Searching \ for '[EE]: How many australians to change a light bulb?' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=how+many+australians
Search entire site for: 'How many australians to change a light bulb?'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[EE]: How many australians to change a light bulb?'
2007\02\21@015347 by Charles Craft

picon face

I know there's a couple people from NZ on the list but thought there might be one or two in Australia to comment.

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2007/02/20/PM200702203.html

Australia plans to replace all incandescent light bulbs with compact flourescents by 2010 to cut greenhouse emissions.
But Sam Eaton reports there'll still be plenty of demand for Thomas Edison's bright idea.

(There's audio of the story at the link above)
<snip>



http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/21/business/worldbusiness/21light.html?ref=business

Australia Is Seeking Nationwide Shift to Energy-Saving Light Bulbs
By TIM JOHNSTON

SYDNEY, Australia, Feb. 20 — Australia looks ready to become the first country to phase out incandescent light bulbs in favor of more energy-efficient compact fluorescent bulbs, as part of its drive to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

The Australian environment minister, Malcolm Turnbull, said Tuesday that he would work with the states to get rid of incandescent bulbs by 2009 or 2010.

“The most effective and immediate way we can reduce greenhouse-gas emissions is by using energy more efficiently,” Mr. Turnbull said. “Electric lighting is a vital part of our lives; globally, it generates emissions equal to 70 percent of those from all the world’s passenger vehicles.”

He pointed to International Energy Agency data showing that a worldwide switch to compact fluorescent lights could result in energy savings equivalent to five years of Australia’s present electricity use by 2030.

Australia already has minimum energy performance standards that apply to appliances, and a similar system will be put into effect for light bulbs. The standards would ultimately make it impossible to sell incandescent bulbs. Mr. Turnbull said the government would consider some exceptions, like medical lighting and low-power oven lights.

Australia has used similar means to phase out high-volume toilet tanks and high-pressure shower heads.

A spokeswoman for Mr. Turnbull, Sarah Stock, said the first step would be to work with manufacturers, importers, wholesalers and retailers to encourage them to phase out incandescent bulbs and ensure that enough fluorescent bulbs were available.

“Once the main players have removed those inefficient products,” she said, “that investment in better quality and more efficient products will be protected by regulation.”

Australia would be the first country to carry out such a plan, although legislators in California proposed a similar measure last month.

Wal-Mart, the world’s largest retailer, recently announced a drive to sell 100 million compact fluorescent bulbs a year by 2008, compared with 40 million in 2005. Philips has announced plans to stop making incandescent bulbs by 2016.

The Australian initiative appears to face little political opposition. Environmental groups are pleased, particularly as the conservative government of Prime Minister John Howard was, until recently, unwilling to accept climate change as a reality.

Australia will hold a general election this year, and opinion polls show that the environment is high on the list of voter concerns.

The government’s move on light bulbs is the latest push in an effort to seize the ecological initiative from the opposition Labor Party. Mr. Howard says that by 2015, when the plan is to be fully in place, Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced by as much as four million tons a year, or 0.7 percent of its greenhouse gas output in 2004.

Incandescent bulbs illuminate by passing electricity through a wire filament, but some 90 percent of the energy is converted to heat rather than light. Fluorescent bulbs work by passing an electrical current through a gas, typically argon, which emits ultraviolet light. This, in turn, causes a thin coating of phosphorous on the inside of the tube to glow.

Fluorescent bulbs are not entirely benign. They contain some mercury — perhaps a fifth of the amount used in a watch battery — and in Europe the cost of each lamp includes a premium to allow for its safe disposal.

The bulbs are also about four times as expensive as equivalent incandescent bulbs, but they use 20 percent or less of the energy to produce the same amount of light and last 5 to 10 times as long.

Although the cost efficiency of compact fluorescent lights has made them popular with corporate customers, they have not been such a big hit with Australian consumers, some of whom say that the light is unflattering and that the bulbs do not fit many home lampshades.

Jin Chew, who manages a hardware store in Sydney, said that incandescent bulbs outsold fluorescent ones in his shop by 5 to 1.

But he said that the makers of fluorescent bulbs had improved the color of the light, making it less blue and less harsh.


2007\02\21@023054 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face

On Feb 20, 2007, at 10:53 PM, Charles Craft wrote:

> replace all incandescent light bulbs with compact flourescents
> by 2010 to cut greenhouse emissions.

Is there a viable replacement for mercury in gas-discharge lights ?

Does the Australian law actually specify compact fluorescents, or
does it mandate a certain efficiency?  It'd be a shame to outlaw
other efficient lighting technologies (LED, regular fluorescents,
etc) "accidentally."

BillW

2007\02\21@030625 by Roy

flavicon
face
One to hold lamp and one hundred to turn the house :-)

_______________________________________

Roy Hopkins             ZL2RJH
Tauranga
New Zealand
_______________________________________


2007\02\21@031926 by Marcel Birthelmer

picon face
And another 50 or so to supply a rousing rendition of "Waltzing Matilda".

On 2/21/07, Roy <spam_OUTroy.hTakeThisOuTspamihug.co.nz> wrote:
> One to hold lamp and one hundred to turn the house :-)
>
> _______________________________________
>
> Roy Hopkins             ZL2RJH
> Tauranga
> New Zealand
> _______________________________________
>
>
> -

2007\02\21@034851 by Zik Saleeba

face picon face
On 2/21/07, William Chops Westfield <.....westfwKILLspamspam@spam@mac.com> wrote:
>
> Does the Australian law actually specify compact fluorescents, or
> does it mandate a certain efficiency?

At the moment it's now a law - it's just a politician trying to get on
TV. As the opposition has pointed out there are a lot of details to
work out to make it practical. For instance incandescents are
apparently still more efficient for use in fridges due to their low
turn-on power. What happens with all the low voltage light systems out
there which aren't really set up to work with compact fluorescents?

The law-making process is mostly fairly sensible here so his wish to
ban incandescents will probably be translated into something sensible
along the way.

Cheers,
Zik the Aussie

2007\02\21@035004 by Zik Saleeba

face picon face
On 2/21/07, Zik Saleeba <zikspamKILLspamzikzak.net> wrote:
>
> At the moment it's now a law - it's just a politician trying to get on

I meant "At the moment it's _not_ a law"...

Cheers,
Zik

2007\02\21@050926 by Richard Prosser

picon face
Another thing I haven't heard mentioned is that the CF bulbs not only
present a fairly poor power factor but also have a poor crest factor
due to the simple rectifier capacitor  used at their input stage. I've
heard perorts of commercial operations changing to CF bulbs and ending
up paying more duew to the pf penalties imposed.

I guess that a pf corrected,low crest factor  input ciruit could be
used - but at somewhat higher cost.

RP

On 21/02/07, Zik Saleeba <.....zikKILLspamspam.....zikzak.net> wrote:
> On 2/21/07, Zik Saleeba <EraseMEzikspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTzikzak.net> wrote:
> >
> > At the moment it's now a law - it's just a politician trying to get on
>
> I meant "At the moment it's _not_ a law"...
>
> Cheers,
> Zik
> -

2007\02\21@061903 by Picbits Sales

flavicon
face
I went on a mission round the house replacing the normal incandesent bubs
with the CF bulbs.

The missus then decided that she wanted dimmer switches in 3 of the rooms so
back to the energy eaters for those rooms (although she did try the CF bulbs
in the bedroom on the dimmer circuit before I told her off !!!).

Our big problem is that we use them in the Bathroom and en-suite both of
which have Silavent extractor fans installed. Both these fans remain on
constantly when the CF bulbs are installed - put the old bulbs back in and
the timers work fine on them.

I sent an email to the manufacturer of the fans but have not had a reply
after a couple of weeks.

2007\02\21@064908 by Ruben Jönsson

flavicon
face
I don't have any hard figures here but it must consume more energy to produce a
CF bulb than it does to produce an ordinary light bulb. It is also takes more
energy to dispose a CF bulb. Since it has more(?) components it must also use
up more of the earth resources (if they can't be recycled).

These figures also has to be considered when calculating the total energy
consumption used to produce the same amount of light during a certain time
period. It would be interesting to see some comparing figures with production,
resources and disposal also included in the equation and not just the energy
consumption of the finished, undisposed product.

There is also a lot of talk about mercury and CF light bulbs. According to this
FACT SHEET:

<http://www.nema.org/lamprecycle/epafactsheet-cfl.pdf>

the CF light bulb is responsible for less mercury in the atmosphere, totally,
if it is disposed correctly. This is based on that the electricity for the
light bulbs comes from burning fossil fuels.

/Ruben

{Quote hidden}

> -

2007\02\21@072347 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
On 2/20/07, Charles Craft <chuckseaspamspam_OUTmindspring.com> wrote:
> I know there's a couple people from NZ on the list but thought there might be one or two in Australia to comment.
>
> http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2007/02/20/PM200702203.html
>
> Australia plans to replace all incandescent light bulbs with compact flourescents by 2010 to cut greenhouse emissions.

Lots of talk of this lately and not a peep out of the RF/radio
engineering folks?

Most cheap CF's are obnoxiously RF-noisy, and they're not too
discriminating about where in the RF spectrum they decide to be noisy
at.

What a mess a whole country of them would be...

Nate

2007\02\21@075817 by Gordon Williams

picon face
One thing that people miss is that the "wasted" energy from incadesent light
bulbs is not really wasted at all for much of the year.  Living in Canada
where we heat our houses from October to April, the heat given off by light
bulbs helps offset the heat generated by the furnace (oil, gas or electric).
It is true in June to August we don't need the suplemental heat, but that is
a short peroid in comparison to the rest of the year.

I assume that it uses much more energy to create a CF bulb, consumes other
natural resources and creates more environmental waste.  I don't think that
the situation is quite as clear as it may appear at first.

I do use CF bulbs outside and were the bulb is difficult to replace due to
their longer MTF.

Regards,

Gordon Williams

2007\02\21@083344 by Tony Smith

picon face
> One thing that people miss is that the "wasted" energy from
> incadesent light bulbs is not really wasted at all for much
> of the year.  Living in Canada where we heat our houses from
> October to April, the heat given off by light bulbs helps
> offset the heat generated by the furnace (oil, gas or electric).
> It is true in June to August we don't need the suplemental
> heat, but that is a short peroid in comparison to the rest of
> the year.


Checks thermometer, & decides additional heating isn't required at the
moment.  Odd that only California & Australia have proposed this...

I think the 'but they warm up the house' is a bit of an overstatement.  They
warm up your roof and make the socket go brittle might be better.

PCs make nice warm footrests though.

(Would dark suckers cool the house down then?)

Tony

2007\02\21@084030 by Chris McSweeny

picon face
You also tend to use the lights a lot less at that time of year.

On 2/21/07, Gordon Williams <@spam@g_willKILLspamspamcyberus.ca> wrote:

> It is true in June to August we don't need the suplemental heat, but that
> is
> a short peroid in comparison to the rest of the year.
>

2007\02\21@093045 by Gordon Williams

picon face

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Smith" <KILLspamajsmithKILLspamspamrivernet.com.au>
To: "'Microcontroller discussion list - Public.'" <RemoveMEpiclistTakeThisOuTspammit.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 8:33 AM
Subject: RE: [EE]: How many australians to change a light bulb?


>
> Checks thermometer, & decides additional heating isn't required at the
> moment.  Odd that only California & Australia have proposed this...
>

Oh, but they are pushing them in Canada too.  Recently there was a program
here in Ottawa where a free CF light was given to each house.  It was
supposed to be for the porch light, not because it was outside and therefore
any heat was wasted, but rather because people tend to run these lights the
longest (which is also valid).

----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris McSweeny" <spamBeGonecpmcsweenyspamBeGonespamgmail.com>
To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <TakeThisOuTpiclistEraseMEspamspam_OUTmit.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 8:40 AM
Subject: Re: [EE]: How many australians to change a light bulb?


> You also tend to use the lights a lot less at that time of year.
>
> On 2/21/07, Gordon Williams <RemoveMEg_willspamTakeThisOuTcyberus.ca> wrote:
>
> > It is true in June to August we don't need the supplemental heat, but
that
> > is
> > a short period in comparison to the rest of the year.
> >

Yup - that is true.

Regards,

Gordon Williams

2007\02\21@094831 by David VanHorn

picon face
Supplemental heat...

Yes, I've been advised that I could save money if I blanketed my hot water
heater, but given that any escaping heat ends up in the house anyway,
through the whole winter I set it up to max temperature.  In the summer I
throttle down to minimum.

"waste heat" isn't always a loss.

But conventional light bulbs, in the cooling season (about 1/3 the year
here) are heat I could avoid.

2007\02\21@132521 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Wed, 2007-02-21 at 01:53 -0500, Charles Craft wrote:
> I know there's a couple people from NZ on the list but thought there might be one or two in Australia to comment.
>
> marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2007/02/20/PM200702203.html
>
> Australia plans to replace all incandescent light bulbs with compact flourescents by 2010 to cut greenhouse emissions.
> But Sam Eaton reports there'll still be plenty of demand for Thomas Edison's bright idea.

See, what worries me, and is SO common these days, is that people only
consider a product's effects when the consumer uses it.

Here's a question: what is the life cycle energy cost of a CFL vs. the
number of regular bulbs it replaces? Not just the energy the consumer
uses while lighting their room, but what about the total energy needed
to manufacture this bulb? What about the energy needed to properly
dispose of this bulb?

I use CFLs almost exclusively in my house, for the energy cost savings,
but I do wonder if they are REALLY as good for the planet as people
claim they are.

I have the same complaint with hybrid cars. Yes, they are fuel
efficient, but how much energy was used to create those batteries. How
much energy will be needed to dispose of those batteries? If you add it
all up, does a hybrid car REALLY treat the planet better then the
equivalent good fuel economy petrol only car? What about compared to a
small diesel car? Is it all marketing?

TTYL

2007\02\21@142029 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face

On Feb 21, 2007, at 6:48 AM, David VanHorn wrote:

> I've been advised that I could save money if I blanketed my hot water
> heater, but given that any escaping heat ends up in the house anyway

Things DEPEND.  My water heater is in the garage where leaked heat
does nothing useful at all...

BillW

2007\02\21@144539 by David VanHorn

picon face
On 2/21/07, William Chops Westfield <westfwEraseMEspam.....mac.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Feb 21, 2007, at 6:48 AM, David VanHorn wrote:
>
> > I've been advised that I could save money if I blanketed my hot water
> > heater, but given that any escaping heat ends up in the house anyway
>
> Things DEPEND.  My water heater is in the garage where leaked heat
> does nothing useful at all...


that's exactly the point.  No one-size-fits-all answers.

My father in law got on me last summer when he visited, about why our
laundry was in the basement forcing stairs to be climbed, when we could
easily put it in the garage..

Unfortunately, -25F isn't uncommon here in indiana.

He's from Hawaii.

2007\02\21@161256 by Jinx

face picon face
> I use CFLs almost exclusively in my house, for the energy cost
> savings, but I do wonder if they are REALLY as good for the
> planet as people claim they are
>
> I have the same complaint with hybrid cars
>
> Is it all marketing?

Marketing, guilt, money, ignorance, shallow thinking. And you
can't dismiss peoples' genuine desire to do something good, even
if it is on dodgy ground

There was a story here the other day about algae farms for making
bio-fuel

"New Zealand researchers are also working on second generation
biofuels -- the conversion of plant lignin and cellulose into fuels by
enzymes, and the gasification of biomass material followed by a
"gas-to-liquid" process that can be used on trees, grasses,
agricultural plant wastes, straw and algae"

which had a cover note about bacteria and enzymes doing the
conversion work instead of power input, citing the example of
the poor efficiency of corn or sugar cane conversion to ethanol
using refinery methods

So there are some reports that do show the down side of some
bio-fuels

I think the problem is that, given the current greenie climate, you
don't want to be portraying any alternative fuel as "bad", but the
effort should be made to point out the efficiencies (or not) of the
various alternatives

2007\02\21@161724 by Tony Smith

picon face
> > Checks thermometer, & decides additional heating isn't
> required at the
> > moment.  Odd that only California & Australia have proposed this...
> >
>
> Oh, but they are pushing them in Canada too.  Recently there
> was a program here in Ottawa where a free CF light was given
> to each house.  It was supposed to be for the porch light,
> not because it was outside and therefore any heat was wasted,
> but rather because people tend to run these lights the
> longest (which is also valid).


I meant where laws to ban incandescent bulbs are happening, not where people
are trying to flog you CFLs.

The power companies in Australia push CFLs as well, the bulbs are either
free or low cost.  They can then claim some carbon credits based on the
power you'll be saving.  I've no idea how the carbon thing works, it always
seemed a bit odd to me.

Tony

2007\02\21@162720 by Rikard Bosnjakovic

picon face
On 2/21/07, Jinx <EraseMEjoecolquittspamclear.net.nz> wrote:

> There was a story here the other day about algae farms for making
> bio-fuel

So how about this (old) one:

"After 25 years of research, Roberts has designed a helicopter-like
rotorcraft to hoist a wind turbine high into the air, where winds are
persistent and strong. The craft, which is powered by its own
electricity and can stay aloft for months, feeds electricity to the
ground through a cable."

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,67121-0.html

--
- Rikard.

2007\02\21@171100 by Chris McSweeny

picon face
In that case it's almost all marketing. Unless you spend most of your time
doing stop/start driving, a small diesel car is more efficient even if you
only consider the fuel economy and ignore the environmental impact of the
batteries.

On 2/21/07, Herbert Graf <RemoveMEmailinglist3EraseMEspamEraseMEfarcite.net> wrote:
>
> I have the same complaint with hybrid cars. Yes, they are fuel
> efficient, but how much energy was used to create those batteries. How
> much energy will be needed to dispose of those batteries? If you add it
> all up, does a hybrid car REALLY treat the planet better then the
> equivalent good fuel economy petrol only car? What about compared to a
> small diesel car? Is it all marketing?
>

2007\02\21@172338 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
Which I find hilarious because in NA everybody is all excited over
hybrid, yet diesel is more efficient?!??

Just goes to show how strong the lobbyists are in this part of the
world. TTYL

On Wed, 2007-02-21 at 22:10 +0000, Chris McSweeny wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2007\02\21@203021 by Forrest W. Christian

flavicon
face
David VanHorn wrote:

>
>My father in law got on me last summer when he visited, about why our
>laundry was in the basement forcing stairs to be climbed, when we could
>easily put it in the garage..
>
My dryer currently vents in-house in a lint trap due to some remodeling
we are doing.   I'm in montana, and I sure enjoy the added heat that I
would just be tossing outside.   Not to mention the humidification which
is a good thing also.   I'm almost temted to have a "summer" and
"winter" setting where it vents outside during the summer and inside
during the winter.

-forrest

2007\02\21@204615 by David VanHorn

picon face
>
>
> My dryer currently vents in-house in a lint trap due to some remodeling
> we are doing.   I'm in montana, and I sure enjoy the added heat that I
> would just be tossing outside.   Not to mention the humidification which
> is a good thing also.   I'm almost temted to have a "summer" and
> "winter" setting where it vents outside during the summer and inside
> during the winter.


That trap works well?  I wouldn't want a bunch of lint everywhere, but it
sounds interesting.

2007\02\21@211830 by Jinx

face picon face
> Unless you spend most of your time doing stop/start driving, a
> small diesel car is more efficient even if you only consider the fuel
> economy and ignore the environmental impact of the batteries

The buzz is that the efficiency of new European diesels is what to go
for if you really want to do the planet a favour

2007\02\21@213050 by Forrest W. Christian

flavicon
face
David VanHorn wrote:

>
>That trap works well?  I wouldn't want a bunch of lint everywhere, but it
>sounds interesting.
>  
>
Works pretty good.   I actually think there's less lint around than
before when the duct was long enough that I had to clean clogs out of it
fairly regularly (also in a semi-temporary location).  

In reality, I intend to return the vent to 100% outside as soon as I
reasonably can.  Primarily because this is a gas dryer and this really
really really shouldn't be vented inside due to CO3 issues (I have a
pair of CO3 sensors near the dryer to detect any issues -haven't seen
any Co3 rise so far).  The only reason I'm doing this right now is that
I'm remodeling the whole area where the dryer lives and I'm in that
middle period where the old dryer vent is unavailable but the new one
has not been cut in yet - which will be nice and short and easy to clean.

-forrest

2007\02\21@214903 by Forrest Christian

flavicon
face
Forrest W. Christian wrote:
> Primarily because this is a gas dryer and this really really really
> shouldn't be vented inside due to CO3 issues
Ok, so I just invented a new compound.   (Think forrest, think, Mono=1,
not 3).   That should have been CO (carbon monoxide) issues, not CO3
(carbon trioxide?  Don't think that's possible).

Maybe it's time for bed.

-forrest

2007\02\21@221635 by Zik Saleeba

face picon face
I'd say pure electrics are the go if you're _really_ keen on saving
the planet. There are a surprising number of electric conversions
around and if you charge your car on wind electric power you're
creating 0% emissions, which is about as environmentally sound as it
gets. The only real environmental cost is in the battery replacement
and apparently with lead acid batteries about 95% of the cells are
recycled these days anyway.

Of course electric cars have been "not quite there yet" for a few
years but with newer motors using rare earth magnets they can compete
well in terms of performance. They're _much_ cheaper to run (about 5x
here in Oz). The only downside is range, which is still limited with
current affordable battery technology. The range would be fine if you
ran a car off lithium polymers - but a little dangerous and very
expensive.

http://www.eaaev.org/
http://www.revaindia.com/
http://www.teslamotors.com/

Cheers,
Zik

On 2/22/07, Jinx <RemoveMEjoecolquittTakeThisOuTspamspamclear.net.nz> wrote:
> > Unless you spend most of your time doing stop/start driving, a
> > small diesel car is more efficient even if you only consider the fuel
> > economy and ignore the environmental impact of the batteries
>
> The buzz is that the efficiency of new European diesels is what to go
> for if you really want to do the planet a favour
>
> -

2007\02\22@043325 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>> Unless you spend most of your time doing stop/start driving, a
>> small diesel car is more efficient even if you only consider the fuel
>> economy and ignore the environmental impact of the batteries
>
>The buzz is that the efficiency of new European diesels is what to go
>for if you really want to do the planet a favour

<dream mode>
Just remembering having my Ford Focus Diesel cruising the German Autobahn at
200kph while on holiday a fortnight back, and the throttle still wasn't
quite "pedal to the metal".
</dream mode>

2007\02\22@054012 by Michael Rigby-Jones

picon face


>-----Original Message-----
>From: EraseMEpiclist-bouncesspamspamspamBeGonemit.edu [RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesKILLspamspammit.edu]
>On Behalf Of Zik Saleeba
>Sent: 22 February 2007 03:17
>To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
>Subject: Re: [EE]: How many australians to change a light bulb?
>
>
>I'd say pure electrics are the go if you're _really_ keen on
>saving the planet. There are a surprising number of electric
>conversions around and if you charge your car on wind electric
>power you're creating 0% emissions, which is about as
>environmentally sound as it gets. The only real environmental
>cost is in the battery replacement and apparently with lead
>acid batteries about 95% of the cells are recycled these days anyway.

What if you factor in the coal fired power stations that recharge the batteries in many countries?  Electric cars are only environmentaly sound if the original source of the power is also clean.

Regards

Mike

=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================

2007\02\22@074807 by Mauricio Giovagnini

flavicon
face


----- Mensaje original ----
De: Michael Rigby-Jones <Michael.Rigby-JonesSTOPspamspamspam_OUTbookham.com>
Para: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. <spamBeGonepiclistSTOPspamspamEraseMEmit.edu>
Enviado: jueves 22 de febrero de 2007, 7:41:46
Asunto: RE: [EE]: How many australians to change a light bulb?


>>What if you factor in the coal fired power stations that recharge the batteries in many countries?  
>> Electric cars are only >environmentaly sound if the original source of the power is also clean.

>>Regards

>>Mike




Nice thought, seems pritty obvious but Its true that its not much mentioned.  

The publicity is focused on the polution that the electric cars won't produce but there's no much info on how that electricity is made (with nuclear reactors for example).






       

       
               
__________________________________________________
Preguntá. Respondé. Descubrí.
Todo lo que querías saber, y lo que ni imaginabas,
está en Yahoo! Respuestas (Beta).
¡Probalo ya!
http://www.yahoo.com.ar/respuestas

2007\02\22@084652 by Dave Tweed

face
flavicon
face
David VanHorn <KILLspamdvanhornspamBeGonespammicrobrix.com> wrote:
> someone wrote:
> > My dryer currently vents in-house in a lint trap due to some
> > remodeling we are doing. I'm in montana, and I sure enjoy the
> > added heat that I would just be tossing outside. Not to mention
> > the humidification which is a good thing also. I'm almost temted
> > to have a "summer" and "winter" setting where it vents outside
> > during the summer and inside during the winter.

My father did exactly that for his house, and is quite happy with the
arrangement.

> That trap works well? I wouldn't want a bunch of lint everywhere,
> but it sounds interesting.

He uses a standard hot-air furnace filter. Since that's the kind of
heat he has anyway, he just built a plywood box to hold the same
size filter that the furnace uses. A circular port on the side
accepts the dryer vent hose, using, I believe, a one-pound coffee
can as an adapter. It works very well.

-- Dave Tweed

2007\02\22@182556 by Zik Saleeba

face picon face
Sure, coal electricity is bad emissions-wise. That'd be why I
specified wind electric power in my original post. But even with
coal-fired power the emissions for an electric vehicle are roughly
half that of petrol-powered vehicles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_electric_vehicle#Energy_efficiency_and_carbon_dioxide_emissions

Cheers,
Zik

On 2/22/07, Michael Rigby-Jones <EraseMEMichael.Rigby-JonesspamEraseMEbookham.com> wrote:
>
>
> >{Original Message removed}

2007\02\23@061119 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Zik Saleeba wrote:

> Sure, coal electricity is bad emissions-wise. That'd be why I
> specified wind electric power in my original post. But even with
> coal-fired power the emissions for an electric vehicle are roughly
> half that of petrol-powered vehicles:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_electric_vehicle#Energy_efficiency_and_carbon_dioxide_emissions

The thing is that the engine in a normal car runs very rarely if ever in
its optimal point, whereas the systems that create energy in the plants can
be run in their optimal spot.

A normal combustion engine is a very inefficient means to drive a car. It's
just a common solution, but not a good one -- at least not as long as we
don't have a near-100% efficient wide range torque converter (which would
allow to run the engine in its most efficient point, no matter the speed
and torque requirements at the axle).

Gerhard

2007\02\24@111009 by Dario Greggio

face picon face
Jinx wrote:

> The buzz is that the efficiency of new European diesels is what to go
> for if you really want to do the planet a favour

FIAT rulez :-))


--
Ciao, Dario il Grande (522-485 a.C.)
--
ADPM Synthesis sas - Torino
--
http://www.adpm.tk

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2007 , 2008 only
- Today
- New search...