poor old reuters! innumerate as usual... long-life light bulbs... | ecology news at abelard.org
latest changes & additions at abelard.org link to short briefings documents link to document abstracts link to list of useful data tables quotations at abelard.org, with source document where relevant economics and money zone at abelard.org - government swindles and how to transfer money on the net latest news headlines at abelard's news and comment zone socialism, sociology, supporting documents described France zone at abelard.org - another France Energy - beyond fossil fuels visit abelard's gallery about abelard and abelard.org

back to abelard's front page

site map
C O L O U R K E 'Y

news and comment
ecology

article archives at abelard's news and comment zone topic archives: ecology

for previously archived news article pages, visit the news archive page (click on the button above)

New translation, the Magna Carta

poor old reuters! innumerate as usual... long-life light bulbs...

“Fear of not appearing "green enough" also prompted 65 percent of those questioned to claim they bought only energy-saving bulbs, despite sales figures showing less than 20 percent of light bulbs sold each year are energy-saving.”

Hey, go on, work it out. J

For fear of giving the game away ... a major concern with large companies is less maintenance, and that low maintenance also suits me.

Energy-saving bulbs are not more expensive. They use about a fifth of the kilowatts.
Do the calcs for yourself: a long-life bulb lasts for, say 10,000+ hours. You’ll probable get a nasty surprise, then realise you’d buy ten or more short-life bulbs for each compact fluoro. An old-style 100-watt light bulb will consume 1kW (1 unit) in ten hours. How many lights are burning in your house, for how many hours a year?

I think I’ve seen generic compact fluoros at €2.50 at supermarkets and in promotions. I’ll do some checking.

Ah, here’s a go which doesn’t seem too awful:

“The average lifetime of incandescent light bulbs is about 750-1000 hours. It would take at least 6-11 incandescent bulbs to last as long as one compact fluororescent, which have an average lifetime between 11,250 and 15,000 hours. This causes an additional total cost of using incandescent bulbs. Another additional (potential) cost may be incurred if the bulbs are not in a readily accessible location and special equipment (e.g., cherry picker) and/or personnel are needed to replace it.”

But of course, ’Wikipedia’ can’t count either, unless you believe that 11,250/1,000 = 6 or that 15,000/750 = 11. I make it more like 11-20.

Some American electricity generating companies are even giving compact fluoros away because they have contracts based on providing service, rather than providing kilowatts. The old-tech bulbs are forever blowing - a pain in the neck.

marker at abelard.org

And more... [from the Reuters/Planetark article]

“Levels of domestic waste recycling tend to be very low until local authorities provide recycling services on their doorsteps.”

Do they want each household driving down to Central Recycling and back. Do they suppose this is good arithmetic or sound ecological practice?

Still, Planetark/Reuters does try, even if they don’t seem to have any staff who can do basic arithmetic.

And still the polity fails to grasp energy economics.

No ‘green’ planning is possible without a grasp of Jevons’ paradox. That says, the more efficient a system becomes, the more likely it will be widely used.

Hence, as cars become more efficient, there will be more cars purchased. As cars become more efficient, people will tend to buy (be able to afford) more luxurious models.

marker at abelard.org

And more again...[from another Planetark story.]

“In general, one kWh of gas produces 0.19kg of CO2, an average kWh of electricity produces 0.43kg of CO2 and 1kg of CO2 is equivalent to 0.27kg of carbon.

“So, a four-bedroomed detached house built in the late 1960s, for example, that emits 6,637 tonnes of CO2 per year has a carbon footprint of 1.81 tonnes.” [Quoted from planetark.org]

Perhaps they meant 1,792 tonnes, but couldn’t work out where the decimal point went? And were there more than two places of decimals in the 0.27 figure, perhaps 0.272727272727...? Or did they copy it all out of OldNewOld’s typical sloppiness? And/or did they confuse their kgs with their tonnes? Who can tell!

It goes on -

“This month, housing minister Yvette Cooper said seven million tonnes of carbon could be saved by consumers better insulating their homes and installing new boilers.”

How many houses do we have? Let’s guess at 7 million to make the sums easy!!

What is that then - maybe 1 tonne a household saved out of 1,792(?) tonnes? And only as long as you consume a new boiler and the efforts/materials for adequate insulation in the process. Wowee, an inspiring achievement.

Little wonder nothing works with innumerate socialists in government!

Yet again the heart of the article writer is in the right place, even if they can’t count and don’t check.