Thomas asks…
Why aren’t Energy Saving IntelliPlugs fitted to all new appliances?
http://direct.tesco.com/q/R.200-8371.aspx
Have a look at the link above. Quoted below:
‘When your desktop computer is switched on, Intelliplug automatically provides power to the monitor, printer, speakers etc via its patented auto-calibration system as well as providing surge protection for the whole system. When the computer is turned off, Intelliplug automatically switches off power to the peripherals, saving money as well as saving energy.’
If we have the technology why aren’t these Energy Saving Intelliplugs fitted to all new appliances by law?
I have just seen a socket panel like you mention
Like this one?
http://direct.tesco.com/q/R.202-5873.aspx
adminsta answers:
Later this year because PG&E has demanded it, computers will be able to be turned off and when turned back on they will start with the programs that where running when turned off and without delay. That is what I am waiting for!
John asks…
Energy Saving Light bulbs,what are the Recycling plans for them?
Energy Saving light bulbs may be more economical with regard to the usage of energy in buildings but to what cost of peoples health?
As I understand it the Energy Saving Light Bulbs contain Mercury, Phosphorus. If we are to use these bulbs what is the Government going to do about the recycling of them, as Mercury is a Neurotoxin.
If one breaks what are we the public supposed to do with them?
As quoted byhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/129na1.pdf
Exposure to high levels of mercury can permanently damage the brain, kidneys and developing foetus.
Combustion of coal for electric power generation is the largest source of atmospheric mercury pollution. Switching
from standard incandescent bulbs to energy-saving CFLs can reduce energy demand from such power plants and
consequently lead to a reduction in mercury emissions. However, CFLs themselves contain small amounts of
mercury that can be emitted when they break.
There is a suggestion that people should take them back to where they bought the Compact Lightbulb, but then this would be a health risk…… and what would the large Supermarkets do with them then, or the little Ironmonger for that matter.
Someone in Brussels hasn’t thought about this very well have they!!
The Government needs to get onto this problem and fast I think.
What about you?
kcguy693… thank you for your comment, but the link you gave me to www.earth911.com does not cover the UK
As far as I know there are no places to take the bulbs, other than the local tip.Some people are not able to get to the local tip! Also we are not allowed to put glass into our rubbish bins. All glass has to go to a recycling bin which can be found in Supermarket car parks.
Most of the replies are getting very technical….. my point was if someone has a duff CFL bulb, or a broken one…. are we supposed to drive miles with one little bulb….(incidently also increasing the carbon footprint in order to get rid of it.
adminsta answers:
You raise a really good question here.
At present in the UK it is not that easy to recycle CFLs, defra informs us all local councils accept them – but I know mine only does at their main centre miles away. As you quite rightly state it’s not eco to drive miles with one or two.
What I personally do is wait until I will be in the vicinity of Ikea for other reasons and take them there. Other retailers should provide recycling facilities too in my opinion – if they make money from them they should have a responsibilty to help with disposal. Ikea is leading the way on this one, as usual the UK retailers lag behind the times – if they get enough pressure from people like us eventually they might do something.
Richard asks…
Do low-energy lightbulbs save energy when repeatedly switched on and off, several times a day?
Quote from Telegraph.co.uk “Low energy light bulbs are small versions of the fluorescent strip lights found in offices and public buildings”.
My query is:-
As it is commonly believed that the act of turning on fluorescent strip lights creates a power surge (caused by the starter solenoid).
If so, would this make the low-energy light bulbs less efficient than the old (filament) type in a home environment where bathroom and kitchen lights are often turned on/off several times a day?
adminsta answers:
It is all about the “warm-up time”.
When you operate fluorescent bulbs at a cold temperature upon initial start-up, either CFLs or the long tubes, they require comparable energy to their incandescent counterparts. You also wear out these bulbs faster by doing so.
Fluorescent bulbs are best when operated in steady state, where steady state light is desired. It is best to place CFLs where you will be operating them for at least an hour’s usage at a time.
You are better off installing incandescent bulbs in bathrooms, since they go through higher frequency operation cycles.
Steven asks…
Do you think the new energy saving light bulbs are a hazard to human health?
In Europe, all normal (incandescent) light bulbs have been banned, and only fluorescent low-energy lightbulbs are now allowed. These use less energy, and so are touted as vital in the war on climate change.
However, as NPR in America points out ( http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7431198 ) the bulbs contain mercury, which it calls “a potent neurotoxin” and cites experts who point out that the bulbs will almost certainly break before they can reach recycling facilities.
Indeed, the entry for Mercury poisoning says that the mercury compounds commonly used in low-energy lightbulbs can be extremely toxic: [QUOTE]
——————-
“Compounds of mercury tend to be much more toxic than the element itself, and organic compounds of mercury are often extremely toxic and have been implicated in causing brain and liver damage. The most dangerous mercury compound, dimethylmercury, is so toxic that even a few microliters spilled on the skin, or even a latex glove, can cause death.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_poisoning
————————-
In terms of handling, the entry for ‘safety’ regarding mercury says:
————————————
“Mercury and most of its compounds are extremely toxic and are generally handled with care; in cases of spills involving mercury (such as from certain thermometers or fluorescent light bulbs) specific cleaning procedures are used to avoid toxic exposure.[82] It can be inhaled and absorbed through the skin and mucous membranes, so containers of mercury are securely sealed to avoid spills and evaporation. Heating of mercury, or compounds of mercury that may decompose when heated, are always carried out with adequate ventilation in order to avoid exposure to mercury vapor. The most toxic forms of mercury are its organic compounds, such as dimethylmercury and methylmercury. However, inorganic compounds, such as cinnabar are also highly toxic by ingestion or inhalation of the dust.[83] Mercury can cause both chronic and acute poisoning.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_(element)#Safety
——————————
The thing is, I live in the UK where only the new low-energy bulbs are now allowed and i’ve never even heard of these “specific cleaning procedures to avoid toxic exposure” – why not?
Why haven’t we been told about the real toxicity of these low energy lightbulbs, the dangers of chronic exposure and do you believe that in the longer term they will be a hazard to human health?
.
adminsta answers:
I am glad you asked this question, if for no other reason, to let people in the ‘real world’ to see what draconian measures (so-called laws), are being ‘forced down out throats’ with no valid reasoning.
The first article you refer to seems to be a combination of paranoia and politics.
The second seems to be more scientific in its approach, yet still leaning toward paranoia.
It is true that compounds of mercury tend to be much more toxic than the element itself, since the element itself is NON-TOXIC!
The third article seemed to be rather well balanced (to begin with) with a lot of science and history of mercury, but when it got to the part that you refer to, blew much credibility away in my opinion.
The new light bulbs are no threat whatsoever to human health, or to any other species health.
Although I know that CFL’s save energy, people should still have a choice!
This is nearly as political as it gets.
Wiki is a good source of information for many subjects, but some, like this, become questionable and require slight to major modification.
There is no toxicity to fear.
Politicians, zealots, fanatics, lunatics, etc. Are to be feared!
Edit.
Just to clarify my above statement.
The ‘ELEMENT’ Mercury is nontoxic some compounds and vapors are.
Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_poisoning#Elemental_mercury
The same holds true for Lead
Chris asks…
Who said to save energy “you should take a bath with a neighbour” in 70′s in UK?
I have a feeling it was a labour MP trying to make light of the blackouts and water shortages, but I can’t remember. A colleague wants to use the quote in a lesson next week. Any help appreciated.
adminsta answers:
Although I much prefer the answer above, it was in fact on a list of recommendations put out by water companies to try to save water. The actual quote was for a bath full of water to be used IN TURNS by members of the family – and it just became a joke about sharing a bath. As children we always shared the same bath water – I was lucky and always got to go in first, then my brother then my dad!
Lisa asks…
quotes like “i didn’t trip the floor needed a hug”? 
?
I love these kinda quotes! they make me laugh!!
do you guys know anymore?
examples:
“I’m not shy, I’m holding back my awesomeness so i don’t intimidate you”
“Im not lazy, I’m on energy saving mode”
“I’m not weird I’m limited edition”
adminsta answers:
“You wanna know how to keep an idiot, in suspense? I’ll tell ya, – NEXT WEEK!”
Linda asks…
So does this mean that energy saving doesn’t make any difference?
Is this is true or not? If it is, then isn’t that a bit backwards?
From http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/green-living-blog/2009/nov/26/top-10-green-living-myths
[QUOTE]:
“1. What they tell you: Turning off the lights saves CO2
What they don’t tell you: It makes sense for individuals to use less electricity to help reduce the emissions of British power stations. However, it’s worth bearing in mind that the total amount of CO2 that can be released by power plants and other industrial facilities across the EU between now and 2012 is fixed by the European Emissions Trading Scheme. This means that if the UK power sector reduces its emissions, extra carbon permits get freed up for use elsewhere, such as German power stations or French cement plants. In other words, the same amount of CO2 will be released, just from different sources. If you want to ensure that your electricity savings do make a real environmental difference, join Sandbag, a charity that will remove CO2 permits from the EU scheme to stop your good work being traded away on the carbon markets.”
Doesn’t that seem bizarre?
adminsta answers:
No, it doesn’t actually mean that.
The idea is this. A country sets a cap on its’ carbon emissions. Then, individual sources get allocations to meet the cap. If an individual source can get below its’ allocation cheaply, it can do more than required and sell the “credit” to someone who would have to spend a lot of money to get down to its’ allocation.
The system is well proven, it was used to vastly reduce “acid rain” in the 1970s, at a reasonable cost, and it worked very well.
But the allocation for a power plant isn’t a simple number, it’s a certain amount of CO2 per unit of power generated. When you conserve energy, the allocation for the power plant is reduced. It’s true that the cap for the country stays the same. But still, you’ve made it easier and cheaper for the country to actually meet its’ cap. The big problem with Kyoto is that many nations are not actually meeting their commitments.
Bottom line: Conservation helps the country, and the world, make the required reductions in CO2 more easily, and more cheaply. It’s an extremely important tool in reducing global warming, while maintaining a healthy economy.
These guys are asking people to buy down carbon emissions by sending money to a charity, who supposedly will buy up credits, and not use them. It’s an uncertain, and likely an expensive way to reduce carbon, due to administrative costs. I think conservation helps more, and has the bonus of actually saving YOU money.
Basically trading credits among industrial sources is a proven way to reduce pollution in a cost effective fashion. Individuals buying credits is less effective, and the potential for problems, or even scams, is huge.
Don’t let anyone tell you carbon credits are all good or all bad. Between industries they’re good, individuals buying them is dubious.
David asks…
How much can you save on energy bills by having a Carrier Infinity unit installed in your home?
Sears has quoted me an exceptionally large price for this “top of the line”, “state of the art” system and so I am interested to learn if it is a good investment?
adminsta answers:
There are so many variables that affect energy consumption such as insulation, air leaks in recessed lighting, leaky windows and doors, leaks in ductwork, that you may actually save more by upgrading windows and insulation than by buying an expensive hvac system. SEER (seasonal energy efficiency ratio) and AFUE (annual fuel utilization efficiency) ratings are way more important than top of the line models and fancy talk from salespeople trying to separate you from your money. Warranties and quality of installation are way more important than getting the most expensive system. Fyi, carrier and bryant are made by the same company, so are trane and american standard.
I would get at least three to five bids for hvac, make sure you go on www.aridirectory.com with the model numbers they put on the proposals and see if the condensers and coils they are proposing are really compatible and rated at the SEER they are telling you. Sometimes you will get an attractively low bid but the contractor is just tossing any equipment into your house and you won’t get the advertised efficiency.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers