Reply to: Energy Saver Light Bulbs

[Pogle]

I don't like the darn things - they are too dim and when I switch my bedroom light on - nothing happens for about 50s (not that I've timed it of course )

We have one in the bath room which goes every 6 months
pah... grumble... grumble.. etc

[Peoplesoft bloke]

It did seem to me there was a lot of smoke and mirrors - but we do have to start somewhere.

Indeed - we're going to need loads of power for all the electric cars as well

[Fred Bloggs]

There was an application near me (turned down for a number of reasons) and not being a complete luddite I did a bit of digging. What I discovered was:-

- The provider got paid a huge premium for the electricity
- It could provide power for about 2000 homes
- It could not feed the grid - only the local area (don't know why this was) - and that only had about 800 homes
- The energy used in the production of the 3000 odd tons of concrete to be used in the construction was very close to the total energy predicted to be generated over it's useful life

It did seem to me there was a lot of smoke and mirrors - but we do have to start somewhere.

It's a huge con trick, good article here-

Wind Power Project

[ASB]

That is correct, one of the myths about wind power is that it is "low carbon". Couldn't be further from the truth. For every 1MW of wind power on the grid, you need 1MW of coal/gas/nuclear back up running and available to cope with falls in wind speed. Some of the transients can be soaked up by pumped storage hydro power, but that also needs fossil/nuclear power to pump the water uphill in the first place. It really, truly is all smoke and mirrors this wind power debacle. Wind power also gives national grid a lot of other problems with network instability.

There was an application near me (turned down for a number of reasons) and not being a complete luddite I did a bit of digging. What I discovered was:-

- The provider got paid a huge premium for the electricity
- It could provide power for about 2000 homes
- It could not feed the grid - only the local area (don't know why this was) - and that only had about 800 homes
- The energy used in the production of the 3000 odd tons of concrete to be used in the construction was very close to the total energy predicted to be generated over it's useful life

It did seem to me there was a lot of smoke and mirrors - but we do have to start somewhere.

[Fred Bloggs]

Since we seem to have moved to wind turbines (horrible things) apparently Denmark now produces some 15% of it's electricity needs from wind. However it has been able to switch off none of it's traditional generating because they can't cope with the flows.

That is correct, one of the myths about wind power is that it is "low carbon". Couldn't be further from the truth. For every 1MW of wind power on the grid, you need 1MW of coal/gas/nuclear back up running and available to cope with falls in wind speed. Some of the transients can be soaked up by pumped storage hydro power, but that also needs fossil/nuclear power to pump the water uphill in the first place. It really, truly is all smoke and mirrors this wind power debacle. Wind power also gives national grid a lot of other problems with network instability.

[ASB]

Ah yes, the nuclear power station site where planning applications for wind power turbines were rejected on safety grounds.

That decision did rather appeal to my finely tuned sense of irony.

Since we seem to have moved to wind turbines (horrible things) apparently Denmark now produces some 15% of it's electricity needs from wind. However it has been able to switch off none of it's traditional generating because they can't cope with the flows.

[expat]

You cynical old bugger you. Still we'll be all right. Hinkley 3 is on the way so we probably won't need any bulbs incandescent or otherwise.

Ah yes, the nuclear power station site where planning applications for wind power turbines were rejected on safety grounds.

[Board Game Geek]

I spoke to the Mother Superior in the local convent last week, as she was positive that the nuns were not going to give up their candles.

[ASB]

There will be a tax coming along shortly to deal with that issue, just give everyone enough time to make the switch first.

HTH

You cynical old bugger you. Still we'll be all right. Hinkley 3 is on the way so we probably won't need any bulbs incandescent or otherwise.

[gingerjedi]

Are energy efficient bulbs really that much better overall though?

Sure it reduces the power use at the point of consumption (significantly) but what about the rather more substantial energy - and raw resource - use at the point of manufacture?

It would be interesting to know how much better they are overall.

There will be a tax coming along shortly to deal with that issue, just give everyone enough time to make the switch first.

HTH

[PerlOfWisdom]

I want to know why you can't get bright energy saving bulbs.

Occasionally I would fit 150W bulbs in the kitchen or home office. There are no such equivalent energy saving bulbs

An 18W energy saver = a 100W proper bulb.

So where is the 25W energy saver?

Or even, the 100W energy saving bulb for that matter? One of those would illuminate my entire loft.

Everything about these energy saving bulbs is crap. Slow to warm up, they flicker they do not seem to last very long, they are fragile and I am sure they are dimmer than their equivalent.

It's all a ruddy great red herring.

I got some 30W (=150W) bulbs from Morrisons for about £3. You can also get them online.

[PerlOfWisdom]

I've tried fitting them to dimmers, and they don't dim at all. When I turn the dimmer swithch down, they make an increasingly loud humming noise, but the brightness isn't reduced.

You should never try to dim a low energy bulb as it can cause a fire.

A dimmer feeds short pulses of power to the bulb - the shorter the pulse, the dimmer the light. With low energy bulbs - the electronics compensate for this and take a higher current for the shorter pulses. Because the power loss in the dimmer and wires are proportional to the square of the current, the components in the dimmer can easily overheat.

[ASB]

Are energy efficient bulbs really that much better overall though?

Sure it reduces the power use at the point of consumption (significantly) but what about the rather more substantial energy - and raw resource - use at the point of manufacture?

It would be interesting to know how much better they are overall.

[MPwannadecentincome]

I want to know why you can't get bright energy saving bulbs.

Occasionally I would fit 150W bulbs in the kitchen or home office. There are no such equivalent energy saving bulbs

An 18W energy saver = a 100W proper bulb.

So where is the 25W energy saver?

Or even, the 100W energy saving bulb for that matter? One of those would illuminate my entire loft.

Everything about these energy saving bulbs is crap. Slow to warm up, they flicker they do not seem to last very long, they are fragile and I am sure they are dimmer than their equivalent.

It's all a ruddy great red herring.

I agree though I'm sure I've fitted a 20W somewhere.

RE the slow to warm bit - buy a philips turbo - they come on a lot quicker - well at least the OH have stopped complaining.

That reminds me the bathroom light needs changing from the 'slow to warm' type to the turbo. Now, what am I going to do with the old slow to warm bulbs I've got sitting in the cupboard?

[Troll]

We up the voltage to transmit AC wap it down the grid & then transform it down again to get useful stuff to the consumer .. all of which sap power - so lots of attention being given to HVDC lines - particularly good for offshore stuff

New Scientist

Although DC lost out to AC in the early days of electrification, high-voltage direct current (HVDC) has long had a niche role - transmitting large amounts of power over long distances because it is more efficient than conventional AC lines. Now it is also set to become a key link for the growing number of renewable-energy generators, particularly offshore wind farms. This is leading many in the energy industry to take a fresh look at DC.

Some engineers are thinking big. Their calculations suggest that continent-wide HVDC "supergrids" could help smooth out the variable levels of power created by many far-flung renewable generators to make a fully dependable supply. Supporters say this will eventually mean that coal, gas and nuclear power could be ditched, with renewables replacing them within a couple of decades.

Elements of such a supergrid will soon begin to materialise in Europe, and a proposed €1.2 billion ($1.5 billion) subsidy could help develop these links across the region. Meanwhile, in the US, President Obama's $150 billion energy plan includes a target of 25 per cent renewable electricity by 2025, implying massive investment in high-voltage lines, many of which are likely to be HVDC. At the same time, tests on new superconducting HVDC cables suggest that a grid incorporating this technology could act as a mammoth energy store, helping buffer consumers and utilities against the vagaries of the weather (see "Supercooled grid"). "Whichever way you look at it, there is no doubt that HVDC's time has come," says Graeme Bathurst, technical director of the British-based grid consultancy TNEI.

Edison lost his "battle of the currents" with Nikola Tesla and Westinghouse Electric because at the time AC was a more practical proposition. Put simply, efficient long-distance transmission required high voltages while the public needed safer, lower voltages. That required transformers, which existed for AC networks, but not for DC.

Despite this victory, DC is far more efficient: at the same voltage, it suffers much lower transmission losses than AC. This is because in a DC line the direction of the current is constant, whereas in an AC line it reverses 100 or 120 times a second. This induces small currents in the transmission line insulation, and this energy is then lost as heat. Because of this, HVDC has long enjoyed a niche role transporting large amounts of power efficiently over unusually long distances. One of the earliest big projects was a 600-megawatt link built in 1965 in New Zealand to connect the North and South Islands, which was later upgraded to 1200 megawatts.