NationStates Jolt Archive

well that is what this guy suggests.


Governments are wrestling with problems of rising energy demands, rising costs and the spectre of climate change. In this week's Green Room, Dr Matt Prescott argues there is an easy first step to dealing with all three issues - banning the traditional light bulb.

They waste so much energy that if they were invented today, it is highly unlikely they would be allowed onto the market

Matt Prescott
Listening to most politicians, you would think the world's energy problems can be solved only by building ever bigger power stations and burning ever more fuel.

Not so; and it certainly cannot solve the coming climate crisis.

After turning off unnecessary pieces of equipment, improved energy efficiency is the cheapest way for developing countries to maximise their use of limited energy supplies, and for developed countries to achieve cuts in their carbon dioxide emissions.

One quick and simple option for improving energy efficiency would be to make greater use of compact fluorescent light bulbs.

Each one of these bulbs produces the same amount of light as an incandescent light bulb whilst being responsible for the emission of 70% less carbon dioxide.

It also saves money; about £7 ($12) per year in the UK, more or less in other countries depending on electricity prices.

So why not just ban incandescent bulbs - why not make them illegal?

FULL STORY HERE (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4667354.stm)


Man makes some interesting points. are we advanced enough to get rid of the traditional lightbulb? making them illegal seems a tad silly.

Let's just go back to gas lamps. They're nicer looking.

http://www.ourjourney.co.uk/ebay/7july/gaslamp2.jpg

So, when people talk about the criminal element, they mean Tungsten?

Eh, perhaps not banning, but educating the masses, some cost comparison propaganda to shown how florescents can save money, mabye putting flourescent in front of the incandecsent on the shelves, I dunno.

well that is what this guy suggests.



Man makes some interesting points. are we advanced enough to get rid of the traditional lightbulb? making them illegal seems a tad silly.

Sure they can, they are avaliable everywhere over here and the price is dropping fairly fast. I even now have little tiny ones in the bathroom mirrors. There is no reason to make a law requiring their use, unless your purpose is to somehow try and take credit for energy savings that is going to come at the hands of the free market anyway. Sigh, that is how politicians work though. They are on a never ending quest to take credit for stuff they never had a thing to do with.
While compact fluorescent light bulbs are the current best deal, in a very few years you will see a complete change in the way we light our surroundings with OLED's that cost virtually nothing to power.

i figured eventually everything becomes obsolete, i just didnt know it was this soon.

Y'know Edison didn't invent the lightbulb but did invent the word "hello" (I watched QI last night).

I think technology is going to eventually bring about the demise of the incandescent bulb, but the main reason why it remains is because it's really cheap and can be bought in large quantities.

However, I think designing more energy efficent electronics will save far more power.

I think technology is going to eventually bring about the demise of the incandescent bulb, but the main reason why it remains is because it's really cheap and can be bought in large quantities.

However, I think designing more energy efficent electronics will save far more power.

It only looks cheap, compare it to how many you need to last as long as a flourescenet or LED, and how much more energy it uses....Not so much.

Y'know Edison didn't invent the lightbulb but did invent the word "hello" (I watched QI last night).
what did people say before they said "hello"?

i thought that edison made the first practical light bulb

well that is what this guy suggests.
Man makes some interesting points. are we advanced enough to get rid of the traditional lightbulb? making them illegal seems a tad silly.
I'd support it. Banned except for those whining crybabies who claim to get headaches from them. They should understand that you shouldn't look directly at them.

Let's just go back to gas lamps. They're nicer looking.
But what to burn them with?

Y'know Edison didn't invent the lightbulb but did invent the word "hello" (I watched QI last night).
He did invent a practical usable bulb, but not the modern tungsten one.

what did people say before they said "hello"?

i thought that edison made the first practical light bulb
I don't know.. ask Stephen Fry..

It only looks cheap, compare it to how many you need to last as long as a flourescenet or LED, and how much more energy it uses....Not so much.

But, unfortunately, people only look at the price tag and usually don't take that in to account. Nevertheless, given the new attention paid to energy security I feel that incandescent bulbs will become less popular over the ensuing years.

Hello is thought to have been first recorded at 1588.[1]

Hmm...

Let's just go back to gas lamps. They're nicer looking.
That's not going back far enough. We need to go to the original light fuel: Witches.
Just one witch can burn for upwards of two hours (even longer if you get a nice fat one), and, what with the resurrgence of wicca among teenage girls, they're cheap and plentiful.
The only problem is their tendency to scream, so you have to find a way around that, and duct tape doesn't work, as it tends to burn off.

That's not going back far enough. We need to go to the original light fuel: Witches.
Just one witch can burn for upwards of two hours (even longer if you get a nice fat one), and, what with the resurrgence of wicca among teenage girls, they're cheap and plentiful.
The only problem is their tendency to scream, so you have to find a way around that, and duct tape doesn't work, as it tends to burn off.

We could put jars in front of their mouths to trap the screams, then screw the jars shut. Then, put the jar on your front porch, and when someone comes to visit you, they open the jar so let the scream out.

Then we won't need doorbells either.

I'd support it. Banned except for those whining crybabies who claim to get headaches from them. They should understand that you shouldn't look directly at them.


There are people who do get headaches from them. They are not "whining crybabies." Next thing you'll be griping about the whining crybabies in wheelchairs that can't use staircases.

Joseph Swan invented the first pratical electric light bulb. But as no-one cared then, I doubt anyone will do so now.

Joseph Swan invented the first pratical electric light bulb. But as no-one cared then, I doubt anyone will do so now.

Maybe people would have been more sympathetic if he hadn't insisted on calling them Swanthrobbers.

Speaking for myself, I HAVE replaced almost all the bulbs in my home with flourescent for the cost-savings reasons mentioned in the article.

That being said, they do have limitations.

I can't, for example, get tri-light bulbs in compact flourescent, it can be hard to find some bulb sizes to fit in certain fixtures, nor can I use them in a fixture attached to a dimmer like the chandelier in the dining room.

Until they get those limitations addressed, there will always be a market for alternatives.

If a light is used for short periods of time, the fluorescent version will use more energy than the incandescent version. The government might end up mandating an increase in energy use if that law passes

The light bulb was invented by a black man, and he will never be remembered because a white man made it last longer.

If a light is used for short periods of time, the fluorescent version will use more energy than the incandescent version. The government might end up mandating an increase in energy use if that law passes

Compact Flouresents do not under any circumstance use more energy than their incadescent counterparts. During start up, they do have a very short warm up period during which they are less efficient in the amount of light they produce. You are relating a period of inefficeny with an increase of energy which simply is not there.

There are people who do get headaches from them. They are not "whining crybabies." Next thing you'll be griping about the whining crybabies in wheelchairs that can't use staircases.

Yes there was indeed a legitimate cause for some people to get them too. It was the use of the origional tiny iron ballasts that caused an almost undetectable flicker. Fortunately this has been successfully addressed with the new miniature electronic ballasts now used in production.

well that is what this guy suggests.



Man makes some interesting points. are we advanced enough to get rid of the traditional lightbulb? making them illegal seems a tad silly.

Let the market deal with them. Flourescent bulbs now compete with incandescents in price. I recently saw some 60-watt equivalents on sale for 94 cents per bulb.

I see no reason for the government to involve itself.

I don't know.. ask Stephen Fry..

The actor?!?

Wouldn't Joseph Swan, the inventor of the first carbon filament incandescent lamp be a better person to ask?

Let the market deal with them. Flourescent bulbs now compete with incandescents in price. I recently saw some 60-watt equivalents on sale for 94 cents per bulb.

I see no reason for the government to involve itself.

To think I thought I was making out like a thief for 8 @ $10.00.