Green movement = nonsense.

“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).

Ah right. Well they were bought new recently, so I think they might be ‘modern’ types although I have no way of knowing this. Neither get at all warm though.

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.

My mistake; it was to do with the high wattage in the front room (12x50W =600W of lighting, ridiculous!). The original switches just gave up.

I have looked into LEDs, but once again, the cost far outweighs any monetary savings for me personally. Call me selfish, but I’m not splashing out 19x£10 or whatever (thattul be about what ittul cost seeing as how 12 need to be dimmable). I might have a chat with me layndlord see if we can’t work something out but considering how little I use the lights in the front room (use side lamps) the ‘saving’ will not work out for me, as I’m not going to be living here for long enough for it to make economic sense. The next tenants might benefit from it, but I’m not wealthy enough to provide others with economic savings, however altruistic and socialist that would be. If anyone can find me some GU10 dimmable 50W equivalent spots for less than wunundred pounds for say 20 of them, let me know. I may replace the ones in the kitchen and bathroom though, but I’ll be wanting money off the LL for that too.

But tbh I might be out of here in a few months, so there woodunt be much point. Rather pay a few quid a year extra as it stands.

Can someone work out how much ittud cost to run a 100W bulb for say 6 hours a day (really rough estimated daily use over a year), for one year, over an ES one at 20W?

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.

Do you ever get out of your little bubble at all? Or pull yer head out from yer bum, to have a look around you once in a while?

What? Sorrry? I’m a better dancer than you so please be quiet. Thx bai.

What are you on about? They would do it as they do now.

No rolling eyes please. I was asking how you would see different types of transport being used in the future in your ideal world. You know, constructive discussion? 🙂

Many of us could of course work remotely, and many could use mass transit, but there are limits. Would you just continue to burn dinosaurs for those who actually need personal transport?

How convenient that you don’t have links to them

You think I am making it up or something? Deliberately trying to mislead you to score points on the internet?

I reported it how I remembered it. But I did not bookmark the pages.

Would you just continue to burn dinosaurs for those who actually need personal transport?

when there is no cleaner functional alternative yes.

Electric cars simply do not come close to being viable.

Yeah but unless people keep making and improving electric cars, we won’t ever have owt efficient.

Lectric lightbulb was invented several thousand years ago. It was far more ‘efficient’ than any other form of lighting a building. Now we have Energy Saving bulbs. Had the original ‘innefficent by today’s standards’ incandescent bulb not bin invented, we’d not have the ES ones and probbly still be burning even more fossil fuels to provide lighting for our homes.

Got to start somewhere, in’t yer?

I take it you’re still using a Charles Babbage machine to do internets?

Renault claim 185 km or 115 miles. So in reality that will be less in actual use or much less in winter with lights and heater on. Then if you want short charge times and long battery life you need to only partially charge and recharge so then you need some reserve so the practical range will be lucky to be half that.

I am quite happy for efforts to make electric cars to continue and for short urban commutes they are viable now. fro the likes of district nurses tehy are nearly there but not there yet and there remains the pollution aspect which is hard to get away from

Some journalists were given a fluence and did better than the claimed mileage driving carefully: over 200km. Doing their best to flatten the battery they still got 150ish. The Renault claim seems realistic unless you live in a ski resort.

This is the future for urban personal transportation. If only people would stop being such brainless idiots and realise it, like the stupid cah trying to reverse a gert big Chelsea tractor through some closely parked cars earlier, then having a go at me cos I just waited, rather than go up on the pavement to go round her. TBH I was finding her pathetic ‘driving’ quite amusing, and told her she might be better off getting a smaller car she could actually see what she was doing in, rather than using a flipping tank in a congested urban area. Thick as pigpoo, some folk, not to mention utterly selfish.

Any way I digress…

Ta-da!

I’d like to see one of those meet an angry bus/lorry.

Yeah but if there were more little cars like that on the roads, there’d be more space, less congestion, and less stress. So people woodunt be doing the kind of stupid things that lead to accidents, as much. Plus, urban traffic speeds are much lower so impact forces are too. And I’m sure with modern technology, something that size could be made to be just as safe as larger cars. Bung soft rubber bits on buses and lorries.

The woman mentioned will be in the same place same time each day. I may go there every day, just to laugh at her.

if there were more little cars like that on the roads

As the missus said last night, that’s the only time I’d even think of using something like that. Infact it’d have to be the majority of cars. Can’t see them being much cop in the winter months, though…

You think I am making it up or something? Deliberately trying to mislead you to score points on the internet?

Given the quick search I did came up with much higher figures than that (and none making claims anywhere near close), I wasn’t quite sure what conclusion to draw about such claims being made by somebody clearly in love with the electric car concept.

This is the future for urban personal transportation

FTFY

No because not everyone can use a two-wheeled vehicle.

I have actually bin thinking about the feasibility of a small electric car type thing for use in town. With a little detachable trailer, to transport extra stuffs in. TBH the concept would be far easier using a small petrol engine, as that’s the tech we have set up. Until leccy vehicle tech has reached a stage where we can feasibly have charging points all over our towns and cities (why not; there are lamp posts all over the place), then it will be a poor option.

I’d love something like that little Renault thing. I could nip about all over the place in one of those.

Mind you, I already can on my bike. Today went somewhere 9 miles each way, which is longer than the average urban journey by private vehicle. all under my own steam, keeping fit and producing no toxic emissions.

(Goes to switch on all the halogen lights in the house)

Running a 100W bulb continuously costs about £100 a year (I don’t know how much leccy costs in London but that won’t be far out). Three 3.8W LED bulbs would use about £9 in electricity, produce more light and cost about £12 each to buy. You’d have to fit a couple of extra light fittings, say a tenner each and switches at a pound. You’d then have the possibility of three different light levels. How long it would take to pay for the change depends on how many hours a day you use the light.

Not energy efficient how? What happens to the energy they “waste”?

The bulb is 50W to power and provide the light. The equivalent LED bulb is perhaps 4 or 5W for the same light. So – a tenth of the input power for the same light. Different technology and the halogen bulb turns more of the electriciy into heat rather than light.

bikes are horrible little polluting things as well if you look at a full LCA

The mining and refining of metals
the manufacturing of all our lovely shiny things,
the use of high gloss voc paints, TGIC containing powder coats etc
the 100 plus chemicals that go into a modern rubber manufacture for tyres plus the significant energy consumption in the milling and curing of the rubber
the fact that carbon fibre can’t fully be recycled and the possibility that carbon nano tubes may have long term effects much like asbestos
the transportation costs
and so on

the only green option is to walk, barefoot…..in the nip…..back to your mud hut then you may reduce your carbon footprint…a little bit

OP wanders back into thread scratching his head …..
Really didn’t expect this to run so long but now it has I’ll risk the wrath of the dark greens and pose a question 😈
Purely for the devil of it,

As I understand things it is a commonly held belief in some quarters that the current spell of global warming roughly coincides with increased fossil fuel burning etc over the last 400 approx years and is mainly due to the actions of humans…

What if …. And bear with me here …. Just supposing … There was another much bigger factor at work at the same time, one that had NO human influence what so ever …. Could it just be that this factor is a much more likely reason for increased global warming AND depletion of the Ozone layer ?

And please it’s not meant to be a cop out, excuse, or any other criticism you may want to throw my way BUT just look into the South Atlantic Anamoly and then tell me that there is no way the earths magnetic field could not be at least partly the reason for climate change …. I for 1 am sure that however big we humans think we are, Mother Nature sure KNOWS she is and always will be bigger

TJ,

We’ve discussed the concept of electric cars before. Your argument for renewables, as ever, is that there will be major improvements over current proven tech.

Why is it therefore, that unless anything you seem to disagree with is already at the pinnacle, you refuse to accept the concept that they will improve with further development?

For the record, most of the cars that Adelaide city council use are electric. They seem to work just fine. Certainly urban and suburban home-service seems the most likely industry where electric cars will have their first application. Long distance in rural areas where public transport is inefficient, and you’re looking at H2 fuel cells – the intractable issue here is what’s going to produce the H2?

Oil is running out, especially in terms of energy return. This is the main reason the cost keeps going up – it costs a lot more to get at it than just drilling a hole and up it comes. Light green, dark green, or a vague shade of yellow, unless radical changes are made to how modern society works, we’re going to need a substitute to oil pretty soon. If everyone stopped driving, there would be a lot of hungry uneducated, ill, people sat in the cold and dark. Not an image that’ll even get FishFace elected again…

What if …. And bear with me here …. Just supposing … There was another much bigger factor at work at the same time, one that had NO human influence what so ever …. Could it just be that this factor is a much more likely reason for increased global warming AND depletion of the Ozone layer ?

No. Next question, please.

Thousands of the world’s brightest people are working on this, and all have come to more or less the same conclusion. What makes you think they’d have missed something as obvious as this? Moreover, what makes you think that increasing the inputs of gases proven to cause warming at rates much faster than ever observed in the ice core and geological records will have absolutely no effect?

Good trolling though…

zokes – renewables tech is worth having now, electric cars are not.

there is no significant co2 reduction over the life of the car pre mile travelled ( counting the cost of the battery production and so on)

What they do is two things –
1) reduce pollution in cities
2) provide a greenwash / fig leaf that allows people to pretend that there is an answer that does not involve a change in lifestyle.

the halogen bulb turns more of the electriciy into heat rather than light.

At what time of year do you generally make most use of your halogen light bulbs?

(we’ll get there eventually, even if we have to do it drip by drip)

Thousands of the world’s brightest people are working on this, and all have come to more or less the same conclusion.

That humans are having an effect on our climate? As a sceptic I’m more than happy to agree with that point, along with that excess CO2 production does contribute to the warming effect – all good science.

Last time I looked there wasn’t a huge amount of agreement on how much that effect was, nor how much difference we’re making to the underlying changes which would be happening even if we weren’t here. Though doubtless I’ll be condemned as a heretic for even daring to suggest such a thing.

At what time of year do you generally make most use of your halogen light bulbs?

At night – which is a time of day.

You get the same light for 1/10 of the electrical energy consumed from an LED. I don’t think you’ll get there no matter how much you drip.

the point he is making is if the room is insulated you don’t waste the heat – you need less heat from your heating

I think he actually meant Winter, when it’s darker and you’d have the lights on a lot more. 😆

I can understaynd why you din’t get that though.

It’s a matter of brightness, you see.

I’m sorry Fred – I tend not to use smileys when I resort to irony. The brighter ones tend to get it without them. 😉

If he is going to use the ‘well they heat the house’ arguement (which is where I think it is going), it is a fallacy and would be a REALLY inefficient method of heating – up at ceiling level or even recessed so you heat the void above your room.

Ah, is that the Edinburgh Defence? 😆

Seriously mate- bed time. You need the rest.

That humans are having an effect on our climate? As a sceptic I’m more than happy to agree with that point, along with that excess CO2 production does contribute to the warming effect – all good science.

Last time I looked there wasn’t a huge amount of agreement on how much that effect was, nor how much difference we’re making to the underlying changes which would be happening even if we weren’t here. Though doubtless I’ll be condemned as a heretic for even daring to suggest such a thing.
MMMMMM emotive language like heretic first post….WOW why not just use facts to persuade us
You are not a heretic you are just disagreeing with the experts i does not make you a heretic it just makes it highly likely you are wrong.

Ps all the answers are in the IPCC report and its all the change is due to us as it would be cooling as the suns output has declined and its warming
and this

Thousands of the world’s brightest people are working on this, and all have come to more or less the same conclusion. What makes you think they’d have missed something as obvious as this? Moreover, what makes you think that increasing the inputs of gases proven to cause warming at rates much faster than ever observed in the ice core and geological records will have absolutely no effect?

Good trolling though…

why not cure cancer instead with your super skills? you do believe that exists dont you or are those experts wrong too?

Thanks Junky – you’ve put the world to rights again after elf and TJ supporting me on my other point.

it is a fallacy and would be a REALLY inefficient method of heating – up at ceiling level or even recessed so you heat the void above your room.

Strangely enough I have other rooms in my house above the ceilings of the rooms in which the lights are used the most. Remind me again how this energy is being wasted – where is it going?

and once more you have defeated me with the powerful tools of logic, reason and scientific evidence at your disposal rather than just make a glib pointless gentle ad hominem aside…well done you.

oh look… an argument on STW…
Happy New Year all!

renewables tech is worth having now, electric cars are not.

Eh? Why?

there is no significant co2 reduction over the life of the car pre mile travelled ( counting the cost of the battery production and so on)

Data?

You’re happily counting the full LCA of the parts specific to electric cars, now why not do so for conventional cars; including the ever-reducing energy return for extracting increasingly difficult sources of oil (including, potentially, The Falklands)

What they do is two things –
1) reduce pollution in cities

And if charged from renewables (and dare I say it, nuclear), elsewhere…

2) provide a greenwash / fig leaf that allows people to pretend that there is an answer that does not involve a change in lifestyle.

To some extent, I agree. But (and it’s a big ‘but’), what I never get from you TJ on these sorts of threads is just how you plan to effect that lifestyle change

D’oh…

Last time I looked there wasn’t a huge amount of agreement on how much that effect was, nor how much difference we’re making to the underlying changes which would be happening even if we weren’t here. Though doubtless I’ll be condemned as a heretic for even daring to suggest such a thing.

Have a look here: http://www.ipcc.ch/ – the name should give it away a little.

To some extent, I agree. But (and it’s a big ‘but’), what I never get from you TJ on these sorts of threads is just how you plan to effect that lifestyle change

I have done so many times.

It will take a generation to affect the change. Simply ratchet up the price of energy and put that money into alternatives. Make the polluter pay. Along with other steps such as banning out of town shopping.

It will take a generation to affect the change. Simply ratchet up the price of energy and put that money into alternatives. Make the polluter pay. Along with other steps such as banning out of town shopping

It’s a great concept, and maybe after a generation or two people will change. Any government forcing it though will result in them losing the next election, and the incoming government being elected on the promise of repealing said legislation. Sadly the opposition here are likely to get in next time thanks to this…

I’m sure a virus pandemic or something will turn up to redress the balance. We’ve not been here that long really.

It will take a generation to affect the change. Simply ratchet up the price of energy and put that money into alternatives. Make the polluter pay. Along with other steps such as banning out of town shopping.

Taxing the poor then, I can see that working.

Taxing the poor then, I can see that working.

I’m not going to expect anyone to read up on Australia’s Carbon Tax which will come into effect on July 1st, but they have made what in my (and also Nature Climate Change’s) view a very good effort at addressing this as well as possible. They’re taxing only the 500 most polluting companies. They’re then using that money to pay anyone on low-middle incomes the projected increase in energy prices, as well as paying land holders $1bn to improve biodiversity and reduce GHG losses from soils. And C prices are fixed for 3 years to help companies adjust before going to a full ETS scheme, and all the vagaries of markets…

Pretty sad then that even with all that, the first thing the opposition wants to do when it comes to power is unravel the whole lot, and I suspect that they will be elected on the basis of that promise…