Everybody and their dog seems to think that the Liberals’ latest piece of environmental policy – banning incandescent lightbulbs is a great idea. Everybody from the opposition to the Queensland Greens seem to be endorsing the plan, even if Labor is being churlish enough to claim it’s really somebody else’s idea.
How much CO2 will it save? While any reduction is good, it’s a minor improvement. The government claims savings of 800,000 tonnes of CO2 annually by 2012. Hazelwood power station, the developed world’s most polluting power plant, puts out 17 million tonnes of CO2 annually. And that’s just one of many coal-fired power plants around Australia.
One slightly problematic aspect of this proposal, which hasn’t been clarified as far as I know, is halogen lamps. Like many houses built in the past 15-20 years, there are a profusion of these in my own place. While they’re about twice as efficient as standard incandescents, they’re nowhere near as good as flourescents. And, at this point, there are no fully functional and more efficient like-for-like replacements for halogens on the market. The best we have at the moment are these clusters of white LEDs. Only problem is, you can’t get them in brightnesses equivalent to the typical halogen downlight yet, and the best ones require you to replace a gadget called a transformer, which are often embedded deep within roofs and are extremely inaccessible. I strongly suspect, like analogue TV and mobile phones, the phase-out period for halogens – at least the bulbs themselves – will be considerably longer than first envisiaged.
At a personal level, I’m not a huge fan of legislation like this. Why? Because it prescribes precisely how we are to achieve emissions reductions targets. I don’t beat myself up over my halogens, because I buy 100% Green Power. Thoretically (the problems with the Green Power model are a subject for another time), I’ve solved my domestic greenhouse emissions problem. I can leave my inefficient lights on all day and the only damage it will do is to my bank balance. I’m doing my part – why do I have to futz around with my lighting when I’ve already eliminated emissions from it?
The question for the future, I suppose, is whether legislation like this will have a place in an environment that includes a cost of carbon. In the case of lighting, perhaps there is a case for nanny-stating. Flourescents have been available for some time now, and most of the problems with them have been dealt with. They pay for themselves within a year. But, still, a lot of people still reflexively go for incandescent lights, in most cases it seems out of ignorance – something that economist types would call a market failure of incomplete information. So maybe compulsion is called for – though maybe better education would have achieved the same result.
This is a question that’s going to come up repeatedly in the next few years, in regards to things like fuel economy standards for cars, energy efficiency rules for appliances (where such rules might keep very cheap but less power-efficient Chinese appliances off the market), and the like. How much should the power of price signals be left to do its work, and how much should governments specifically legislate to mandate efficient technologies?
It seems new LED lightbulbs are a reality, using 3.4 W where a Incandescent would have used 40. Not quite as good as 100W bulbs yet, but they’ll be getting there soon.
Will, that’s interesting, but not a huge improvement on existing CFLs.
The place where LED’s are most urgently needed seems to be replacing halogen downlights.
Robert, when it’s a no-brainer you just legislate for it. Far more efficient than somehow tweaking market forces to eventually arrive at the same position – maybe.
Wbb, your “no-brainer” is somebody else’s arbitrary interference in their lifestyle.
What if I decide that plasma televisions are too inefficient, and everybody should use LCD?
Should we legislate to ensure all Christmas lights use LED’s?
Should be ban electric leaf blowers because the same job can be done more efficiently with a broom?
Should we ban all vehicles with more than 1.6 litre engines because that’s perfectly adequate to accelerate to 100 km/h?
Should I be required to buy a high-cost super-energy efficient washing machine for my holiday house when I’ll only use the thing half a dozen times a year?
And should we kid ourselves we’re doing enough by replacing lightbulbs (which is what the Liberals are really aiming at, to be honest) when that 800,000 tonnes of emissions saved will be eaten up within a year or two by other electrical demand?
“Everybody from the opposition to the Queensland Greens seem to be endorsing the plan”
The LDP opposes it.
The “new” curly mini flourescents globes are ok for when you leave the light on for a long time. They are not much bloody good when you wanta really bright light for a few minutes than turn it off.
If you stagger into a dark room at 2 am and want a bright light for say less than one minute, the flouros don’t cut it.
In my experience they don’t cut it as strong spots for tasks either.
Why mandate. Shouldn’t incandescents go the way of floppy discs, quietly & quickly. The legislation will mean there’s no incentive for the price of flouros to drop in Australia.
The LDP are the last of the flat-earthers on climate change.
What’s the evidence for that assetion, Robert?
From my experience, most people are aware of the technology, understand its benefits but have reasons for not using it – they use dimmers, small fitting globes, light fittings that don’t accomodate physically accomodate CFLs, believe that they’re frugal enough with their light usage or, most significantly, don’t like the look of them. Aesthetics is the elephant in the room here. Now sure, not all the bulbs are curly (we have 5k hour Nelson bulbs that look a bit like large candle bulbs) but the low Kelvin rating – particularly on the cheaper bulbs – is still a turn off for a huge number of people.
Why do you think Malcolm Turnbull’s press release and photo gallery features a Phillips bulb that mimicks the shape of a regular incandescent?
And the fluoros seem to have their problems too:
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,21260636-2682,00.html
“The LDP are the last of the flat-earthers on climate change.”
Well, it’s clearly just a theft-wing conspiracy.
Surprised no-one has mentioned the cost impact on families.
Sure they are only lights, but will the government be subsidising the cost for low-income families when suddenly their light-bulbs cost up to 1000% more.
The idea is a good one, but it returns us to the issue of coming up with solutions that are cost effective and cost fair.
I’d rather see legislation that reduces the number of lights a single house can have, investment in futher energy saving promotions and maybe local governments can start reducing drastically the number of street lights.
Huh! FXH is the economic illiterate I knew he was. He doesn’t undeerstand that market competition and consumer power are all that is required to bring the cost of these products down.
Daniel, normal CFLs are 15 000 hour bulbs. that’s 12-14 years on about 3 hours a day usage every day. They pay for themselves within a few months because they’re 5x more efficient.
The cost impact on families will be negative.
dk.au: the form factor problem is much less of an issue that it once was (you can now get really compact ones), and the colour spectrum has improved a lot on the good-quality flouros.
However, that’s why I don’t really like this banning approach much. If people want to keep their incandescents and save emissions in other ways, that’s not a problem as far as I’m concerned.
Ron: there’s more mercury released into the environment from burning coal than there is in the flouros.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21258888-421,00.html
Turnbull gazumped Planet Ark for political purposes.
How do you work that out, Daniel Donahoo?
All this talk of banning and legislation is starting to sound like the Liberal’s ‘war on terror’. When do we get the fridge magnets?
Speaking of fridges, fluoros for fridges will be interesting.
As for the life of fluoros, I have some that only lasted a few months. I have incandescents that were here when I bought the house fifteen years ago.
I tried to buy some fluoros for the house yesterday in various wattages to suit the rooms. The shop had a big selection but I would estimate 80% of the bulbs were Edison Screw not the bayonet cap which, I am sure, the majority of Aussie houses would have.
Banning and legislation is not the way to go.
Robert Merkel – you fail to understand the concept of a no-brainer. Apart from FHX’s complaint that he’ll be pissing on the floor while his flouro’s warming up, there has hardly been a compelling list of reasons why you wouldn’t ban incandescents.
Therefore it’s a no-brainer. There’s no downside. (I’ll put in for the mop for FXH.)
There are two groups of Halogen lights. Straight 240 Volts and low voltage (but not low power consuming). The low voltage have a transformer (black box) near them which may do one or more lights.
If you are in luck and have straight 240 Volt halogens then there is a replacement on the market, the ‘megaman’ is a compact flouro for downlights. Manufacturers and an aussie distributer. I am putting them in my new house so can’t comment on them just yet.
Daniel, your claim is disingenuous.
The initial outlay for a light bulb certainly can cost up to 00 more, however the overall power consumption between the two actually makes fluorescent lights considerably cheaper.
That doesn’t even factor in the massive difference in lifespan between the two bulbs.
In every way, CFL’s are cheaper, by your argument, it should be totally legislated!
Legislation to reduce street-lighting is flat out insane, when it has been conclusively proven that streetlighting produces a 65% reduction in nighttime fatal accidents, a 30% reduction in nighttime injury accidents, and a 15% reduction in nighttime property-damage-only accidents.
I’m not sure how many people fluorescent bulbs have killed, but I’m willing to bet it’s smaller.
PS Ron, and I don’t know about other brands, but Phillips and GE both make low-mercury bulbs.
In the night-time toilet scenario, I like the slow warm-up. Gives your eyes time to adjust.
Just sayin’
help! Comment stuck in moderation! (stoopid desire to link too much!)
The draconian banning of these light-bulbs will only drive them underground. Look what happened in the US during Prohibition.
Voter rage will be incandescent once the public gets switched on to this latest government move to curtail our individual liberties.
First they took my gun then they came for my light-bulb.
Thank God for the LDP.
“I don’t know about other brands, but Phillips and GE both make low-mercury bulbs.”
I wonder if the mercury will be a bigger problem when we start (if it doesn’t already happen) getting cheap imports of the bulbs?
That may be, but most houses have more than one fitting that won’t accomodate larger bulbs.
Wrong, wbb. The most obvious is that CFLs can’t be used in conventional dimmers – their lifespan is drastically shortened if they are. If you want to lower the lights as you put the Barry White record on, you’ll have to either a) get the electrician in at a cost hundreds (thousands?) of $$ in to install fluroescent dimmers, or b) listen to a buzzing noise, possibly followed by ‘pop’ and shower of tiny glass fragments.
Not if they come from Phillips and GE, Ron, also, as Robert noted, the mercury levels are in actuality quite low; this probably won’t ever be an issue, especially when you take into account the cost/benefit ratio of how much mercury produced by coal power used to innefficiently light incadescents.
If you have had flouros that didn’t last, I would suggest checking where it was made. Like cd media, the best ones come from Japan!
Superb post, Robert. Yes my thoughts exactly. There is no ‘waste’ or ‘excess consumption’ if everything is properly priced. If we are going to end up pricing C02 emissions through carbon trading or a carbon tax (as it looks like will be the case) then technology-specific bans are redundant and unnecessarily restrictive, they create an ongoing opportunity cost in depriving people of all the other uses of these lamps (if they are properly priced, the majority may stop using them or use them less but they will be paying for the resulting increase in CO2 stock anyway). The aim is to get the right ‘price signals’ out – if with these signals some people want to incur the cost of using these lamps, then as long as this cost is being privatised to them rather tha being socialised by the rest of us, there’s no problem.
There is hope yet for the Left with people like you, Robert
This is the policy you have when you don’y have an overarching framework to hang it off.
Any reason why you can’t do both? You’ve outsourced your environmental activism to GreenPowerInc (assuming they are all they claim), you could take a bit of responsibility for your own actions as well.
This is like the argument of people who use their hose as a broom on concrete surfaces: “I pay good money for this water!”
How many Robert Merkels does it take to change a lightbulb? None, too much futzing.
Seriously Robert, buy a bunch of Wentworth Illuminants when they’re next on special and when a bulb blows at Chez Merkel, replace it with one of the low-wattage ones. You don’t have to be a handyman and it all helps. You haven’t eliminated anything if you’ve outsourced it.
They’ll have to pry my incandescent light bulbs from my [ow] cold [arrrgh] dead [ow] hands…
R Merkel – you got any figures on how much % or $ lighting is of the average household electrickally bill? I can’t find any. I can’t get inspired to invest $ to save three fifths of sweet fuck all on my bill.
wbb – I again must defer to your superior grasp of economic illiteracy. Suitably chastened and humbled by your comments as usual, I’ve found some workarounds.
Disposable fluffy mat for floor around toilet and an old shooting spotlight from the ute hooked up to a 12 volt battery in a small trolley for lighting up work areas, such as the bar in the multipurpose room. I’m shifting my workdesk out under the street light on the non-watered nature strip for night work and going wireless to tap into my neighbours ISP to save on costs and when the ambos ask for a brighter light than the flickering flouro to safely inject Narcain into my “boarder” in the bungalow in the backyard, I’ll give them a lecture on green boarding house gasses and Gaia.
cant remember which agencies were giving them away – but i’ve been given 3 boxes of 6 x fluro lights – for free, twice at maroubra and once at bondi junction – the last box of six came in a variety of sizes and watts. (FHX – you can get fluros in higher watts, just like incandescents.)
in one box there was a low-flow shower head – which i’ve still got in the box – cause Sydney Water’s plumber had already installed a low-flow shower head and low-flow thingo’s into every tap in the house for nix. (you get used to a low-flow shower within a few days – and not as much water sprays out onto the floor – which is a bonus.
it hasn’t cost me a cracker to switch over. thankyou govt/energy bureaucracies.
Unfortunately, Jo, that scheme got shut in October last year because it was not particularly well-managed at a state level, and subject to massive rorting.
Shame really, cause it seemed like a good idea at the time.
I don’t go out to bars and dance clubs so I don’t know where maroubra and bondi are in melbourne.
I have had flouros up to 120W but they still take time to warm up and get to full brightness and I’ve never seen a spot flouro.
I foolishly installed a new age shower head when my old bucket with holes in it carked it. The promise was 5 settings (one disturbingly called Champagne Shower or similar). Now instead of enjoying the small luxury of a decent warm shower we have to jump around under a few drips of water of always changing temperature just to wash the soap off. If I’d have known I could have blocked a pipe to a dribble myself for no cost.
How many lightbulbs does it take for someone who can’t tell a joke to screw it up?
There are a lot of applications where a light bulb is turned on frequently but only for short periods – PIR operated security lights, fridge lights, etc. CFLs aren’t merely inconvenient in these applications (they don’t live very long, they take time to reach full brightness, they can’t be made compact enough) they are actually energy-inefficient as they suck a lot of power initially to heat up their cathode.
Why are governments so keen to assume that they know people’s needs better than the people do themselves? Surely it makes more sense to make people pay the full cost of their actions (through, eg, a carbon tax) and let them make the decision themselves. If it really is a matter of ignorance then pay for some ads or a few fridge magnets.
We’re rapidly getting to a world where what is not compulsory is forbidden. It’s enough to drive you to libertarianism (enough – that way madness lies!).
Jason: thanks for the praise, but wouldn’t you concede that there are occasionally market failures that might be better addressed with legislation. To take an example – energy efficiency in rented properties, where the landlord selects the electrical equipment and the tenant pays the power bills.
Andrew E: In fact, where I do have conventional incandescents, I have replaced virtually all of those with CFLs. While they do take a little while to produce maximum light, the claim that they use a lot of energy to start up is false. The energy used at startup is equivalent to well under one second of use. But, as I explained at length in the post, if you’ve got low-voltage halogens, which I have in considerable numbers, those aren’t nearly as easy to substitute for.
But, really, what’s the moral imperative? My house is no longer emitting CO2 for its electricity use. I’ve cut my emissions from electricity use to zero (well, not quite, because the lifecycle emissions from wind and other renewables isn’t zero, but close enough). What matters is that I cut my emissions; it doesn’t really matter all that much how. Does it?
FXH: lighting represents about 9% of typical household greenhouse emissions. That probably represents over 10% of your electricity bill. But replacing your incandescents with CFLs as they burn out doesn’t require any more effort – in fact, it requires less, because they will subsequently last much longer (as I said, that’s the main reason I did it).
With regards to shower heads, I agree with you, though, and I find the current prescriptive approach particularly annoying in this area. If I so choose, why can’t I have a rubbish bin lid sized shower head, a super-duper efficient washing machine, and no garden? Or install a rainwater tank and a domestic recycling system so I can run my super-sized shower without adding to overall water usage?
the mercury contamination from fluros isn’t good….
i agree with you robert in respect of electricity generation – if we had 100% electricity from renewables like solar/wind/tidal/geothermal etc – there wouldn’t be the need to curtail domestic consumption – only in respect of developing better bulbs and appliances re: heavy chemical processes/mineral extraction in their manufacturing etc.
this should have all started 25 years ago. john button – I’ll get you one day!!
FXH -…fluros take about 2 seconds to power up –sorry for robbing your extraordinary life of so many valuable moments.
As for the shower head…. ok it’s not Sir Stamford – ie. half of Warragamba Dam washing away your particular cares and various waste products, but it’s really quite ok. Robert – I think showering/bathing is like 30% of domestic water consumption – so it’s an enormous amount of savings, along with dual flush dunnies and low-water use washing machines – I don’t think it’s an either/or situation.
Again – if we had tons of renewable electricity generation – then a desalination plant – might not be such a bad idea (don’t know about the salty output or any other de-sal factors)
FXH – Melb GPO – up elizabeth st, onto royal parade, then keep driving NE for about 900klms, then head due east – hit sand. stop.
WRT mercury contamination, the obvious solution to that is fluorescent tube recycling. Maybe a deposit scheme like South Australia has with its soft drink bottles is called for.
Robert you know the answer to that. Micro-regulation creates the impression that the government is Doing Something, it affects people just enough for them to believe they’re Making Sacrifices, all without getting anyone seriously cranky. It’s like banning plastic bags at the same time as the use of plastic packaging increases exponentially (noticed how it’s getting harder to buy loose fruit and veg in supermarkets lately? More and more of it’s being pre-packaged in plastic).
Yes, Ken, see the appeal of the non-sacrifice sacrifice.
I don’t think you have to be genius to realise what this is all about. Government looks like, and is, doing absolutely nothing to address the issue of global carbon emission levels.
See comic character Malcolm Turnbull with ‘thinks’ bubble and ‘lightbulb’ idea. I know what we can do….
Let’s make it compulsory for people to do what bucket loads have already figured out and steal someone elses campaign idea.
Pathetic diversion tactic I reckon.
“Why are governments so keen to assume that they know people’s needs better than the people do themselves?”
Because they think the people are dickheads so they make some of them bureaucrats with lousy incentives and that will fix them up.
Now light bulbs join plastic shopping bag economics. Fuck this oxymoron communard govt. It’s time to go. The problem is the other mob will be even worse at this kind of populist drivel. They’ll start banning jet travel, swimming pools, dishwashers, 8 cylinder cars then 6 cyl cars then….
Spot on about the sacrifice thingy Robert.
I’d have been more impressed if Howard had coerced coal exporters to include a container or two of compact flouros with every shipload for free distribution at the other end.
“I don’t beat myself up over my halogens, because I buy 100% Green Power”.
Yep, Robert, know how you feel. I never bother to pick up my dogs’ droppings when I go for a walk. Someone has always ‘traded’, by leaving their dogs fine work on my nature strip. 100% cool.
Still going need good old fashion bulbs for ovens and fridges at least in the short term. Bulbs for them also work well in lava lamps (far cheaper than the expensive “lava lamp” bulbs that some try to flog.)
Robert, there is very little of this Green Power. It is a scarce resource. If you didn’t hog it with your halogen’s more people could use it.
FXH, why is your boarder inside double quotes?
Wbb, are you serious?
One of the major points of buying green energy is to support the development of renewable technologies, and economies of scale in their manufacturing.
Would you be happy if instead of buying green power I paid for bloody solar panels on my roof to power my halogens?
Joe2, a more accurate analogy would be that rather than cleaning up my dog poo myself, I pay extra for somebody else to do it for me. Again, I don’t see why I should be guilty about that.
Guilt is definitely not something I would wish on anybody, Robert. Direct responsibility for behaviour, if I has the capacity to consciously understand what I am doing, is a different matter.
Incidentally, my job, of course,is to pick up my dogs’ poo as I go for a walk AND keep my nature strip clean despite other dog owners inconsideration. Same goes for me doing my best to curb carbon emissions. Can’t go palming it off on some other poor bastard. We need to be involved; not distant from what we do.
My main concern for tradeing off that direct responsibilty is like ‘the uppity rich bastard factor’. It goes like….. I’m doing my bit for homelessness because I donate all my old clothes to Vinnies and make a regular tax deductible donation. I’ve done my bit.
Good practical post Robert and sorry to have moved off slightly from old style light bulb ‘badness’; they will probably still be necessary to keep my extensive collection of deco, 60’s and some 70’s table lights working.
Robert, currently less than 1% of Victoria’s electricity comes from wind or solar generators.
Given that limitation, we need to reduce our consumption in order to reduce CO2 pollution. The Green Power option is no panacea.
CO2 pollution needs to be reduced in the short term. Developing non CO2 polluting generation is a long term project. So pack your incandescent light-bulbs in a box and bring them back out in a few decades when we actually produce meaningful qtys of clean energy.
According to Huffington Post:
But I *have* reduced CO2 pollution in the short term by ensuring that my component of Victoria’s electricity mix is purchased from non-emitting sources, a component that would otherwise have been purchased from fossil fuel power stations.
If I swapped my halogens for fluorescents, rather than less fossil fuel generation, there would be less renewable generation. Emissions would stay the same.
And, if you don’t like green power, there are other alternatives. While it would be an expensive option, I know I could go off-grid and run my house, complete with halogens, off solar panels and/or a windmill (though that might be difficult in Brunswick). In such a case, I can be 100% certain that the generation process is not emitting CO2.
Now, it may make more economic sense for me to just install the fluros. But I’ve done my good deed and cut my emissions. Why do I have to have dictated how I do it?
Robert, when you switch on your halogens and PC at 21:00 tonight, they will be 96% powered by coal burning, whether you pay a surcharge for the Green Power label on your next bill or not.
It is probably good to pay the surcharge as it might stimulate non-polluting generation as you say.
But that is a separate issue from reducing your personal CO2 pollution level by minimising your consumption of electricity.
I’m with wbb in regulating when it’s a no-brainer. But I’m not sure this one is.
We’ve got dimmers in three areas. That’s 12 bulbs. We were talking tonight about buying a life-time supply of incandescents. Well 20 years or so.
Robert, on showers, we’ve been told that we are not permitted to connect our shower to tank water. Only the toilet and laundry. The reason, I gather, is that they are worried about mixing in the pipes so that the rain water ends up in the basin, or you brush your teeth in the shower. That’s even if you install a ‘first flush’ so that the first runoff doesn’t go into the tank, which we have.
But I know people in Upper Brookfield where they don’t have town water who drink the stuff straight off the roof without a first flush. Just as we did on the farm as kids. And that is within the Brisbane city area.
Brian – this is for you then
And for Robert Merkel who wants to replace his haolgens :
http://www.environmentshop.com.au/ProductDetails.asp?PID=3217
All available at
ENVIRONMENT SHOP
221 High Street, Northcote, Victoria
Australia 3070
Hrm its a bit more than just a green power label – at least with ACTEWAGL the way they say it works is they buy on your behalf an extra amount of renewable energy per day (say 10kWh). It doesn’t really matter when in the day you use that energy, because even if instaneously there is insufficient renewable energy to directly supply you (and its not as if there are green electrons and black electrons anyway), then you are paying for renewable energy for someone else at a different time of the day.
So net effect, even if you’re powering halogens, if you’re buying 100% renewable energy through purchasing renewable energy, your personal net CO2 emissions for electricity are in fact 0. You’re having a more positive effect for the environment than someone who replaces all their lights with CFLs and doesn’t buy any renewable energy, because chances are all of their power comes from coal or gas powered plants.
wwbb, thanks for that. They will be a bit ugly in the dining room, but anything for the environment. I’ll start throwing gold coins in a jar to save the necessary $360 today.
But Chris, what if that other person wants to use the electricity you bought them on a windless day? What if that person also bought Green Power?
There is 600MW of wind power in the National Electricity Grid. This accounts for about 0.5 per cent of typical demand.
When you pay the Green Power premium you are donating a small amount of money to the renewable energy industry. However your electricity consumption is still 90% powered through the burning of hydrocarbons. Therefore it is important to conserve your consumption.
Conservation is more effective in reducing CO2 pollution than contributing to the Green Energy fund.
Brian – me too! But hopefully they’ll be cheaper by the time our jars are full.
Wbb, they’re not a like-for-like replacement.
I’d have to rip a whole bunch of wiring out of my roof
They aren’t as directional as halogens.
I believe that LED’s that will provide an equivalent replacement are only a couple of years away; I’ll wait until they become available.
And what Chris said about green power.
I would add that there are real questions about how many people can realistically buy green power with present technologies, while allowing the grid to remain stable. That why I think nuclear power should be considered, because it can provide baseload power in whatever quantities desired.
Wbb said:
There isn’t a specific “other person”. Someone will be using the renewable energy that is produced. If someone else bought renewable energy
then there will be even more Green Power available. With the current uptake of people willing to pay extra for green power, we simply don’t have the problem of there being more renewable power being produced than we can use.
I this this is where the confusion is coming in. You’re not making a donation to the renewable energy industry. You are explicitly purchasing an amount of energy from renewable resources.
Conservation is certainly an effective way of reducing CO2 pollution, and for most people who haven’t started yet, the cheapest way of doing so. However, a person who say halves their daily consumption from 20kwh to 10kwh is still producing 10kwhs of CO2. Someone who instead buys 20Kwh of renewable energy per day has effectively reduced their CO2 production (for electricity) to zero. A signicantly better outcome.
The latter has more impact, but I do understand for many people its not affordable, or they’re simply not willing to pay the extra amount (for say 20kwh/day – you’re probably talking about an extra $500/year).
Robert Merkel said:
I agree thats an option that should be considered. But the government shouldn’t be picking winners – be it solar, wind or nuclear, or even banning incandescents. Just put a price on carbon, run some education campaigns on various technologies and people will naturally respond by doing things like installing CFLs, and using renewable energy source because they’re cheaper.
We are concentrating on water issues at present. But my wife ran into someone at the markets on Saturday morning who was a full bottle on solar on your roof. He said it would cost about $30K at present in Brisbane and there were subsidies available to the value of $3K.
I’d like us to be generating our own power as much as possible but that sounds like a lot of goolie. But on a quick look at our electricity bill and looking at the cost of capital on those ‘line of credit’ loans you can take out on your house (to pay for overseas trips and such) it looks about even-Stevens if your net electricity bill becomes zero. It’s worth a look when we get time.
But I suspect we’d be better off if we borrowed that amount of money, invested it in the sharemarket, claimed the interest as a tax deduction and did Robert’s green energy thing.
I’ll have another think about it when I’m not tired.
Chris, this is not quite right.
The purpose of the GreenPower program is to provide financial incentives for the development of new clean electricity generation. We need new renewable energy generation to replace the 92% of our CO2 polluting generation. You are using 92% polluting electricity right this minute as you stare at your computer screen. You are racking up a dollar premium as you do so however which is supposed to fund future development of non-polluting electricity generation.
Your GreenPower premium is directed to clean producers so that they can generate more clean electricity in the future. However at the moment your electricity consumption produces as much CO2 pollution as everybody elses.
Your purchase of electricity under the GreenPower program allows new clean generation to be built (all going to plan). But until the day that we have moved off coal your consumption of electricity will produce green-house gas pollution.
I am not criticising GreenPower. It has an important role. But to say that we do not need to consider other measures including conservation, voluntary and compulsory, is wrong.
Brian, if by “Robert’s green energy thing”, you mean buying electricity retailed under the GreenPower program, then I don’t think it is the better option of the two.
The GreenPower program is far too slow to drive the construction of enough new clean energy production to replace our current 92% coal produced electricity.
The best solution is for governments to aggressively raise the MRET which is currently designed to compel the electricity retailers to sell an extra 2% green power by 2010 compared with 2001.
But failing that, given the government we’ve got, DIY solar may be the best but a very expensive/altruistic option only available to a few. Perhaps investing in those hot stocks and contributing part profits to The Greens would be the best bet.
wbb, let’s forget the shares. A rough look at the figures indicated that, since I don’t have a lazy $30K sitting in a bank account, I could borrow the money against our equity in the house and the interest bill would be roughly equal to our electricity bill.
So on a rough first look it is near break-even for us, which surprises me.
I’m not sure about MRET. It has been said that if you make the polluters internalise the cost of damaging the planet and do a cap and trade thing you don’t need MRET as well.
Brian, I’d crunch those numbers very, very carefully if I were you.
here is a brochure for a grid-connected solar system. For $36,700 (not including a new electricity meter), you can buy a system that can generate 14 kwh per day.
At full retail, 14 kwh of power costs me (and, like I said, I buy 100% green power) $2.28. So, over the course of a year, the net saving in electricity cost is $832.
Assuming an interest rate of 7%, the borrowing costs are $2555.
Reducing the net cost to $33,700 knocks the borrowing down to $2345. You’re still way, way behind.
Unless you get a hell of a lot more sun that I do, or pay a lot more for grid power than I do, or borrow money at a lot lower rate than I do (in which case, why aren’t you borrowing all you can and sticking in a high-rate term deposit…), it’s not going to break even.
Did you factor in selling excess back to the grid? The 14kw is only an average but I’m not sure whether the amt sold back would be equivalent to the amount drawn down. In our climate you would think not.
Suz, I’m assuming net metering – any temporary surplus is sold back to the grid at the same price I buy power.
If you assume anything less, the economics look even worse.
Robert – who is your retailer out of interest?
AGL. I signed up through a scheme organized by the People’s Republic of Moreland called Community Power, but that scheme is about to be shut down and isn’t taking new customers.
I’m going to have to find a new Green Power provider soon. The Green Power website has a list here.
We should probably do a “what can I do personally to reduce my carbon emissions” thread…
I’m also with the ppl’s republik. But didn’t know they were shutting down. But take that as a good sign – volume and consumer awareness making their initiative redundant.
greenelectricitywatch gives ratings for the various providers, too. Amazing how shonky some of the retailers are.
Oh dear! I’ve just checked and we’re using about 29 khw per day. There are 3 people here, plus a dog, a cat and a swimming pool. In addition, we have a gas hot water system. I think I’ll have to check to see whether the neighbours are running a cord under the fence!
Our roof is oriented the wrong way and we’d never get enough panels up there to do the job.
Yes please on a “what can I do personally to reduce my carbon emissions� thread.
Brian – you’ve brought this issue into the light in the blogosphere. You’ve seen of GMB. So now it seems to me it’s your job to finish what you’ve started. Don’t look to Merkel. He’s too busy burying his halogens in the backyard.
Merkel’s the one, wbb. He has the practical focus for the job. If he errs, I’m sure you’ll set him straight!
Dead right, Brian.
My first question for Merkel then, is why does today’s editorial in The Australian say:
I understand that he is not licenced to provide share-market advice, but if The Australian knows something I don’t, then I’m wondering why Merkel is a GDY shareholder?
wbb: two points:
From a technical perspective, power can be pumped into the national grid with acceptably low energy losses (the Queensland to Darwin proposed electricity line would have worked just fine). Whether it’s financially viable to do so is the real question, and depends on how much people are going to be prepared to pay for carbon-neutral electricity.
Geodynamics’ business plan for a commercial-scale plant includes a connection to the national grid.
The Australian’s grasp of engineering issues is probably right up there with Greg Sheridan’s grasp of the Middle East.
Just letting you all know that Spiral Shaped bulbs are not good at all. The ones that came out in 80s and used in 90s were much better, plus the magnetic did much better on long life…..the ones with microchips inside and the tube is not removeable (which means either the bulb or the chip goes bad means whole thing in trash) I have tested a lot of dead Compact Fluorescent lights and some were dead because the internal parts were dead while others were the bulb…..so the ones that had dead electronic parts, the bulb that has mercury inside will be thrown away…..wasting more mercury.
Here’s a Fact….the more mercury in a fluorescent light lasts longer than the ones with low mercury!
Another thing why Spiral shaped ones are not good is if you look carefully at the bottom part of the tube when the light is lit…you’ll see really thick coating of phosphor preventing from light in the bottom area which means it won’t be efficient enough becausee putting it in the table lamp, not much light to go down and more goes up while this spiral lamp will do much better on recessed fixtures because base is up and letting light go down because the thick coating area is not needed and is inside the fixture.
Below is relating to streetlights lightbulbs…
You know also for the fact in the Philips web page is that Metal Halide lights (used for parking lots and newer than Mercury Vapor) have a LOT more mercury dose in it than Mercury Vapor and I hear about Mercury Vapor being banned because it is an easy target to ban just because of the word “Mercury” also Metal Halide bulbs do not last as long as Mercury Vapor lamps meaning more mercury is being thrown away! Plus High Pressure Sodium were recently put to have lower mercury meaning a LOT SHORTER life High Pressure bulbs being thrown away and even more mercury is disposed because little by little faster (if a Alto HPS lasted 2 years and a Regular more mercury HPS lasted 10 years that means maybe if 1/4 dose of the full dose of mercury in one HPS 2 years so 1/4 times ten years is 2 1/2 of mercury while a regular has full dose lasts 10 years) then you only dispose 1 dose for one light in 10 years instead of 2 1/4 doses in 10 years….Does this make sense?
I am just letting you know my knowledges of facts….
“market competition and consumer power are all that is required to bring the cost of these products down.”
Yeah, that’s what he’s saying. Currently the only thing they have to compete with IS incandescant bulbs; if flourescent bulbs are mandated, there won’t be any competition and Flourescents will have a monopoly on the market. Well, except for Halogens, but the point is that where competition goes down, supply goes down. Demand is not going to change significantly. Therefore prices will rise.
I agree with this guy;
“Just put a price on carbon, run some education campaigns on various technologies and people will naturally respond by doing things like installing CFLs, and using renewable energy source because they’re cheaper.”
I’d suggest you read Atlas Shrugged.