Disqus - Latest Comments for lighthouse10

Re: [Replay] FYW 073 : France Travel Tips (PART 1): General Tips

lighthouse10 — Thu, 22 Oct 2020 20:39:07 -0000

Great very relaxing thanks
Couldn't sleep and looking for something to listen to

Re: When Cities Went Electric

lighthouse10 — Tue, 21 Mar 2017 15:48:01 -0000

Thank you Andrew!
Nice illustrations also, city lighting etc
As also posted to our light bulb group
https://www.facebook.com/gr...

Re: Trump turned the light on a government that had darkened our lives

lighthouse10 — Tue, 03 Jan 2017 14:11:17 -0000

You are more right about the pointless regulations on incandescents (clothes washers, cars, buildings...)
than you might know..
All products have advantages and disadvantages,
and the savings arguments for any bans as exemplified by light bulbs are also highly questionable ..
freedomlightbulb dot org

Re: Common Lightbulbs Are Banned in 2014 (And Why That's Good)

lighthouse10 — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 10:46:37 -0000

Thanks David - agree re market competition being better than regulation or "phase outs" or "ban" (or "elimination from the market place" as you say):
It is a good point you make that usage will not be banned, hence hoarding by some, though in terms of legislation as most understand it in this case the term is surely applicable - such that not allowing bulbs on the market that do not meet certain standards is the same as banning them...
In general terms also of regulations on buildings, cars and other appliances it should also be remembered that enforcing lower energy use on any product affects its other properties eg performance, usability, construction, and/or appearance as well as price, so one can't just surgically demand a lower energy use - market competition ensures that manufacturers maximise low energy consumption for a given price as that is a positive quality (compare notebook computers, mobile phones etc) - enforced further reduction supposedly decreases popularity and sales on that basis...

Re: How to get that old-fashioned light bulb glow without wasting so much energy

lighthouse10 — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 10:14:56 -0000

TO Science Mag and Disqus RE Comments on Science Mag

You keep sending advice via email that comment replies are on this page (not fully linked, or this gets blocked)
" scienceprod.aws.aaas dot org "
But that page does not exist

Re: How to get that old-fashioned light bulb glow without wasting so much energy

lighthouse10 — Thu, 28 Jan 2016 10:49:03 -0000

Incandescents are used for lighting, not heat
Supposed savings completely ignore the heat benefit, however comparatively inefficient (infrared inefficiency itself questionable, but not relevant here)

In other words,
LED + any alternative heat energy use compared to incandescent light plus heat energy consumption means less overall savings than the practice of completely ignoring the heat output of incandescents, also commented elsewhere.

Overall, all lighting types have advantages and disadvantages, and the issue should be looked at in overall terms.

Re: How to get that old-fashioned light bulb glow without wasting so much energy

lighthouse10 — Thu, 28 Jan 2016 09:46:22 -0000

Since the incandescent bulb is used for lighting, inefficient heat form is not relevant (and is disputable anyway in being infrared body rather than space heating form), and any comparison of savings v LEDs in should therefore take into account the secondary heat saving effect of incandescents -
Cost saving of LED + other heat versus incandescent light + heat still means less overall saving than completely ignoring the heat effect of incandescents, heat benefit as per several institutions and gov agency research
When it's dark room heat is often required in induistrialised nations, usage v air conditioning cooling is less and in any case optional and may be preferred for light quality or other reasons

Re: How to get that old-fashioned light bulb glow without wasting so much energy

lighthouse10 — Thu, 28 Jan 2016 09:38:50 -0000

yes lumen output is reduced for current long life bulbs so a higher wattage bulb is needed, but that does not take away from long life alternatives existing.
Also the whole energy saving rationale is dubious as per other comment here re power plants, heat benefit etc
Your comment re inefficient heat form is not relevant, since the bulb is used primarily for lighting, and any comparison of savings v LEDs should therefore take into account the secondary heat saving effect, regardless of heating efficiency as such
Several country institutions and gov agencies have verified the effect
as per link
Also expensive little used bulbs have little if any savings, and as seen gov subsidies and allowed price rise of utilities in anticipated lower sales also negates some of the supposed cost savings.
Finally bulb preference may of course be for many other reasons than cost or savings, eg light quality, versatility etc

Re: How to get that old-fashioned light bulb glow without wasting so much energy

lighthouse10 — Mon, 25 Jan 2016 14:04:13 -0000

The notion of "wasting so much energy" as per the article title is questionable anyway

This is for several reasons as referenced, (if the link shows up) including the proven heat benefit of incandescents for most industralised countries in main usage after dark and the main off-peak time of use not only of spare power plant capacity but of base loading coal plants (the main environmental "culprit")
whose minimum output is not turned down for operative reasons, wear and tear, and slow stoking up to daytime levels, and which more than covers whatever domestic light bulbs are used or not used

Re: How to get that old-fashioned light bulb glow without wasting so much energy

lighthouse10 — Mon, 25 Jan 2016 13:55:12 -0000

Incandescents can last 20 - 25 000 hours and more as for mining.

They are simply kept away from ordinary consumers, a consequence of the Phoebus cartel (look it up) eg (USA) Aero-Tech etc mainly industrial suppliers around 1-2 dollars per bulb

You can buy online, fits domestic sockets ok.

Various rough service sub 5000 hr incandescents also around.

Proper open political product policies would of course make such bulbs generally available:

The supposed energy and other savings don't hold up anyway, covered on freedomlightbulb dot org blog

Re: Frans Timmermans, Netherlands

lighthouse10 — Thu, 11 Sep 2014 08:30:50 -0000

...and the pointlessness of banning simple incandescent light bulbs...
http://freedomlightbulb.org...

Re: Frans Timmermans, Netherlands

lighthouse10 — Thu, 11 Sep 2014 08:28:24 -0000

He might start with all the dumb consumer product bans that for many reasons don't save supposed energy ....latest vacuum cleaners max 1600W sep 2014 900 W 2017, not save due used longer for same effect, etc
https://www.facebook.com/gr...

Re: Finally Light Bulb Is Energy-Efficient, Pseudo-Incandescent

lighthouse10 — Mon, 28 Jul 2014 16:38:16 -0000

if this direct link shows up, it may be more useful (see other comment)
http://freedomlightbulb.org...

Re: Finally Light Bulb Is Energy-Efficient, Pseudo-Incandescent

lighthouse10 — Mon, 28 Jul 2014 16:37:31 -0000

Agreed = interesting in itself, but not as replacement for incandescents
The many reasons regulations on incandescents make no sense = Freedomlightbulb org
(Isaer i Norge, hvis du kommer derfra!)

Re: Video: Forget Incandescents! LED Light Bulbs Will Save You Hundreds

lighthouse10 — Wed, 23 Jul 2014 07:07:11 -0000

exact link re LED problems
http://freedomlightbulb.org...

Re: Video: Forget Incandescents! LED Light Bulbs Will Save You Hundreds

lighthouse10 — Wed, 23 Jul 2014 07:05:52 -0000

?? All light bulbs have different advantages
Any low LED price is because of taxpayer subsidy.
US Dept of Energy lighting program manager recently admitted a lot of problems with LEDs as replacements for simple traditional bulbs -as per link.
Also, the savings are questionable for several reasons, and only on most commonly used bulbs (Freedomlightbulb org)

Re: Are low-energy bulbs bad for you?

lighthouse10 — Mon, 19 May 2014 10:02:56 -0000

Yes, as per other comment, new LED bulbs have several issues too - as recently acknowledged by the lighting program manager at the US Dept of Energy, also study by French Health agency ANSES into LED blue light, point source glare, and other issues.

Basically all bulbs have advantages, and environmental disadvantages.
Simple bright incandescents use less energy/emissions in overall life cycle with less rare earth mineral mining etc, and while they obviously use mor electricity, that tends to be mainly at off-peak night times after 7pm of surplus electricity availability, and when the same coal often burned anyway, on minimum night cycle levels (operatively costly to turn plants down and up full on-off cycle, wear and tear etc)
Coal is by far the main CO2 emitter, and oddly the actual plant operation is not taken into account.

Re: Are low-energy bulbs bad for you?

lighthouse10 — Mon, 19 May 2014 09:54:02 -0000

Not just the fluorescent "energy saving bulbs" CFLs
New LED bulbs have several issues too - as recently acknowledged by the lighting program manager at the US Dept of Energy. And supposed energy savings not there either.
"How Regulations are Wrongly Justified" 14 point referenced rundown
Freedomlightbulb org
.

Re: There Are Crazy Conspiracy Theories About Light Bulbs, and Then There Are Some Real Dangers

lighthouse10 — Sat, 22 Mar 2014 12:51:49 -0000

clearer link, 14 points why ban makes no sense, refererenced
http://freedomlightbulb.org...

Re: There Are Crazy Conspiracy Theories About Light Bulbs, and Then There Are Some Real Dangers

lighthouse10 — Sat, 22 Mar 2014 12:50:50 -0000

1. Halogens etc replacements banned too on 45 lumen per W regulation applying in EISA phase 2 over coming years - as linked to legislation

2. Not "conspiracy" Phiips, Osram, GE etc major manufacturers sought and got ban on patent expired relatively unprofitable cheap bulbs
-just as they got standard lifespan to be 1000hrs for regular incandescents via the Phoebus cartel before that = look it up, or see
Freedomlightbulb org
= also why supposed savings for society are not there, grid data etc references

Re: Lightening up with energy-saving bulbs

lighthouse10 — Fri, 24 Jan 2014 17:19:02 -0000

RE California: Taxation / Market alternative policies

Even if safe popular products like incandescent light bulbs were to be targeted for consumption or other reasons,
a "liberal" left wing - and near bankrupt - Gov could more logically Tax them, along with cars, buildings, TV sets etc etc currently banned on energy usage limitiations

"People hate taxes" ?
Well, some income is used to lower prices of alternatives,
so people "not just hit by taxes"
Besides, it would be clear that bans were the alternative.

Market stimulation is however better,
where new products are helped to market but not continuously subsidized.

"Expensive to buy but cheap in the long run"?
Expensive batteries, washing up liquids etc are marketed and sold as such - their makers don't run to regulators crying for bans .

Compare with pushing for bans on generic patent expired products, to increase their gains via new patented expensive more profitable alternatives, as with GE/Philips/Osram-Sylvania via their NEMA lobby group and GE (Welch/Immelt) advisory power to the presidential Bush-Obama administrations.

How much imagination - not to speak of consideration - is applied to product policies?

None.

Re: Lightening up with energy-saving bulbs

lighthouse10 — Fri, 24 Jan 2014 17:08:09 -0000

Specifically
14 points, referenced: "How Regulations are Wrongly Justified"
http://freedomlightbulb.org...

Why the overall society savings aren't there, and even if they
were, why alternative policies are better, including alternative
policies that target light bulbs.

Re: Lightening up with energy-saving bulbs

lighthouse10 — Fri, 24 Jan 2014 17:05:26 -0000

All lighting has advantages - money/energy saving is just one.

For the opposite view, referenced, to what this article says: Freedomlightbulb org

Incandescents have specific bright broad spectrum (100% Color rendering index, photography etc) omnidirectional advantages, versatility with ancillary equipment, optional transparency etc advantages at very low price.
Consumers don't save money for rarely used bulbs, and California/Ohio etc utilities are being compensated for assumed lower sales (price rise or taxpayer subsidy)
= people pay anyway.

"Allowed" halogen 72W for 100W etc bulbs will be banned too on EISA 2014-2017 tier 2 regulation and a third tier 2020 is envisaged to remove all but LED type bulbs.
Even before then "allowed" exeptions have sales monitoring (incidentally involving NEMA themselves) such taht sales doubling of any substitutes will ban them earlier than otherwise envisaged

No - ban happy NEMA and others you quote won't tell you any of that.

It would be nice if next time you deal with such issues you had an overall view on this, and not just talk to the ban supporters.

Re: If You Like Your Light Bulb, You Can’t Keep Your Light Bulb

lighthouse10 — Tue, 07 Jan 2014 17:29:59 -0000

Odd to target safe to use products merely for consumption reasons
= Tax would be a more normal policy for those who favor bans,
on coal, electricity or product eg light bulb (eg bankrupt California govmt)

Always unnoticed:
Incandescent electricity use is just fractional amounts of mostly off-peak evening-night surplus electricity, and effectively the same coal is burned at such times regardless of bulb choice given minimal coal plant night cycle levels.
(Dept Energy grid data, coal plant etc references)

14 referenced points,
Why the arguments behind the ban don't hold up
Freedomlightbulb org

Re: If You Like Your Light Bulb, You Can’t Keep Your Light Bulb

lighthouse10 — Tue, 07 Jan 2014 17:28:39 -0000

Agree re freedom of choice:
Odd to target safe to use products merely for consumption reasons
= Tax would be a more normal policy for those who favor bans,
on coal, electricity or product eg light bulb (eg bankrupt California govmt)

14 referenced points,
Why the arguments behind the ban don't hold up
http://freedomlightbulb.org...