867 . I have a selection of them under test at the moment - the Luxeon 2 lights are just strange (looking) and get hot, but the Cree chip lights are brighter and cooler to the touch. These are the first LED lights that I could say are direct replacements for existing halogens.

I have just fitted some 3 Watt Cree Chip GU10 Warm White LEDs in my Bathrrom and Kitchen. I get a very quite hum from each bulb, are you experiencing the same?

Also have you found that each LED gives of a slightly different colour white, some more yellow, some more green?