You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
industrialised for about 200.
Which was when the manmade damage REALLY began. You do know that something like 97% of the scientists involved in climate-related study agree on the causes?
Fred - your dimmers will probably use the same electricity whether dimmed or not. Your personal vanity is to have dimmer switches which as you say you don't have fully on much of the time. You comment on 40w & 60w bulbs, but not on those equivalent to your personal choice of 100w - get the proper bulbs then.
Your 'few quid' for the electric would be a few quid less. As I highlighted, you don't see the whole cost, just what you pay up front. You used to be good at defending your corner on here - this isn't a good example of your work.
I read as far as the words "soda bottles"
Whilst I am interested in green issues, I'm not interested in recollections of a shared youth that I didn't share with some [b]american[/b]
Also not sure that [b]americans[/b] are in any position to be telling us how they 've really been green all along.
Tesco baygs disintegrate after a while. They crumble and fall apart.
True, wasn't that down to UV light? Doubt you'd get much of that in a landfill site!
Ok buy me a 100W equivalent dimmable energy saving bulb and I'll start using that, then.
Until then, I'll just use the stock of incandescent 100W bulbs what I bought from Steve's Bestsellers in Chrisp St Market until they're all gone. I'm not going out faffing about to buy bloody expensive ES bulbs.
Your 'few quid' for the electric would be a few quid less.
S'like Deore v XT, innit? 😉
Incandescent 100W bulbs from Steve's Bestsellers in Chrisp St Market offer me the quality of light I want, at an extremely low price. It would probbly take several years for the ES version to actually provide me with any real money saving over the Incandescent 100W bulbs from Steve's Bestsellers in Chrisp St Market. 🙂
Do you drive a car?
Falling apart isn't the same as biodegrading. You just end up with millions of tiny pieces of plastic in the food chain.
Ok buy me a 100W equivalent dimmable energy saving bulb and I'll start using that, then
They sell them at our B&Q Elf. And Google returns tons of results. They are quite readily available.
And let's face it, dimmability isn't an essential.
So if I go to B+Q, then that's two pounds seventy in bus fares, plus the cost of the bulb. If I order online, then it's extra carbon for delivery vayns and packaging and stuff.
This 'energy saving' duzzunt seem to be saving me either energy or money. 😐
dimmability isn't an essential.
Yes it is. Is your car essential?
People die naturally, but killing them is still bad, isn't it?
I dunno, Woppit might be the exception that proves the rule here. Anyway, doesn't he believe in god and such, so surely the world's only a few thousand years old and there were no dinosaurs?
Anthropogenic global warming is very real. You will find precious few credible scientists who deny the theory. You will find plenty who have good questions to ask about its magnitude, and most of these questions arise from how the models project the true unknowns - natural attenuation vs self-reinforcing mechanisms.
Most of the climate change episodes recorded through the geological record point to sudden (on a geological timescale) changes in atmospheric chemistry. What, precisely, do you consider our manipulation of the atmosphere for the bast 250 years to be?
In any case, for the deniers (who are very different from the true skeptics) I leave you with this:
[img] 
[/img]
Sorry, cheap snipe:
And let's face it, dimmability isn't an essential.
Fred spends most of his life on here playing up to be particularly dim, so in his case, it probably is 😆
Yeah but I can turn the brightness up whenever I want, Zokes. You, sadly, do not appear to have such control... 😐
You, sadly, do not appear to have such control...
I tend to work in energy-saving mode on here. Sort of stand-by, if you will...
Jamie - Member
Incidentally, did the OP every come back?
Yes, I'm still here,
watching with mild amusement as a tongue in cheek thread gets so many folks hot under the collar .... but what else would I expect from STW 😉
Your argument about travelling to B&Q is not a good one - you could order online, or pick some up next time you are there for something else 🙂
Is your car essential?
No, of course not. But there are some interesting points. Me owning a car has nothing to do with you using incandescent lightbulbs.
1) People seem to think that they are allowed a quota of carbon usage, and if they don't fly or drive then they can be inefficient in other areas. It doens't work like that - we are all obliged to cut whatever we can in any area.
2) People are always saying 'yeah well I'm greener than you'. This is not a personal competition. See above - we all need to cut whatever we can, regardless of what our neighbours do. Each KG of CO2 in the air doesn't care about where the others came from or why they are there.
To the OP - calling it tongue in cheek doesn't help, bollx is still bollx. For it to be a joke it has to be funny not just wrong 🙂
No, of course not. But there are some interesting points. Me owning a car has nothing to do with you using incandescent lightbulbs.
Of course it has. Unless you are making every effort yourself to minimise your environmental impact an ting, then it's very hypocritical to have a go at me for using one incandescent bulb in one room of my flat. 😉
1) People seem to think that they are allowed a quota of carbon usage, and if they don't fly or drive then they can be inefficient in other areas. It doens't work like that - we are all obliged to cut whatever we can in any area.
I already do this. I choose to use the incandescent bulb because it is the best choice for what I want it to do. Simple as that. Bit like buying XT over Deore cos it's lighter/tougher or whatever.
2) People are always saying 'yeah well I'm greener than you'. This is not a personal competition.
What's wrong with making it a 'competition'? IE, someone has a pop at me for using an incandescent lightbulb what I bought from Steve's Bestsellers in Chrisp St Market, i come back at them with 'do you need a car?', and then they admit they don't, then if they went and ditched their car so's they din't look hypocritical, then that would be good for the planet. 😀
Why shoon't we encourage competion to be 'greener'? Like the 'Greenest Car' or 'Greenest Pub' etc. Would be good.
To the OP - calling it tongue in cheek doesn't help, bollx is still bollx. For it to be a joke it has to be funny not just wrong
I didn't say it was a " joke " , subtle but esssential differance, I said it was " tongue in cheek "
If you re-read the OP carefully I suggest that rather than call it bollx you may actually start to not only change that opinion but also rather think it has merit, not only that I think you will find that not a thing said in the OP is wrong, rather it is about all the little things we all CAN do to help and a lot of folks have been doing for a long time with out shouting about it and that it is the point .
Don't talk the talk …. Walk the walk
In essence what I am saying is that the " green thing " is not really new at all ..
Think of it ....
surely walking is better than driving ( for what ever reason )
re using bottles is better than throwing them away ( for what ever reason )
few folks actually NEED a motorised lawn mower
can you watch more than 1 Tele at a time ?
etc etc
Don't talk the talk …. Walk the walk
You've got to do both, otherwise the message never gets around.
I had a pop at you for using flawed logic in your futile attempt to defend your corner. Your cost arguement still misses the while life cost of you using an inefficient bulb. Use an old bulb all you like but you tried to justify that on a cost basis then (as usual) weasely word out of that. Fail.
Unless you are making every effort yourself to minimise your environmental impact an ting, then it's very hypocritical to have a go at me for using one incandescent bulb in one room of my flat.
Well not really. I am saying that we need to cut whatever we can. Your light bulb is not important, I am not having a go at you for that. I was talking in general terms. I admit that I do not do all I can and I strive to do more. More people need to do the same. However many people don't give a crap and are happily buying fast cars and all the rest of it. Giving a crap would be the first stage I feel.
Why shoon't we encourage competion to be 'greener'? Like the 'Greenest Car' or 'Greenest Pub' etc. Would be good
It would get very nasty very quickly. Even nastier than it is now...
I think you will find that not a thing said in the OP is wrong
I think I will find that, and that is what I object to. It makes out that the younger generation are slagging off the older ones (which I think is wrong) and that they had all the answers (which is also wrong). And it makes out that the older generation re-used bottles and clothes because it was eco friendly, which is also not true.
There are of course exceptions but mostly -
Poorer = greener
Richer = less greener
Give the guy in a mud hut some cash and he'll buy a fridge,
some more and he'll get a moped to get around,
some more and he'll get loads of 100W dimmable lamps in the hut
some mor and he'll get a nice big telly and an X station
some more and he'll get a car, just a wee one
some more and he'll demolish the mud hut and build a tin shack
some more and he'll get rid of the wee car and get a range rover
some more and he'll fly abroad three times a year on holiday and stay in a hotel where they wash everything every day and have heated pools, hot rooms and loads of wasted food
some more and he'll build a nice big house instead of the tin shack
some more and he'll get a Ferrari to go with the RR
etc, etc
Most people when they get money just can't help spending it and become less green in the process.
Grand Designs is a great way to see this in action. So often it's a middle aged couple and they are ALWAYS building an eco house. The house generally is huge with acres of glass and megatonnes of concrete. How is it eco to build a huge house just because you can afford it? If they were poorer they would be forced into being greener by building a house properly sized for their needs.
I'm not having a go mind, if I was loaded I'd definately have a new Range rover 🙂
Grand Designs is a great way to see this in action. So often it's a middle aged couple and they are ALWAYS building an eco house. The house generally is huge with acres of glass and megatonnes of concrete. How is it eco to build a huge house just because you can afford it? If they were poorer they would be forced into being greener by building a house properly sized for their needs.
Nah, they always justify it by saying that it's either "stepping stone technology" or "it's a demonstration that eco materials and techniaques are affordable*" (* to a middle aged professional couple from Surrey).
I am jealous of some of their pads though!
Re grand designs - if you want a huge house, then it's better to make it low energy than not, isn't it? It'll still have tons of concrete in it whichever way.
Aye but what I'm saying is that a couple building a house with ten rooms and vaulted ceilings is not eco. If they were truly concerned with being eco they'd build something half the size and still have it insulated and solar panels etc.
Well that's just it. Is it about being truly eco, or about mitigating the effects of what you want? Which should it be?
We could spend all our lives in the town we live in, never watch telly, never go anywhere, and be vegetarian. But should we?
molgrips - MemberWell that's just it. Is it about being truly eco, or about mitigating the effects of what you want? Which should it be?
We could spend all our lives in the town we live in, never watch telly, never go anywhere, and be vegetarian. But should we?
thats the light green / dark green dichotomy.
The light greens believe you can mitigate the worst effects without altering their lifestyle and that will do, the dark greens understand changing your lifestyle is the only way to make a significant difference.
Not getting at you moley but a light green buys a prius, a dark green a bike. the light green buys local meat, the dark green considers meat an occasional treat
To me there is no point in being a light green.
Let's face it TJ, they lost 50% of the population of central Scotland the moment they labelled an eco-friendly lifestyle "being green".
Steve's Bestsellers in Chrisp St Market
Hope everybody got that... 😉
I had a pop at you for using flawed logic in your futile attempt to defend your corner. Your cost arguement still misses the while life cost of you using an inefficient bulb. Use an old bulb all you like but you tried to justify that on a cost basis then (as usual) weasely word out of that. Fail.
Not fail.
'Life cost' wtf bs pretentious crap is that? 'Life cost' indeed... 😆
At the current moment, purchasing an energy saving dimmable bulb would either involve greater expense than is currently worth it (I have existing bulbs which suit their intended purpose perfectly), greater amount of energy used (bus journey to B+Q/delivery vayn to my house would have a greater environmental impact than the extra energy used by the bulb), and throwing away perfectly good bulbs now rather than waiting until they're used and gone would just create extra waste over the same period of time. And there would probably be no cost saving to me whatsoever. Weighed up, using the existing supply of bulbs is probably the 'greenest' solution.
So not Fail at all. In fact, [i]Win[/i]. 🙂
I understand the need for everyone to reduce their energy usage and wastage, but this must also be balanced with what is reasonably practical. That's what the environmental idealists fail to realise all too often.
What car do you drive?
LOL@ ditchjockey.
but a light green buys a prius, a dark green a bike
What if you buy both? You can be shades of green beyond light and dark.
It's obvious that altering lifestyles is imperative. It's a question of how much.
The thing is that I KNOW what I do is not enough. But I'm at a bit of a loss as to how to change that without severely compromising our happiness.
I understand the need for everyone to reduce their energy usage and wastage, but this must also be balanced with what is reasonably practical.
Buying a dimmable CFL is emminently practical. As would putting in a normal light switch. Reclaimed, of course. Also, no-ones suggested you throw away any of your incandescent bulbs. That would be wasteful, although maybe actually less wasteful since you have five of the things. The total energy cost MIGHT actually be less if you throw them away, but I have not done the sums. Nor have you though, I'd wager 🙂
And what car he drives is not important. It doesn't make any difference who tells you to reduce energy, it's still true.
Buying a dimmable CFL is emminently practical.
Not at the moment it's not. I've explained why.
Also, no-ones suggested you throw away any of your incandescent bulbs
So what am I going to do with them then? 😕
And what car he drives is not important.
Yes it is. It's no good preaching to me about a flipping lightbulb if he's driving a 2.4 litre car when a 1.4 one would be perfectly adequate, is it? 😕
Lead by example. Bono blethers on about climate change, yet flies everywhere. What an utter hypocrite. 'Do as I say, not do as I do'.
It don't work like that. What's the point of me recycling my cardboard if the actions of others totally negate any efforts I'm making? Just becomes pointless.
given up trying to post image of steve's bloody shop here
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom_hurley/6311787399/ ]clicky[/url]
Not at the moment it's not.
No-one said do it now. Although according to others you would save money if you did.
It's no good preaching to me about a flipping lightbulb if he's driving a 2.4 litre car when a 1.4 one would be perfectly adequate, is it?
He's still right about saving energy, even if he drives a hummer. And - and this is important - he's not [b]preaching[/b]. He's informing you of the obligations we ALL have.
Hurrah for emissions!! It means "we're" not going to have to cope with freezing to death for a bit longer...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16439807
It's an interesting idea, that historically we were less wasteful because the concept of disposable goods was non-existent, and the turnover of technology and fashions in consumer goods was far slower.
Of course the seeds were sewn for all of this during the war nothing stimulates the Human capacity for simultanious technological advancement and massive waste of resources like a huge, massive-great fight! We got a real taste for it and carried on for the next 60 odd years, So actually current levels of waste and environmental destruction are entitrely the fault of Older (mostly now dead) generations...
It's far better to blame people who aren't about to defend themselves, first law of scapegoating...
Ultimately None of it matters, Whos fault it is what proportion of the blame to lay at each generations feet.
No what really matters is "being cool" - As we all know caring about stuff, especially the environment isn't cool.
The seas can rise the ice caps melt, rainforests turn to deserts and desert to Tundra, So long as we live in a world with young chaps looking as aloof and disinterested as possible, wearing whatever sunglasses are cool this week, with 80g of (oil based) "Product" holding their foppish do in place, flanked an 18 year old annorexic, from Belarus who looks equally disinterested then all is righ twith the world...
"So many of you come time and time again to watch this final end of everything, which I think is really wonderful, and then to return home to your own eras and raise families, and strive for new and better societies and fight terrible wars for what you know is right, it gives one real hope for the whole future of lifekind.
Except of course we know, it hasn't got one. " 😯
Hurrah for emissions!! It means "we're" not going to have to cope with freezing to death for a bit longer...
Seriously, climate denying clowns around the world will be coming up with this line from now until the very moment that the arctic is ice free, Texas is flattened by a hurricane, London floods, or whatever truly gigantic/catastrophic event it takes for them to finally wake up to reality.
I believe some "scientists" came up with it?
Sounds good to me, anyway. Probably also to the poor buggers who'd otherwise be frozen into position by the millions...
I believe some "scientists" came up with it?
I'm sure they did.
The trouble starts when ignoramuses (ignorami?) start interpreting what the scientists say.
The scientists may well have said that the next ice age (maybe due in 1500 years) might be delayed.
But I'm sure that they didn't say that that would be a good (or bad) thing.
In the meantime, I'm a bit more worried about what might happen in my lifetime or the lifetime of my kids.
And what car he drives is not important. It doesn't make any difference who tells you to reduce energy, it's still true.
+1 molgrips. The idea that if you do anything that has an environmental impact you're in no position to make any observations about the environment is utterly bogus. Otherwise only people living in hedges wearing rabbit skins would be `qualified' to say anything.
I believe some "scientists" came up with it?
Woppit - that's not news - the theory has been widely acknowledged for ages. What more evidence do you need that humans are adversely changing the environment?
In fact, [url= http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/ruddiman-william-f/ ]this guy[/url] has some very compelling arguments for the fact that intensification of rice paddy farming 5000 years ago started what we've amplified greatly since the industrial revolution.
Also not sure that americans are in any position to be telling us how they 've really been green all along.
They are hypocrites, they wage war for oil....
Give the guy in a mud hut some cash and he'll buy a fridge
Wouldnt he buy food first? Then some sort of clean water supply? Etc
Doubt he'd actually know what a Range Rover is...
Seriously, climate denying clowns around the world will be coming up with this line from now until the very moment that the arctic is ice free, Texas is flattened by a hurricane, London floods, or whatever truly gigantic/catastrophic event it takes for them to finally wake up to reality.
But hasnt that sort of thing been happening for millenia, before we humans were even here? In fact isnt that the sort of thing that shaped our blue planet in the first place?
We humans seem to think that we are that important that we can change the world....
What more evidence do you need that humans are adversely changing the environment?
None. That's not my point. Read the thread.
We humans seem to think that we are that important that we can change the world
We have, hugely. We've transformed the landscape, cut down most of the trees, and the CO2 in the atmosphere is now increasing faster than EVER before.
I read somewhere about a woman who married a bloke from Tahiti. He'd lived a pretty simple life, and when he came to America he was utterly shocked about how much people wasted and how much money they threw about, and a little upset. Two years later, he was doing the same as everyone else.
People are mostly the same. The ones that are consuming madly all over the west are hardly removed from the ones who were making do and mending 70 years ago.
But hasnt that sort of thing been happening for millenia, before we humans were even here? In fact isnt that the sort of thing that shaped our blue planet in the first place?
We humans seem to think that we are that important that we can change the world....
The bit that people seem to find it hard to get their heads round is the timescale.
Scientists point out that ice is thinning, oceans warming, glaciers retreating, floods becoming more frequent/chaotic etc and sceptics say "but that sort of thing has always happened"
Well, that's true to a degree, except that in the past these natural events (excepting things like volcanic eruptions, which are just bad luck) happened over much longer periods of time.
We are currently forcing changes which could turn out to be quick, catastrophic and irreversible (in the short term - and in the long term (as the saying goes) we're all dead anyway).
I'm not too concerned about the next ice age, but I am very concerned about flooding, droughts, crop failures etc in mine and my kids lifetimes - the question is - what is it that we are trying to create that is so fantastic that it is worth playing Russian Roulette for?
We are currently forcing changes which could turn out to be quick, catastrophic and irreversible
This does seem to be true, but i cant help but think that its been used as a vehicle for stealth tax. To conveniently make us all pay more for everything.
But yes, global warming is bad and we all need to change our daily habits. As for getting people out of cars etc, then that wont happen until there is a viable alternative. I mean we cant all go back to using horses can we? Where would you keep one if you dont have a garden?
On the balcony.
'Life cost' wtf bs pretentious crap is that? 'Life cost' indeed...At the current moment, purchasing an energy saving dimmable bulb would either involve greater expense than is currently worth it (I have existing bulbs which suit their intended purpose perfectly), greater amount of energy used (bus journey to B+Q/delivery vayn to my house would have a greater environmental impact than the extra energy used by the bulb),
Did I upset you with a phrase you didn't understand? Sorry. A whole life cost / fully burdened cost / lifecycle cost is the purchase price PLUS the running cost for the life of the item. It isn't a difficult concept and used by most of the civilized world when making investments in equipment etc. Your low energy bulb costs more to buy but less to run, so overall, it is cheaper. You are focused on the purchase price and not the running costs. Your dogmatic 'B&Q to buy it' is just silly so please stop it. You can buy such bulbs from many places so you can combine your tasks and perhaps pick one up when you are at the shop next door / in a supermarket etc. That absorbs your energy expended in to a task you were already doing. The arguement you are trying to make is illogical and wrong, but that might make you appear wrong so you'll take your usual defence and repeat until we ignore it.
But hasnt that sort of thing been happening for millenia, before we humans were even here?
Yes, but
a) back then there was no-one around to lament the tragedies.
b) if there had been they couldn't have done anything about it. This time, there's a chance we CAN do something about it.
i cant help but think that its been used as a vehicle for stealth tax. To conveniently make us all pay more for everything.
It is one of the only effective ways to change behaviour - make people pay for it. Many studies show this.
its been used as a vehicle for stealth tax.
It is very easy to trot out this glib phrase.
What tax do you consider to be a "stealth tax"?
What is that tax being used for that you don't agree with?
its been used as a vehicle for stealth tax.
Really? Not much stealth about this:
People with an Athens login should be able to read this very good review of it in [i]Nature Climate Change[/i]...
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n1/full/nclimate1339.html
Did I upset you with a phrase you didn't understand?
No, you just amused me with yer pretentious waffle. 😀
The arguement you are trying to make is illogical and wrong
No it's not it's all bin explained propply if you din't understand it then that's not my fault.
I'm right and this argument is done. Move on now please, thanks.
Now, once again; What car do you drive?
The phrase "lifetime cost" is not pretentious waffle. You are confusing it with "lifestyle" 🙂
Btw I am in the Wharf of Canaries tomorrow night and Thursday night. Wanna go into town for some interesting food?
On the balcony.
😆 Not sure my neighbour dowstairs would appreciate being shat upon from a great height....... Then again 😀
What tax do you consider to be a "stealth tax"?What is that tax being used for that you don't agree with?
Maybe tax is the wrong word to use- fuel is environmentally unfriendly so each month it costs more. Food costs more because it has to be delivered (they could of course just use local produce but its not enough to feed everyone), and as just about everything needs fuel to make it, produce it, deliver it etc it all costs much more. Fuel 'duty' might just line the goverments pockets but it is so high because they can call it an environmental tax.
Yet in the middle east where it is produced it is cheap.
The few alternatives that are out there cost more than the average person can reasonably afford. So we stick to our smoke belchers.
So that means they can keep charging us what they like!
Maybe ive just created my own conspiracy theory, but thats what i anyway....
fuel is environmentally unfriendly so each month it costs more.
It's also running out (if you mean oil) - peak production was a few years ago and more to the point EROEI (energy return on energy invested) is going down fast - that means that the amount of energy you have to put in for every barrel of oil you get out is increasing rapidly - so production is becoming less efficient! That's the main reason it's getting (and will continue to get) more expensive.
Food costs more because it has to be delivered
And more to the point also need lots of oil in the manufacture of fertilizer and pesticides - see above for why this is inevitably becoming more expensive.
Fuel 'duty' might just line the goverments pockets but it is so high because they can call it an environmental tax.
But we have never paid the real costs of our oil based economy - we have never bothered to put a price on the real value of things like clean water, biodiversity, worker safety in far off places, cost of disposal of plastics etc etc. In fact the real "stealth" was in keeping all of these real costs hidden. It is true that now we are starting to have to recognise some of these but I think it is the opposite of stealth - it is the revealing of the true costs.
No it's not it's all bin explained propply if you din't understand it then that's not my fault.I'm right and this argument is done. Move on now please, thanks.
Amazingly, my prediction came true. Was anyone else struggling with the concept?
But we have never paid the real costs of our oil based economy - we have never bothered to put a price on the real value of things like clean water, biodiversity, worker safety in far off places, cost of disposal of plastics etc etc. In fact the real "stealth" was in keeping all of these real costs hidden. It is true that now we are starting to have to recognise some of these but I think it is the opposite of stealth - it is the revealing of the true costs.
Very true. Basically, our developed existence has been heavily subsidised by the environment. Now that subsidy is running out, things are starting to cost a lot more...
Fred - your dimmers will probably use the same electricity whether dimmed or not.
Extremely unlikely. He'd have to have very archaic dimmer switches.
It occurred to me - how come the greenies like electric cars, but don't like electric light bulbs?
dark greens don't like electric cars - they are a greenwash 🙂
the only green car is "no car"
You know which sort of greens I was referring to, TJ...
For reference, I own an old car, which there would be little green benefit in me disposing of - and I've only filled it up twice since September.
The thing is, TJ, cars are quite essential for the modern world TO A DEGREE.
The transport mix for typical journeys (not exceptional ones) could end up being say 10% foot, 40% bike, 40% mass transport and 10% car, but cars would still be needed. There are people whose jobs require mobility, there are rural locations and so on.
Given that, electric cars might be very important. Especially if renewable electricity generation takes off. The only other source would be biomass which would perhaps be feasible if car mileage was slashed by a factor of 10 or more.
aracer - MemberYou know which sort of greens I was referring to, TJ...
????
[img]
[/img]
molgrips - until someone creates a battery that orders of magnitude more effective and cheaper electric cars will never be significant
require far more range and load carrying that an electric car can provide with current tech.There are people whose jobs require mobility, there are rural locations and so on.
Fred - your dimmers will probably use the same electricity whether dimmed or not.
Extremely unlikely. He'd have to have very archaic dimmer switches.
Explain this please.
I do know that the front room uses a 'modern' type dimmer cos the 'older' type ones don't work with Halogen bulubs apparently. I know nothing about this though. Must be science stuffs.
(Do I dare tell the Energy Saving Nazis about the 19 50W Halogen spots my dim (!) layndlord installed in this flat?)
Explain this please.
"Modern" dimmers use electronics which switch the supply on and off at high speed (well 100Hz 😉 ), not the resistor TooTall seems to be assuming. Hence no wasted energy (well a little in the electrickery, but <<1W).
Can't see why a halogen bulb would have any problems working with either type of dimmer though - you may have been given some "sales talk" there.
require far more range and load carrying that an electric car can provide with current tech
Doubt it. The midwives and health visitors who come to our house cover a fairly compact area of Cardiff.
Part of the solution, I'm sure.
seems to be assuming
I did say 'probably'. Doesn't Fred live in some sort of (evidently well-lit) East End haarsin projekt or slum or whatever they have for the disposessed in that end of town? I thought he was lucky not to have gas lamps never mind modern fittings.
Mind you - a few 5W LED replacement G10s would save a fortune if he turns those spots on.
Anyway, is anybody going to answer the question of why halogen bulbs are so awful if electric cars are so wonderful?
Well halogen bulbs are not energy efficient compared to the alternatives. Electric cars are (or maybe depending on who you talk to).
molgrips - Member"require far more range and load carrying that an electric car can provide with current tech"
Doubt it. The midwives and health visitors who come to our house cover a fairly compact area of Cardiff.
Have a look at the miles covered and the range of electric cars.
Its a simple nonsense.
They are not energy efficient eiother.
They are not energy efficient eiother.
Compared to what? They're much worse than a bicycle, certainly.
Bout 70-100 miles typically, isn't it? I'd wager there are many travelling workers who do far less than that. And I seem to remember reading that even with current electricity generation they would only emit about 40g/km CO2, which is a lot less than even a small car in urban and suburban driving.
Ransos - I'd love to see our health visitor turn up on a bike with a trailer full of her weighing scales, files and other gear, but I doubt it'll happen any time soon 🙂
For an electric car you take chemical energy ( mainly) and make it into electrical energy - that has conversion losses. then transmit it down power lines - more losses then charge a battery - more losses then convert it into mechanical energy - more losses. There is also the weight of the batteries to lug around
They are not significantly more efficient that petrol cars in terms of co2 output per mile driven.
Over the lifetime probably less as the difficulty of making the batteries and their short life has a significant effect.
Anyway, is anybody going to answer the question of why halogen bulbs are so awful if electric cars are so wonderful?
They are both crap. Electric cars are a shocking use of resources in the way they are manufactured and difficult for many to use with the lack of infrastructure in place. Halogen bulbs have been surpassed by LED. Happy?
I know how it works thanks TJ, you don't have to explain it.
I am referring to several studies that I have read (but no longer have links to) that have analysed it (instead of just guessing) and come up with a figure at the highest end of about 40g/km.
In your utopia, how would say nurses get around for home visits? Assuming you need a few bags for kit?
They are not energy efficient eiother.
This is rather a silly sweeping thing to say. The implication is that the development of the electric car has stopped, whereas it is still in the rather early stages. Batteries are getting better all the time and materials are getting lighter. Also, it depends where the electricity comes from. Various people have talked about using the batteries in electric cars as a way of storing/using off peak energy in a way that might help make overall production of electricity more efficient.
Imagine if the development of the bicycle had ended with the penny farthing - efficient?
In your utopia, how would say nurses get around for home visits? Assuming you need a few bags for kit?
What are you on about? They would do it as they do now.
🙄
Electric cars are simply not good enough now nor is there any likely hood in the near future of them being good enough. Per mile they are not significantly less polluting, total lifetime it looks even worse.
Well halogen bulbs are not energy efficient compared to the alternatives.
Not energy efficient how? What happens to the energy they "waste"?
I am referring to several studies that I have read (but no longer have links to) that have analysed it (instead of just guessing) and come up with a figure at the highest end of about 40g/km.
How convenient that you don't have links to them 🙄
[url= http://www.renault-ze.com/fr-fr/ma-vie-electrique/video-autonomie-81442.html ]Renault[/url] are claiming up to 185km for the best of their current range. If I had a regular commute to do I'd buy one at 21 300e and 82e per month for the batteries. Recharge at night when France has an electricity surplus or from solar panels. I don't commute though and have only filled my car once since the summer.
Given my low mileage keeping the 20-year-old car I've got makes more ecological sense. The energy cost of building a new electric car and keeping it in batteries would be greater than putting petrol in my old car for the same period.
Renault make I good case for most car users with the exception of their holiday trips.