This page commenced on Sunday, 1st April 2007
Last night (Saturday, 31st March 2007), more than 30,000 Sydney households
and 1,000 businesses switched off their lights, for an hour commencing at
7:30 p.m., "to raise awareness about global warming". (Click
here
to read more.)
A noble sentiment, perhaps - but did it achieve anything more than a
symbolic recognition of the fact that there is public awareness of the now
very apparent severe trouble in which our world increasingly finds itself?
Did it represent the beginnings of a practical solution? Or was it merely
something for people to do to give themselves a good feeling about "being
involved" in some way? A gesture, basically?
Reading on in the page whose link appears above, we find that the World
Wildlife Fund has been planning "Earth Hour" for ten months, and that the
aim is ultimately to have only lights "associated with public safety" left
on at night.
On the news tonight, there was an item about a large ice sheet (about 900
square kilometres) becoming detached from a polar region. As I write this,
I've forgotten for the moment exactly where this is occurring; but that's
not really the issue, because almost every day now, we see and hear news
items about this kind of thing happening here and there at either ice-cap -
or both - to the point where it's difficult to keep track of particular
events. The point is, we clearly have an enormous problem. Do we really
think that turning off some lights for a few hours each day is actually
going to make any significant difference?
Most power stations in Australia (and probably in other countries too) are
powered by the burning of a fossil fuel - coal, in many cases. The heat thus
produced is used to boil water, thus producing steam which runs turbines to
produce electric power from generators.
So if a significant number of buildings in Sydney - or elsewhere - turn
their lights off between two predetermined times, does that mean that one or
more generators can simply switch off for that same time-period?
Of course it doesn't. Large amounts of boiling water won't magically stop
boiling simply because there is a sudden reduction in demand. If the fires
are extinguished as soon as the lights are turned off, the boiling will slow
over time; then when the lights are turned back on again, relighting the
fires will eventually get the boiling back up to speed - but it will take
a while, during which the reduced capability of any power stations involved
will cause considerable trouble. This is high-school science - you don't
need to be Einstein to figure it out!
No - simple realities dictate that the fires will be kept burning, the water
will be kept boiling, and the generators will continue to have the same
power capability as they do at any other time, even if it's not all being
utilised. In fact, they can't be allowed to slow down, because that would
affect the power supply's frequency (50Hz in Australia and Britain; 60Hz in
the US, for example) - which must be maintained at a constant value, for
very practical reasons.
Naturally, if there's a definite reason to take a generator out of service -
perhaps for maintenance - this will be done in a carefully-planned manner,
if at all possible to coincide with a projected reduction in power demand
over a reasonable length of time. Barring emergencies, it can't be allowed
to happen on an ad-hoc basis.
As far as I'm concerned, what happened last night counts as little more than
a stunt. Worse, I believe that it actually has a negative effect, because it
encourages people who don't understand these things to think that they're
actually doing something worthwhile, and thus develop a warm, fuzzy feeling,
complacently thinking that they've "done their bit" and can thus rest easy
about the matter. "She'll be right, mate!"
But meanwhile the ice sheets just keep right on melting...
Also in the web-page referred to above, there's a reference to a proposed
ban on incandescent lights, which (we are told) will be phased out by 2010,
basically to be replaced by CFL's (compact fluorescent lights). Click
here
to read more.
How does this stack up as a sensible idea?
As far as I'm concerned, it's on a par with last night's "hour of darkness"
in Sydney: superficially a nice idea; but pretty much devoid of real,
meaningful value when examined more closely.
When I first heard about this proposed ban a few weeks ago, various thoughts
occurred to me almost simultanously:
1.
Those CFL's aren't as compact as we'd like. They may be a bit narrower than
incandescent bulbs of comparable brightness, but they're generally longer.
In fact, it's quite clear that, often, they quite simply won't fit in light
fittings designed for incandescent lights. So we'd have to get new light
fittings - quite an expense; and quite frankly, I'm comfortable with our
existing fittings. Why should the government arrogate to itself the right to
make them obsolete?
2.
You can't operate CFL's with light dimmers. Basically, they're either on or
off. We have - and enjoy using - our light dimmers in rooms where they're
appropriate. Again - why should the government presume to make some of our
house's fixtures obsolete?
3.
Fluorescent lights have an annoying flicker, and the colour of the light
they produce is "harder" than the soft glow of an incandescent. Shouldn't
people have the right to a choice of a quality of light with which they are
comfortable within their own home?
Okay, I'll admit it - I felt the old rebel blood stirring in my veins. But
then, why shouldn't I? I'm only one of many millions of Australians who feel
that our lives are already vastly over-regulated.
But perhaps I'm being a bit unreasonable. Maybe, even, I'm actually
wrong about some of these points. After all, it's a while since I've
considered the matter, and it's possible that the technology has moved on
since then.
I've read that it's possible now to get CFL's which can be used with
dimmers - but they're somewhat more expensive. Maybe, at a pinch, I can live
with that...?
Also, it's quite possible that my assessment of the colour and flicker
issues have been, or are being, addressed. Maybe I need to do some more
homework before whingeing too loudly about them...?
So I held off creating this web page about the matter - until I saw an
article in an electronics magazine, the April 2007 edition of Australia's
"Silicon Chip",
which raises these issues and a whole lot more besides (warning: Javascript
required
In the magazine, which I purchased a few days ago, there's an article about
the proposed ban on incandescent lights - and its author is not impressed,
any more than I am. Some of the issues about CFL's raised in the article:
- they take a while to warm up to full brilliance, and do flicker
until then
- their claimed longevity is overstated (especially if switched on/off
frequently)
- they don't work with dimmers (as I've already mentioned)
- they don't work with electronic switches, remote controls, timers etc.
- they won't work in fridges (too cold for them to start)
- they don't like vibration, so are not good in microwaves, exhaust fans,
cars etc.
- like all fluorescents, they contain mercury and are thus an environmental
hazard
- and lots more besides. (Get the mag. and read the article - I recommend
it.)
So why has the government hopped onto this particular bandwagon (which
apparently started in the US)?
Is it just ignorance, or bad advice? Or is it more likely to be a classic
example of what is known in Australia as
"wedge politics"?
In Australia, we have a federal election coming up later this year. The
Howard government is a past master at using wedge politics to confuse and
frighten the public into re-electing it; but I do get a sense that people
are finally starting to wake up to its tricks.
The basic idea is that the government seizes on some politically-correct
issue to promote so as to give the appearance that it has beaten the
opposition to the punch, thus putting them on the back foot so that they are
forced to agree to the government's line if they are not to look totally
inept. Past issues have involved the Tampa incident (see last link, above),
"weapons of mass destruction",
and
"children overboard".
After the election, when the public finally realize that they've
been duped, it's too late to do anything about it until the next election,
three years later - when the government will pull another rabbit out of the
hat and do it all over again. It's a dirty game and this government plays it
very well.
If magazine articles, or comments by myself or anyone else, can have the
effect of exposing what's happening again (this time with the light
bulb issue) before it's too late - then I reckon they'll have done the
country a big favour. Here's hoping...
Please - don't misunderstand me, or try to quote me out of context.
Incandescent lights are inefficient, and they do waste power.
In that sense, fluorescent lights - whether CFL's or the old-fashioned
strip types - can be seen as an improvement. It's just that there are
other issues to consider also.
"I was crowned...
Another possibility for lighting is provided by the latest in light-emitting
diodes (LED's). When these first appeared in the late 1960's, they were not
very bright and were available only in certain colours (the best ones were
red). However, since then, the technology has developed to the point where
it's possible to get really bright LED's in all sorts of colors,
including (a somewhat bluish) white - and they take very little current and
run cool (whereas incandescents, and - to an extent - fluorescents, get
quite warm). Perhaps they're not to a point yet where they can provide
serious competition for incandescents and/or fluorescents; but I can see
that this may well happen in the not-too-distant future.
Even without that, however, I can still see a place where the friendly,
familiar, warm glow of your old-fashioned dimmable incandescent light bulb
has a place in our world, for all its inefficiency. If, as I hope,
zero-point energy
technology is developed to give everyone on the planet access to clean,
cheap energy, so that we can cut greenhouse gas production right back, it
really won't matter if we use lights which run a bit hot! It all comes down
to a matter of balance and common sense.
Click
here
to see a bigger version of this picture.
I make no secret of the fact that I consider Tesla's contribution to be the
greater, although there's no question that Edison also gave the world some
very good pioneering inventions - notably in the field of sound recording.
As far as the two different kinds of lamp are concerned, it's clear to many
- myself included - that there's a valid place for each. The irony arises in
the fact that, although I'm much more a "fan" of Tesla than I am of Edison,
I've chosen to use a variation on the traditional, Edison-style light bulb
"bright idea" cartoon as my website's logo.
For all that, the main point I'm trying to make here is that thinking people
must always be aware of the fact that the power-hungry will always try to
twist the truth about any issue if it suits their purposes - and
hence must do whatever is necessary to counter such activity, come what may.
My home page
Preliminaries (Copyright, Safety)
Light fantastic
(April Fools' Day)
).
... with a spike right through my head..."
I'll admit to a bit of irony here. The incandescent light bulb was invented
by
Thomas Alva Edison,
whereas early versions of the fluorescent light were developed by Nikola
Tesla (opposite). To some extent it's become traditional for people with an
interest in the history of electricity to be somewhat partisan in what may
be seen as their "allegiance" to one or the other of these two inventors.
"Look out, kid..."
Return to Electrical stuff menu