Public Address | System (Home)

Posted at 3:38AM on 25 Mar 09. Permalink.

It was as if the essense of uselessness took corporeal form, put on a suit and became a lobbyist.

A Lord Sauron for consumerist, pseudo-liberal times? Brilliant!

Here in Canada there is some concern that the switch to CFL bulbs (mandatory from 2012 ... thanks to a Conservative Federal Government) may increase CO2 emissions ... at least in those areas with electricity produced through hydro.

The idea being that the reduced heat output from bulbs (powered by hydro) will be replaced by increased central heating (powered by burning natural gas).

Some explanation here.

BC Hydro estimates the lighting regulations will increase annual GHG emissions in BC Hydro’s service territory by 45,000 tonnes due to cross-effects. That is, the replacement of inefficient lights with efficient lights that produce less waste heat will lead to increased fossil fuel use for non-electric space heating.

Posted at 6:40AM on 25 Mar 09. Permalink.

Great stuff Keith. Am currently illuminated solely by the light of my laptop, so that's gotta count for something.

But the pressing issue for me is: with all the refuseniks and disgruntleds out there using the 'nanny state' as shorthand for whatever it is they don't like about society, has anyone asked the nannies how they feel about their job title being co-opted into political discourse as a code for wanton interferers and busybodies? Maybe the nannies should band together and hire Crosby Textor to finesse their image, or maybe just shift the blame. Librarian state? Anyone?

Posted at 7:23AM on 25 Mar 09. Permalink.

I actually liked 'Fuck Earth Hour' better as a title.

Posted at 7:38AM on 25 Mar 09. Permalink.

Instead, we put restrictions on telecommunication devices, and we don't whinge about it being the heavy hand of the nanny-state molesting us.

Oh, it's way worse than that, Keith. We take instructions on what telecommunications devices to allow and what to restrict from an agency administered by the United Nations. I think that tells you all you need to know, comrade.

Posted at 8:16AM on 25 Mar 09. Permalink.

The people advertising Earth Hour on my campus were handing out energy-effiicient lightbulbs, which is...better than nothing. I mean, that will cause an *actual* reduction in carbon emissions.

My partner describes Earth Hour as a way to alleviate guilt, and he's so right. I wouldn't be surprised if it discourages people from doing something to actually reduce their emissions, because, hey, they participated in Earth Hour! They voted for the planet! That counts, right?

That ad campaign is really, really dumb.

Librarian state? Anyone?

I'd be careful saying that. Danielle might hear you.

Posted at 8:44AM on 25 Mar 09. Permalink.

Hat-tip to The Standard for this:

Keith's post has made me angry all over again about National's axis-of-stupidity attack on rational energy efficiency initiatives. One might hope that having won the election with the "OMG! the commie lightbulbs are coming!" message they'd settle down and do something more intelligent.

But no.

I should add that we have a houseful of CFL bulbs. Every time an old one went, my darling would replace it with a more efficient one. I generally didn't even notice.

Posted at 8:48AM on 25 Mar 09. Permalink.

Best. Post. Ever.

Posted at 8:51AM on 25 Mar 09. Permalink.

I'd be careful saying that. Danielle might hear you.

Heh. Believe me, I hate some particularly, erm, *librarianish* librarians just as much as the rest of you. Probably more. I think calling it a 'librarian state' would be vastly more accurate than 'nanny'.

(Example: nz-libs' debate about S92a actually included some tosser saying 'as an information professional, I am embarrassed by all the to-do over this issue'. O RLY?)

Posted at 8:52AM on 25 Mar 09. Permalink.

Best. Post. Ever.

Oh yes, I forgot to say: this post wins a 'righteous!' award.

Posted at 9:04AM on 25 Mar 09. Permalink.

Um, Keith, aren't you out by a factor of 1000?

60W x 3hrs x 365days = 65,700 watt hours = 66KWh ?

Posted at 9:08AM on 25 Mar 09. Permalink.

However, you are right. Having a small number of middle-class, aware people in developed countries make a token gesture isn't going to change anything.

Systematic energy saving measures will. So will building more wind/water poer and shutting down thermal. NZ could be on 120% renewable electricity (e.g. with zero non-renewable power and some fossil fuel replacement) by 2020. Unfortunately we're going backwards for at least the next three years.

Posted at 9:20AM on 25 Mar 09. Permalink.

Just to throw a little more information into the mix

I worked at the Electricity Commission on the CFL project promoting and subsidising high quality bulbs, we got about six million out into peoples homes, saved a whole lot of $ and energy and sparked off some market development and competition in the lighting suppliers.

CFLs are cheaper at producing power, through savings in replacing incandescant bulb usage, then building new power stations by a factor of about 7

We were not in favour of a full ban on incandescant bulbs.

We thought a market based solution with high quality products demonstrating benfits was better then forcing people into behavioural changes. We had some evidence from the UK that home owners were removing dedicated CFL fittings and putting standard light fittings in becasue they didn't like being forced into having dedicated CFLs.

There are issues with power quality when you increase the penetration rates of CFLs (they are non linear loads that cause power factor issues and harmonic problems - which can mean extra problems elsewhere in the supply system and yoour appliances). The quality of the bulbs has a major impact, banning bulbs would allow a flood of the cheaper CFLs in that excacerbate these issues.

The proposal to ban the incandescant bulb actually started in Australia when the previous environment minister (Howard Governement) recognised he had an election to win and started to make up policies without checking what the effects would be first. As the officials scrambled around to make good the ministers promise, it was recognised that under the CER agreements any ban in Australia would have impact in the NZ market too. So David Parker was pretty much forced to launch the idea here. When I left the EC the officials here were still trying to work through the details of how to not to ban the incandescant bulbs in stoves, fridges, halogens, heat lamps (both for people and animal raising) etc etc. Is not quite as simple as you might thing.

Still fully agree with concept of putting in CFLs (I did go around putting them in my families homes), but they are not a panacea.

@ dc_red - we did consider take back and heat replacement, still out weighted by the savings under the most pessimistic cases.

Posted at 9:25AM on 25 Mar 09. Permalink.

Hilarious post, possibly one of the best blog posts I've read in quite a while. Agree with Russell that it just makes you angry all over again though - insanity, absolute cave-man insanity.

Also, Andrew - are there some kind of warranty periods on the squiggly bulbs? I thought part of the "sell" was their extended lifetime but I had one that can't be more than a few months old stop working the other day and come out with a slightly blackened base. Can I take that back for a replacement?

Posted at 9:32AM on 25 Mar 09. Permalink.

are there some kind of warranty periods on the squiggly bulbs? I thought part of the "sell" was their extended lifetime but I had one that can't be more than a few months old stop working the other day and come out with a slightly blackened base. Can I take that back for a replacement?

There was a 2 year warrenty deal on the bulbs subsidied by the EC, you may have more luck contacting the supplier then trying to get the replacement from your local supermarket if you don't have a reciept.
Just don't stick an incandescant back in that socket, get a good CFL.

Posted at 9:39AM on 25 Mar 09. Permalink.

I worked at the Electricity Commission on the CFL project promoting and subsidising high quality bulbs, we got about six million out into peoples homes, saved a whole lot of $ and energy and sparked off some market development and competition in the lighting suppliers.

I think price is one of the biggest factors in resistance to CFLs. We've replaced all our bulbs with them, but it's taken a long time. Just making them remotely comparable in price to incandescents would help a lot in converting people to them. Yeah, I know they probably work out cheaper over the long period, but it's an example of the boots theory of economics.

Posted at 9:47AM on 25 Mar 09. Permalink.

Keith's post has made me angry all over again about National's axis-of-stupidity attack on rational energy efficiency initiatives. One might hope that having won the election with the "OMG! the commie lightbulbs are coming!" message they'd settle down and do something more intelligent.

It sounds increasingly like the sort of stuff President Obama launched an intellectual nuke at, but with light bulbs instead of tyre pressures.

Again, what if Obama, Gordon Brown et al were to make energy efficiency and carbon reduction conditions of a free trade agreement? Would it be the lobbyists who pushed for an FTA under Dubya who'd now be whingeing about Yankee paternalism?

And what if a tourist does a Nicky Hager and writes an eco-exposé on NZ, regardless of the truth or not?

Posted at 9:49AM on 25 Mar 09. Permalink.

Just don't stick an incandescant back in that socket, get a good CFL.

Oh yeah, definitely. We only buy CFL's now.
Thanks, think it was Signature Range one so Foodtown are the supplier effectively.

Isn't there some great little NZ company producing really good ones, bulbs that have a much higher "brightness output"?

Posted at 9:51AM on 25 Mar 09. Permalink.

We had some evidence from the UK that home owners were removing dedicated CFL fittings and putting standard light fittings in becasue they didn't like being forced into having dedicated CFLs.

Ah yes. Garth George claimed in his Herald column to have been making plans to stockpile the old bulbs. You can't fight butt-headed stupidity, I guess ...

The proposal to ban the incandescant bulb actually started in Australia ..

Fascinating. I never knew that.

So David Parker was pretty much forced to launch the idea here. When I left the EC the officials here were still trying to work through the details of how to not to ban the incandescant bulbs in stoves, fridges, halogens, heat lamps (both for people and animal raising) etc etc. Is not quite as simple as you might thing.

Wasn't it phrased as a phase-out rather than a ban anyway? Having abandoned the scheme, Brownlee has gone notably quiet on providing the information that was supposed to let people decide for themselves.

Posted at 9:56AM on 25 Mar 09. Permalink.

Isn't there some great little NZ company producing really good ones, bulbs that have a much higher "brightness output"?

http://www.energymad.com/nz/
Interestingly the two other people who worked with me at the EC are now working for Energymad selling these CFLs around the world...

Posted at 10:01AM on 25 Mar 09. Permalink.

Garth George claimed in his Herald column to have been making plans to stockpile the old bulbs.

Wow Garth, elaborate plan. I'm going to stockpile the bulbs! There, plan done.

Do I dare ask WHY he was going to? Scratch that, the less exposure I have to that bitter old thoughtprocess the healthier I'll be I imagine.

Posted at 10:04AM on 25 Mar 09. Permalink.

We replaced the light fittings in our lounge from incandescents to CFLs. The CFL fittings looked nicer and apart from taking some time to "warm up" they produced a nice illuminations for the lounge.

BUT

We then had to repaint the whole lounge ceiling because the fittings were a little bit smaller and the paint that was previously hidden had not changed colour the way the rest had.

I'm not sure the environmental cost of the new paint has been paid off yet :(.

And then wierdly we have one fitting where the CFL keeps blowing out, average lifetime about 1 month. At the moment it is an empty socket which saves even more power but leaves me somewhat concerned about the quality of our wiring.

Doing the right thing can get complicated.

So how do you know it's a "good quality" CFL?

Posted at 10:17AM on 25 Mar 09. Permalink.

I hate earth hour! It just feels so sanctimonious and smug. I think I'll go and turn on every light and apppliance while its on ;-)

I was pissed off with the ban on incandesant bulbs, just because of the way it was done - I'd already swapped most of mine over, quite happily, but I didn't like having another ban imposed.This is one area where the market would have led people naturally to the better environmental choice.

Posted at 10:18AM on 25 Mar 09. Permalink.

The big problem here was the politicization of the CFL. People just don't like being told what to do by a party that they don't like. However, I have to admit that I don't particularly like the light given off by CFL's but word has it that they will be available in different colours soon. As Andrew pointed out there are situations where only an incandescent bulb will do the job and to legislate for this would be a nightmare.
Saving power is a good thing in terms of pollution and economics. Why this Government is determined to ignore this fact I am at a loss to explain but I suspect it is rooted in the odd belief that what is good for one (rich prick) is good for the nation. I suspect that the electricity generators and retailers want us to consume as much power as we can and abhor the idea of efficiency and as such have lobbied hard to remove the legislation around CFLs.
I am going to go out on a limb here and say that I do not agree with the CO2 = Global Warming hypothesis. Studies have shown that, although there is a correlation between CO2 levels and Global Warming, a rise in CO2 follows a rise in temperature so CO2 cannot be the cause.
But, Global warming is a big business in itself. Ask any academic looking for funding, If you want funding all you have to do is append the name of your study with the words "With regard to Global Warming" and you're home and hosed.

Posted at 10:18AM on 25 Mar 09. Permalink.

So how do you know it's a "good quality" CFL?

The ones supported by the EC have to meet very high standards, see CFL Programme

Posted at 10:21AM on 25 Mar 09. Permalink.

While I'm being a dick about this, I should also address the people who are opposing Earth Hour by joining "Edison Hour", which encourages participants to "use as much power and energy as possible in order to celebrate the advancement of mankind."

Please, learn some fucking science.

How about "Enron Hour"?

Posted at 10:21AM on 25 Mar 09. Permalink.

Kieth, I thought this was a great rant, agreed with everything you said . . .

BUT

I do wonder if Labour considered how many votes, and seats in the house it was worth to ban incandescent light bulbs?

Given that getting rid of the nanny state was the main thrust of National's campaign, and the CFL/cold showers debate was arguably the high/low point of that campaign I'd argue that the number of seats Labour lost purely on the light bulbs issue was a non-zero number. And given that the Nats repealed the ban almost as soon as they got into power it means that Labour threw away at least one seat in the house on a totally pointless, futile gesture.

Posted at 10:26AM on 25 Mar 09. Permalink.

And then wierdly we have one fitting where the CFL keeps blowing out, average lifetime about 1 month. At the moment it is an empty socket which saves even more power but leaves me somewhat concerned about the quality of our wiring.

This could be what Andrew referred to earlier, harmonics. The high frequency inverter in the base of the bulb can create HF back into the wiring and in doing so can affect other devices. In the case of the device being another CFL the HF combining with the output of the inverter can cause a harmonic spike in the voltage within the bulb itself and cause it to self destruct.

Posted at 10:29AM on 25 Mar 09. Permalink.

Well, we're a big bunch of greenies, and our house doesn't do Earth Hour. I think my objections were summed up pretty well last year by a comment in Your Views (also by this post, though I'm not suggesting any equivalency here).

Some women were furious because, while they were enjoying Earth Hour, they went to see how many other people were doing it, and were shocked and appalled that so many lights were still on in their neighbourhood.

They did this by getting in their car and driving around.

Posted at 10:32AM on 25 Mar 09. Permalink.

I am going to go out on a limb here and say that I do not agree with the CO2 = Global Warming hypothesis. Studies have shown that, although there is a correlation between CO2 levels and Global Warming, a rise in CO2 follows a rise in temperature so CO2 cannot be the cause.

Ha, did you read your own link though Steve? It's pointing out the well understood realities around the CO2 warming lag. Lets just quote straight from that article:

This proves that rising CO2 was not the trigger that caused the initial warming at the end of these ice ages - but no climate scientist has ever made this claim. It certainly does not challenge the idea that more CO2 heats the planet.

What seems to have happened at the end of the recent ice ages is that some factor - most probably orbital changes - caused a rise in temperature. This led to an increase in CO2, resulting in further warming that caused more CO2 to be released and so on: a positive feedback that amplified a small change in temperature. At some point, the shrinking of the ice sheets further amplified the warming.

Models suggest that rising greenhouse gases, including CO2, explains about 40% of the warming as the ice ages ended. The figure is uncertain because it depends on how the extent of ice coverage changed over time, and there is no way to pin this down precisely.

Not to turn this into yet another interwebs AGW thread, but the historical CO2/warming lag is well understood and doesn't contradict AGW at all.

Posted at 10:37AM on 25 Mar 09. Permalink.

Don't be silly Gareth, of course the link said that, otherwise the authors' funding would dry up...

You've got to read between the lines.