tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5907865829113171847.comments2009-12-23T17:33:33.955-05:00Nick Robsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00568422578494853037noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5907865829113171847.post-74514939489592315022009-09-12T16:28:13.097-04:002009-09-12T16:28:13.097-04:00(continued)<br /><br />Emissions?<br />Does a light bulb give out any gases?<br />Power stations might not either:<br />Why should emission-free households be denied the use of lighting they obviously want to use?<br />Low emission households already dominate some regions, and will increase everywhere, since emissions will be reduced anyway through the planned use of coal/gas processing technology and/or energy substitution.<br /><br />How to <b>deal directly</b> with emissions (for all else they contain too, whatever about CO2),<br />with a focus on transport and electricity:<br /><a href="http://www.ceolas.net/#cc10x" rel="nofollow">http://www.ceolas.net/#cc10x</a><br /><br />The Taxation alternative<br />A ban on light bulbs is extraordinary, in being on a product safe to use.<br />We are not talking about banning lead paint here.<br />This is simply <b>a ban to reduce electricity consumption</b>.<br /><br />Even for those who remain pro-ban, <b>taxation</b> to reduce the consumption would be fairer and make more sense, also since governments can use the income to reduce emissions (home insulation schemes, renewable projects etc) more than any remaining product use causes such problems.<br /><br />A few euros/dollars tax that reduces the current sales (EU like the USA 2 billion sales per annum, UK 250-300 million pa)<br />raises future billions, and would retain consumer choice.<br />It could also be revenue neutral, lowering any sales tax on efficient products.<br />When sufficent low emission electricity delivery is in place, the ban can be lifted<br />http://www.ceolas.net/LightBulbTax.html<br /><br />Taxation is itself unjustified, it is simply a better alternative for all concerned than bans.<br /><br />Of course an EU ban is underway, but in phases, supposedly with reviews in a couple of years time...<br /><br />Maybe the debate in USA and Canada and elsewhere, including the Cayman Islands, will be affected by the issues being raised over here?Panta Reihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08123172670211101092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5907865829113171847.post-36934944326878279442009-09-12T16:24:59.044-04:002009-09-12T16:24:59.044-04:00Unlike many people here in Europe against the ban,<br />I agree with the need to do something about emissions<br />(for all they contain, whatever about CO2)<br /><br />But banning light bulbs is in my view not the way forward,<br />and I think people who are less in agreement with<br />the background arguments will just be turned off from cooperating in more important environmental measures.<br /><br />Let&#39;s think a little about this!<br /><br />Europeans (like Americans- and maybe people in the Cayman islands?) <br />choose to buy ordinary light bulbs around 9 times out of 10 (European Commission and light industry data 2007-8)<br />Banning what people want gives the supposed savings - no point in banning an impopular product!<br /><br />If new LED lights - or improved CFLs etc - are good,<br />people will buy them - no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (little point).<br />If they are not good, people will not buy them - no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (no point).<br /><br />The arrival of the transistor didn’t mean that more energy using radio valves/tubes were banned… they were bought less anyway.<br /><br /><br />The need to save energy?<br />Advice is good and welcome, but bans are another matter...<br />people -not politicians – pay for energy and how they wish to use it.<br />There is no energy shortage - on the contrary, more and more renewable sources are being developed -<br />and if there was an energy shortage, the price rise would lead to more demand for efficient products – no need to legislate for it.<br /><br />Supposed savings don’t hold up anyway, for many reasons:<br /><a href="http://www.ceolas.net/#li13x" rel="nofollow">http://www.ceolas.net/#li13x</a><br />onwards<br />about CFL brightness, lifespan, CFL power factor, lifecycle, heat effect of ordinary bulbs, and other referenced research<br /><br />Brief examples<br />Effect on Electricity Bills<br /><br />If energy use does indeed fall with light bulb and other proposed efficiency bans,<br />electricity companies make less money,<br />and they’ll simply push up the electricity bills to compensate<br />(especially since power companies often have their own grids with little supply competition)<br />Energy regulators can hardly deny any such cost covering exercise...<br />- in which case money savings affected<br /><br />Conversely:<br />Since energy efficiency in effect means cheaper energy,<br />people simply leave appliances on more than before This has actually been shown by Scottish and Cambridge research, as linked on the website<br />(in the case of CFLs they&#39;re supposed to be left on more anyway, to avoid cutting down on their lifespan)<br />- in which case energy savings affected<br /><br />The fact that they are not as bright as stated is another reason against supposed savings<br />See comparison test<br />http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/6110547/Energy-saving-light-bulbs-offer-dim-future.html<br /><br />Also, since lifespan is lab tested in 3 hour cycles, any increased on-off switching reduces it, as does (as said) leaving the lights on to combat it.<br /><br /><br />More:<br />CFLs typically have a &quot;power factor&quot; of 0.5<br />Power companies therefore typically need to generate more than twice as as much power<br />than what your electricity meter - or CFL rating - shows, taking everything into consideration.<br />Of course you end up having to pay for this anyway, in electricity charges being higher than they otherwise would have been.<br />Without going into technicalities, this has to do with current and voltage phase differences set up when CFLs are used.<br />There is nothing new or strange about this<br />Industries are today penalized if they present such a work load to the power station.Panta Reihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08123172670211101092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5907865829113171847.post-5100610937111674672008-12-13T14:32:00.000-05:002008-12-13T14:32:00.000-05:00SOS!!!<BR/>Congratulations!!!david santoshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08976825493652779441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5907865829113171847.post-39091117705080549042008-12-06T16:38:00.000-05:002008-12-06T16:38:00.000-05:00We have to look at "the big picture." Our days of tunnel vision need to cease. Our nation better wake up and smell the coffee. With all our bail outs along with the 168 billion economic stimulus package, that btw did nothing for our economy it is hard to understand why our government can't see the need to bail us out of our dependence on foreign oil. The high cost of fuel this past year seriously damaged our economy and society. Why don't we invest in America's Energy Independence. It would cost the equivalent of 60 cents per gallon to charge and drive. The electricity used to charge the car could conceivably be generated by solar or wind. Why not invest some of these millions in getting some of these projects set up? Create clean cheap energy, badly needed new green collar jobs and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. What more of a win-win situation could there be? We have so much available to us, wind, solar, hybrid technology. Now there is talk of another stimulus pkg. Don't get me wrong, if you hand me a check I will take it. I just think we are going about this all wrong. I just read a fascinating book by Jeff Wilson called The Manhattan Project of 2009 Energy Independence NOW. We need to look at the "big picture" This book Is the big picture.BeyondGreenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11747686313911392716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5907865829113171847.post-43604605107413350582008-10-25T11:16:00.000-04:002008-10-25T11:16:00.000-04:00Great work! Congratulations!!!<BR/>Have a nice weekend.david santoshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08976825493652779441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5907865829113171847.post-23798874564348519322008-08-19T12:51:00.000-04:002008-08-19T12:51:00.000-04:00John-Michael, I do not know but will try and find out. Email me at cayman.institute@gmail.com and give me your email address and I will get back to you. Regards, NickNick Robsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00568422578494853037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5907865829113171847.post-72830595284880813512008-08-19T12:37:00.000-04:002008-08-19T12:37:00.000-04:00Do you know the name of the company that is instaling the renewable energy systems.John-Michael Fleminghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06971544178094602122noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5907865829113171847.post-64413950810842898682008-04-15T15:40:00.000-04:002008-04-15T15:40:00.000-04:00Hello from Faial Island - Azores.<BR/><BR/>Come and meet our beautiful island in the middle of the Atlantic...<BR/><BR/>http://rotadashortencias.blogspot.com/Lchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17589821842869103273noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5907865829113171847.post-1761983068244772162007-12-21T01:48:00.000-05:002007-12-21T01:48:00.000-05:00The SPD has a recent history of playing off of European anti-Americanism (which I am guessing is really more anti-Bushism) for the sake of gaining political ground. This was demonstrated thoroughly during the lead up to the Iraq war, where then-Chancellor Shroeder not only opposed the United States, but did so in an unnecessarily hostile manner.<BR/><BR/>Some readers wrote about this at the Atlantic Review blog on this topic: <BR/><BR/>http://www.atlanticreview.org/archives/941-Climate-Sanctions-Proposed-Against-the-United-States-and-the-European-Car-Industry.html<BR/><BR/>Merkel is already a clear leader on green issues, and the SPD trying to out-green her by attacking the United States is simply not necessary. This is because while the Bush Administration has been resistant to accepting the need for a green policy (of which there certainly is a need), it will be irrelevant once he is out of office next year. This is because no matter who wins the presidential elections, the tide of American politics is going green in a bipartisan way. This is especially true if a Democratic wins, which is looking likely right now according to polls.<BR/><BR/>The SPD needs to cool their heels and not make statements that will damange US-German relations.Kyle Atwellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01150705708817372865noreply@blogger.com