Why we should think....Part 2

[biffvernon]

But what is the impact going to be on the people who will have to adapt their current lifestyle and, more importantly, will they accept it?
The alleged solutions have more potential for catastrophe than the putative problem.

Richard Lindzen is the arch denier (now that he's moved on from defending the tobacco industry). I wouldn't believe a word he says.

Yes, the solutions are going to have a big impact on current lifestyle. Peak oil and global warming make this inevitable. Whether we can avoid the catastrophe of a large proportion of the world's population dying is far from certain. Many of the largest cities, and my house, are too close to sea level to be safe. The economic disaster that Peak Oil may produce reduces our ability to defend low-lying land and relocate hundreds of millions of people.

A good start to doing something positive about the problem would be to read the report by the Centre of Alternative Technology, Zero Carbon Britain. There may yet be things we can do to save our species and a lot of nice old buildings, but it won't be easy.

 

[Pford75]

Can I just say that I absolutely abhor energy saving lightbulbs? The light has a horrible yellow colour...are far too large (and look ugly in a chandelier)

Seems they are also not as safe as traditional bulbs

Florida's Department of Environmental Health has encouraged everyone to switch to the energy-saving light bulbs, but also has strict guidelines for using them because they could pose a serious health threat, especially to children.

The compact fluorescent bulbs contain toxic mercury and unlike incandescent bulbs, they can't just be tossed in the trash.

The CFL bulbs have to be taken to a hazardous waste site at your landfill when they are spent.

If the bulbs are broken, people should be moved out of the room and windows and doors should be opened for 15 to 30 minutes for the mercury gas to dissipate. The broken bulb should then be swept up using rubber gloves.

Officials warn not to use a vacuum that could spread the mercury remnants throughout a house.

In the same way that many others on here select products for their houses on the basis of aesthetic appeal...I wish to do the same with my lightbulbs [/quote]

 

[Nemesis]

I use them (not in all fittings, but the ones which are used for most light, and have shades).

I've managed not to break any yet.

The colour varies depending on make and shade colour, and modern ones can be had which are very neat.

Thay do also save electricity.

 

[Pford75]

They are also much more expensive that normal bulbs to buy

 

[Nemesis]

They last far, far longer, and use up less electricity.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4922496.stm

 

[Nemesis]

Wave technology latest:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/6998199.stm

 

[biffvernon]

The compact fluorescent bulbs contain toxic mercury and unlike incandescent bulbs, they can't just be tossed in the trash

Nice scare story but the amount of mercury used in a bulb is less than the amount of mercury that would go up a powerstation chimney if it had to generate the electricity saved by the cfl bulb.

 

[Nemesis]

As it says in that link I gave, which gives quite a lot of useful info.

I wouldn't worry too much about US instructions for things, they do tend to be a bit OTT.

I recently bought a US Bundt cake pan (tin), and the instructions for use included health and safety for caged birds.

 

[DaveBrigg]

It would clarify the situation if those who do not believe that climate change is happening, or that it is a result of man's activities, could list the evidence that they would accept as proof. What would need to happen to be convinced? Not just general statements, but a precise list of evidence that, if it could be found, would be acceptable proof.

 

[NT]

> Can I just say that I absolutely abhor energy saving lightbulbs? The light has a horrible yellow colour

If you prefer a higher colour temperature you can buy higher colour temp cfls. Most are 2700K which matches GLS incandescents.


> ...are far too large (and look ugly in a chandelier)

yes, and the larger source area means they dont produce the colour splitting effect. One option is to use lower power filaments in the chandelier and add background CFL lighting. 5w halogen (LV) bulbs are a nice option. The relatively small and intense source works well with the prism effect, and fools the eye/brain to some extent on power output.


> Seems they are also not as safe as traditional bulbs

That is an illogical conclusion. Both types have safety issues and you have not compared the 2. What little evidence we have points to incandescents killing more people by fires than cfls.

And fwiw, 10mg of mercury is pretty small compared to the few grams each we have on average in our mouths. Its also not inside us.

Perhaps the writer would also recommend we open the doors and windows when we brush our teeth.


> They are also much more expensive that normal bulbs to buy

Total cost of ownership is around a third that of filaments.
http://www.wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=CFL_Lamps


NT

 

[Flyfisher]

I wouldn't worry too much about US instructions for things, they do tend to be a bit OTT.

Yep, I think it depends on the latest lawsuit. Did I imagine the instructions on a US shirt stating "do not iron while wearing" ?

As things stand today, no-one even _has_ a workable plan for a solution to the unestablished projected problem.

I think this is a major part of the overall problem. Even Biff admits that the outlook is bleak. Against that background is it any surprise that it's hard galvanise people into serious changes in behaviour and lifestyle?


PS: I also agree with NT that energy efficiency is a good general principle, but that's not necessarily the same as using less energy overall. If I didn't already have one, I would certainly buy an 'A-rated' dishwasher but the real energy saving option would be to wash up by hand. Sadly, I must admit to not yet being able to bring myself to that.


PPS: I saw a 'low-energy' electric kettle recently. Turned out it was 1800W instead of the more usual 3kW. I can't see how this can save any electricity because raising a pint or two of water to boiling point will take a fixed amount of energy, so the 1800W 'green' kettle will just take longer to come to the boil. Madness.

 

[NT]

As flyfisher points out, reducing total energy use 1% is not going to change the outcome.


> Good question Flyfisher. You're right, changing a few lightbulbs won't save the planet, though every bit helps.

This is really just a popular myth. A tiny measure like that isnt going to change the outcome, and no achieved outcome equals no help. It makes sense on economic grounds, but not on green grounds.

To help solve your putative problem you would need to do something that achieves the solution you seek, rather than something that doesnt.


> Of course it's no good spending the money you save by using an energy efficient lightbulb on something that uses energy.

IRL that is what happens. CFLs dont change our income, they just change what we spend it on. And spending buys energy use.


> Oil is in limited supply and very useful so it is very unlikely that we will beat the oil depletion curve - we won't use oil any slower than we can suck it out of the ground.

This is a big and quite basic myth. Oil exploration is very expensive, so oil co's only explore as far as they need to, they dont map out the entire world's resources.


> Burning the environmentally worse, and less useful because it's solid, coal, has to be a no-no. Most coal is used in electricity generation so a big priority has to be to avoid using electricity

thats seriously illogical


> and to build all the renewable generating capacity we can as fast as we can,

There is of course a lot more to the renewables question. A prime Q would be what renewable tech do you propose to make up the energy that coal currently supplies? I expect your answer to expose some problems with what you suggest.


> We need to move quickly to reliance on only renewable energy sources,

that would decimate our economy. The consequent deaths would be appalling. Its easy to talk this stuff but if your policies ever got into power it would be a massive tragedy. You would not be the first in history to make changes with good intentions, only to see the most horrible results unfold.


> and also begin the work of carbon sequestration, removing CO2 from the atmosphere and locking the carbon up forever.

We couldn't afford to do that today, let alone with a decimated economy. Its a hugely impractical suggestion.


> It's no good saying it can't be done.

Facing the facts looks good to me.


> It has to be done. And the sooner we set about it the less painful it will be.

Youre proposing causing death and suffering on a mass global scale on the basis of some pseudoscientific hypothesis. This is the green message, despite the good intentions.

Unfortunately naivete is a major killer.

If you think C sequestration on a significant scale is part of the solution, how about you tell us how much carbon, what method, and at what cost.


NT

 

[biffvernon]

I recently bought a US Bundt cake pan (tin), and the instructions for use included health and safety for caged birds.

If you try baking your budgie it's health and safety are going to be seriously compromised. Those Americans know a thing or two.

 

[NT]

PPS: I saw a 'low-energy' electric kettle recently. Turned out it was 1800W instead of the more usual 3kW. I can't see how this can save any electricity because raising a pint or two of water to boiling point will take a fixed amount of energy, so the 1800W 'green' kettle will just take longer to come to the boil. Madness.

Taking longer to boil means more heat energy lost to ambient while doing so, making it a higher energy kettle. Tis all greenwash.


NT

 

[Nemesis]

It was a bit bizarre - something Bill Bryson wrote about in one of his books, I have a feeling the shirt ironing quote above may have come from that.

I think if I char a cake I have to evacuate the premises...

 

[biffvernon]

Beware of Mammouth Dung.

 

[NT]

As things stand today, no-one even _has_ a workable plan for a solution to the unestablished projected problem.

I think this is a major part of the overall problem. Even Biff admits that the outlook is bleak. Against that background is it any surprise that it's hard galvanise people into serious changes in behaviour and lifestyle?

A substantial proportion of the world has bigger, more immediate problems than climate change. Africa, India, China and various others. No amount of words, treaties or sanctions will get those countries/ continent(s) to put the dubious question of climate change ahead of their own hard factual struggle for continuing survival. They will and are industrialising aggressively, and they dont give a monkeys what we think about it.

So I'm interested to hear the plan....


NT

 

[DaveBrigg]

Can some of the points above be clarified please?

changing a few lightbulbs won't save the planet, though every bit helps.

This is really just a popular myth. A tiny measure like that isnt going to change the outcome,

1. Does using low energy lightbulbs reduce energy use?
2. Are you saying that it is a myth that this will reduce CO2 in any way?

Oil exploration is very expensive, so oil co's only explore as far as they need to, they dont map out the entire world's resources.

3. Isn't it the case that oil sales are governed by the laws of supply and demand. If demand exceeds supply, the price goes up and it then becomes more attractive financially to extract it from the far-flung reaches of the globe.
If an alternative for some uses of oil could be found, demand would reduce and there would be an excess of supply. The price would then fall, making it unattractive to explore beneath the Arctic. Even with OPEC price-fixing. The increase in demand, and price, has led to Canada to extract oil from areas where it was previously uneconomical.

Most coal is used in electricity generation so a big priority has to be to avoid using electricity

thats seriously illogical

What is illogical about this? If energy efficiency could freeze the current level of demand, and renewables are being expanded, would not coal stations be able to lower their output?

> We need to move quickly to reliance on only renewable energy sources,
that would decimate our economy. The consequent deaths would be appalling. Its easy to talk this stuff but if your policies ever got into power it would be a massive tragedy.
NT

Are the any facts or examples that we can look at for this assertion?
(Austria, Denmark and Portugal all generate more than 5 times as much renewable energy as the UK without any noticable increase in appalling deaths)

 

[NT]

Can some of the points above be clarified please?

> 1. Does using low energy lightbulbs reduce energy use?

yes, but only by a miniscule fraction of total national energy use. A small fraction of a percent. There's no realistic chance of it changing the climate.


> 2. Are you saying that it is a myth that this will reduce CO2 in any way?

less energy use = less CO2 emitted. Of course the money will be spent elsewhere instead... so its fairly dubious whether it will really affect CO2 use, but it does bring various minor economic benefits, ie we can all use the £80 saved for something more useful than giving it to lec co's.


>> Oil exploration is very expensive, so oil co's only explore as far as they need to, they dont map out the entire world's resources.

> 3. Isn't it the case that oil sales are governed by the laws of supply and demand. If demand exceeds supply, the price goes up and it then becomes more attractive financially to extract it from the far-flung reaches of the globe.
> If an alternative for some uses of oil could be found, demand would reduce and there would be an excess of supply. The price would then fall, making it unattractive to explore beneath the Arctic. Even with OPEC price-fixing. The increase in demand, and price, has led to Canada to extract oil from areas where it was previously uneconomical.

I'd pretty much agree


>>> Most coal is used in electricity generation so a big priority has to be to avoid using electricity

>> thats seriously illogical

> What is illogical about this?

Levels of electricity use are tied to numerous issues and factors, to make a decision as if only one of those factors existed or counted is in no way logical.

Standard of living, and thus ability to afford healthcare, education, research (including into the climate question and possible answers) are all tied directly to energy use. Cut energy use heavily, and you cut our ability to address the climate problem, as well as cause numerous other problems.

Also of course coal is only one constributor to electricity, and if it were found to be a problem for whatever reason we could happily continue using electricity and move generation toward non-coal sources. So even if all the assumptions made were true, cutting lec use still wouldnt be a sensible option, nor in any way a logical one.


> If energy efficiency could freeze the current level of demand, and renewables are being expanded, would not coal stations be able to lower their output?

There are a number of sources of electricity, and in principle we could juggle them in any combination we choose. But there are always consequences. Renewables cant make up more than a minrity of the supply without costs becoming excessive, and other large issues occurring. They have their place, but it is unrealistic to plan for a supply based on all or nearly all renewables, because that option isnt workable now or in the near future.

I look forward to the day when it is practical, and ocean power, solar lec or something like that is actually cheaper than oil power, but it wont happen soon, the technology just isnt there yet, nor is it about to be.


>>> We need to move quickly to reliance on only renewable energy sources,

>> that would decimate our economy. The consequent deaths would be appalling. Its easy to talk this stuff but if your policies ever got into power it would be a massive tragedy.

> Are the any facts or examples that we can look at for this assertion?
(Austria, Denmark and Portugal all generate more than 5 times as much renewable energy as the UK without any noticable increase in appalling deaths)

I was speaking not about reasonable increases in the renewable sector, but about what the greens seek, which is to move over to 100% renewables AND sequester carbon. If we shut down all our coal, oil, gas & nuke power plants, where would all that electrical energy come from? We dont have any renewable technology that could produce it, unless we were wiling to spend a gargantuan amount of money. If you want to get more details, ask what technologies would be used, how much they'd produce, how much we need, and what the cost would be.

Billing every family the best part of 100k for renewable gen and then again for sequestration would decimate the economy. It would put most people deep into debt, would wipe out all sorts of non-essential spending, thus wiping out a slew of businesses and jobs. Which would make things worse in a positive feedback cycle. The economy would nose dive severely.

In such a financial climate, we would all need to cut back hard. There would b severe cuts in health services, education, policing, welfare (benefits) would probably be scrapped, and so on. It would change the nature of our society, knocking us back into the Victorian era financially. When you cut spending like that, you can no longer afford adequate health care, adequate health & safety measures, or numerous other things. And thats in the west.

What effect would this impoverishment have on 3rd world countries / continent(s) like Africa, India, China, etc? Large numbers of people are just getting enough to eat as it is. Take away some of what they have and the death toll would be enormous. Again there would be cuts all round. Since there is relatively little non-essential spending, nearly all the cuts would come from essential services, such as medical, farming investment, manufacturing investment etc, and poverty causes starvation.

How many do you think such measures would sentence to death?


NT

 

[biffvernon]

Does using low energy lightbulbs reduce energy use?

You change your light bulb, and because it uses less energy your electricity bill is smaller. You spend the money saved on an extra trip in your car. Result: no net energy saving.

But if the light bulb's electricity was coal generated there may be a real saving. Coal gives off more CO2 than oil. All the oil will be used as fast as we can get it out of the ground so it doesn't make a difference to the climate if you use it for a frivolous drive or if an African farmer uses it to pump vital water for her crops. Coal that is not bought by the power station might just be left safely underground. That's why, from the climate perspective, saving on electricity should take priority over saving on oil use.

Isn't it the case that oil sales are governed by the laws of supply and demand.?

That has been true in the past. After Peak Oil we are in a different sort of economics. When demand rises the accompanying price rise does not trigger faster production because the geology says no. It is likely that demand will rise quicker than oil substitutes can be brought to market. The result has to be demand destruction. This affects the poor first, and we are already seeing this happen in parts of Africa.

Crude oil production was a maximum in May 2005 and all liquid oils peaked in July 2006. Production is at a plateau and only time will tell if we are already past the ultimate peak. Increasing numbers of analysts think this is the case. The steepness of the downslope of the depletion curve depends on geology rather than economics.

The pain of one person's demand destruction depends on someone else's ability to pay more.