Proposed ban on LCD and Plasma screens ?

[Phil Allison]

"JANA"

I have a 19 inch Viewsonic monitor. It is rated at 165 Watts for the power
consumption.

I also have a 20 inch LCD monitor. It is rated at 55 Watts for the power
consumption.

** I have a 17 inch CRT monitor.

It consumes 87 VA ( 360mA rms current draw )

Power consumption is 56 watts ( PF = 0.64) .

Same as your LCD screen.



........ Phil

 

[John Tserkezis]

Mauried wrote:

It does seem somewhat strange that incandescents have been banned but
not halogens.

Firstly, they're different lamp technologies, and secondly, incandescents
have NOT been banned. Sure they've talked about it, but it was just that- talk.

Has anyone done a calculation to determine what the alleged power
saving of going to CFLs is , in terms of what percentage of reduction
of total generated power in Australia is.

I've read that lighting accounts for about 8% of our energy usage. (read
about it on the Internet, so it must be true).
Though that 8% makes up for everything, just account for worst case and see
how insignificant the change to CFL would be.

Id like to see what energy star rating Aluminium Smelters get.

I'm sure they have an exemption, and in fact, if they're huge energy users,
they have their own plant.
If that's the case, (since they technically don't draw from the grid) they
would be independent of this. (not sure though, so feel free to dispute).
--
Linux Registered User # 302622
<http://counter.li.org>

 

[Phil Allison]

"dmm"

The credibility of the report is somewhat suspect.

** Care to actually read it ??

http://www.energyrating.gov.au/library/pubs/200710-tv-meps-labelling.pdf

All 166 pages.




....... Phil

 

[Suzy]

"John Tserkezis" <jt@techniciansyndrome.org.invalid> wrote in message
news:4711a340$0$1027$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

Mauried wrote:

It does seem somewhat strange that incandescents have been banned but
not halogens.

Firstly, they're different lamp technologies, and secondly, incandescents
have NOT been banned. Sure they've talked about it, but it was just that-
talk.

Has anyone done a calculation to determine what the alleged power
saving of going to CFLs is , in terms of what percentage of reduction
of total generated power in Australia is.

I've read that lighting accounts for about 8% of our energy usage. (read
about it on the Internet, so it must be true).
Though that 8% makes up for everything, just account for worst case and
see how insignificant the change to CFL would be.

Id like to see what energy star rating Aluminium Smelters get.

I'm sure they have an exemption, and in fact, if they're huge energy
users, they have their own plant.
If that's the case, (since they technically don't draw from the grid)
they would be independent of this. (not sure though, so feel free to
dispute).
--
Linux Registered User # 302622
http://counter.li.org

The proposal is so silly, John, that I hope it's "just talk" but the manager
at my local lighting wholesaler did say there was word in the industry that
you wouldn't be able to buy incandescent globes from next year, so for him
it's real enough.

 

[Phil Allison]

"Sleazy"

The proposal is so silly, John, that I hope it's "just talk" but the
manager at my local lighting wholesaler did say there was word in the
industry that you wouldn't be able to buy incandescent globes from next
year, so for him it's real enough.

** Must be right off with the Pixies.

The phase out is set to begin in 2009 with no more on shelves by 2010.

Expect to see MASSIVE hoarding before then.

Of course, eBay sellers will have a field day, as will UK lamp suppliers.



....... Phil

 

[Mr.T]

"John Tserkezis" <jt@techniciansyndrome.org.invalid> wrote in message
news:4711a340$0$1027$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

I'm sure they have an exemption, and in fact, if they're huge energy
users,
they have their own plant.
If that's the case, (since they technically don't draw from the grid)
they
would be independent of this. (not sure though, so feel free to dispute).

Do you in fact know of ANY that have built their own power station?
Alcoa in Portland had a special transmission line installed for them, at
taxpayer expense of course. And they get a special electricity rate far
lower than domestic users pay.

MrT.

 

[Alan]

On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 15:04:00 +1000, John Tserkezis
<jt@techniciansyndrome.org.invalid> wrote:

Firstly, they're different lamp technologies, and secondly, incandescents
have NOT been banned. Sure they've talked about it, but it was just that- talk.

Just to note that our local Coles and Kmart stores are no longer
selling incandescents, only CFLs. The Coles manager "informed" me
that incandescents will be banned soon.

So it may be true or perhaps Coles like the bigger profit margins on
the CFLs.

--
Sell your surplus electronic components at
http://ozcomponents.com
Search or browse for that IC, capacitor,
crystal or other component you need.

 

[John Tserkezis]

Mr.T wrote:

If that's the case, (since they technically don't draw from the grid) they
would be independent of this. (not sure though, so feel free to dispute).

Do you in fact know of ANY that have built their own power station?

CSR (the sugar people) have a coal power generation plant in their refinery.
At least the one in sydney we visited did (a gazillion years ago).
I can't remember the power it was capable of generating, but it was
relatively small. (Relative to power generation stations)

Alcoa in Portland had a special transmission line installed for them, at
taxpayer expense of course. And they get a special electricity rate far
lower than domestic users pay.

When your power bill is in the order of a bazillion dollars a year, they
jump over hoops, and the GovCo gets into the act by saying "their" substidy is
good because it creates many more jobs (and much more taxes).
It gets paid for one way or another.

In Alcoa's case, they determined that power lines from the main grid (and
along with other subsidies) was cheaper than doing it themselves.

At the end of the day, it always comes down to two things: Dollars and Cents.

--
Linux Registered User # 302622
<http://counter.li.org>

 

[John Tserkezis]

Alan wrote:

Just to note that our local Coles and Kmart stores are no longer
selling incandescents, only CFLs. The Coles manager "informed" me
that incandescents will be banned soon.

I think it's more of a pre-emptive strike than anything else.

So it may be true or perhaps Coles like the bigger profit margins on
the CFLs.

Oh yeah. That sounds MUCH more plausible than the "banning real soon
now" lines.
--
Linux Registered User # 302622
<http://counter.li.org>

 

[Bruce Varley]

"Phil Allison" <philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:5ndlbaFhkvmfU1@mid.individual.net...

"Mauried"

It does seem somewhat strange that incandescents have been banned but
not halogens.


** Huh ?

You got any proof of this ??

AFAIK halogen bulbs will get the chop too - maybe just a little later
than the common ES and BC lamps do.


Has anyone done a calculation to determine what the alleged power
saving of going to CFLs is , in terms of what percentage of reduction
of total generated power in Australia is.


** The power saving in watts of electricity consumed is a non issue. The
*overall cost saving* to consumers by using CFLs in place of incandescents
is an issue.

However, to just break even on cost, a CFL has to last 2000 hours or
- the available evidence says that most will fail to do that in
domestic use.

Far as the dreaded green house gass emissions are concerned - it will make
NO DIFFERENCE.

Main reason being that a coal fired power station cannot quickly reduce
coal consumption with reduced load. Domestic lighting is used almost
entirely at night, when the demand load on the grid is low and so it does
not require any extra coal consumption to supply it.



...... Phil
Sure, coal fired plant *can* be slower than gas plant, particularly gas

turbines. But it isn't that slow. Even for chain grate combustion...hour or
so at most. Fair bit quicker for pulverised fuel.

The main reason why domestic lighting changes will have minimal aggregate
effect on GHG is simply that proportionally their contribution to total
energy usage is close to zip, simple as that.

 

[L.A.T.]

** Must be right off with the Pixies.

Are you sure you don't mean "Pixels"?

The Devil made me do it.

 

[Suzy]

"Alan" <me@somewhere.com.au.invalid> wrote in message
news:5kp3h3585ftpu1dsfupn6es4levgs8egs6@4ax.com...

On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 15:04:00 +1000, John Tserkezis
jt@techniciansyndrome.org.invalid> wrote:

Firstly, they're different lamp technologies, and secondly,
incandescents
have NOT been banned. Sure they've talked about it, but it was just that-
talk.

Just to note that our local Coles and Kmart stores are no longer
selling incandescents, only CFLs. The Coles manager "informed" me
that incandescents will be banned soon.

So it may be true or perhaps Coles like the bigger profit margins on
the CFLs.

Typical! Yes, undoubtedly the big boys see a ramp they can fleece us with

(nice mixed metaphor). Here Woolies still have plenty of stocks. Have not
tried Coles.

 

[Suzy]

"Bruce Varley" <bxvarley@weastnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:13h47798ltclle1@corp.supernews.com...

"Phil Allison" <philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:5ndlbaFhkvmfU1@mid.individual.net...

"Mauried"

It does seem somewhat strange that incandescents have been banned but
not halogens.


** Huh ?

You got any proof of this ??

AFAIK halogen bulbs will get the chop too - maybe just a little later
than the common ES and BC lamps do.


Has anyone done a calculation to determine what the alleged power
saving of going to CFLs is , in terms of what percentage of reduction
of total generated power in Australia is.


** The power saving in watts of electricity consumed is a non issue. The
*overall cost saving* to consumers by using CFLs in place of
incandescents is an issue.

However, to just break even on cost, a CFL has to last 2000 hours or -
the available evidence says that most will fail to do that in domestic
use.

Far as the dreaded green house gass emissions are concerned - it will
make NO DIFFERENCE.

Main reason being that a coal fired power station cannot quickly reduce
coal consumption with reduced load. Domestic lighting is used almost
entirely at night, when the demand load on the grid is low and so it does
not require any extra coal consumption to supply it.



...... Phil
Sure, coal fired plant *can* be slower than gas plant, particularly gas
turbines. But it isn't that slow. Even for chain grate combustion...hour
or so at most. Fair bit quicker for pulverised fuel.

The main reason why domestic lighting changes will have minimal aggregate
effect on GHG is simply that proportionally their contribution to total
energy usage is close to zip, simple as that.
For once I agree entirely with Phil, and I'm glad someone quoted him and

thus defeated my killfile list on this occasion!

 

[Franc Zabkar]

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 13:52:08 GMT, "ian field" <dai.ode@ntlworld.com>
put finger to keyboard and composed:

"JANA" <jana@NOSPAMca.inter.net> wrote in message
news:13h0q4i5u7i2o6f@corp.supernews.com...

Here is the follow-up!!!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/11/2056313.htm


LCD screens draw far less wattage than the equivalent size CRT types. Both
the Plasma and LCD TV sets are less harmful to the environment when
disposed
of. This type of TV set will outlast most of the CRT sets that were made.

I doubt it. I expect that lamps and/or inverters will need to be
replaced within 5 years.

Worldwide the greenie weenies are like terrier dogs - once they get their
teeth into something they won't let go until they get something banned!

If they push this issue, then hopefully the consumer backlash will
consign them to political oblivion where they belong.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

 

[Franc Zabkar]

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 07:13:53 -0700, kreed <kenreed1999@gmail.com> put
finger to keyboard and composed:

Was talking to a colleague today associated with computer parts
distribution, he mentioned that he has heard rumours of a "proposed
ban on sales of LCD / Plasma type monitors" for
"environmental" (energy saving) reasons, instead presumably "mandating
CRT type technology due to it being more efficient ?"

First thought was that it is ridiculous and a bit of a joke - but then
again I admit to thinking similarly about the recent ban on iron-core
transformer plugpacks and incandescant lighting (both of which turned
out to be true, and both were hotly debated on this forum).

Have no idea which government body is proposing it or if its even
true. In any case - I think its too late as these displays have
firmly entrenched themselves into the market in PC and TV.

I can't imagine ever reverting to a CRT display for my PC, if only for
ergonomic reasons. An LCD monitor places *much* less strain on my eyes
than any CRT ever did.

Instead I'd like to see the public service lead by example and switch
to less power hungry CPUs, eg VIA C3 CPU (20 watts max at 1.4GHz)
instead of AMD64 or Intel Core 2 Duo. I suspect that an energy audit
of our various government bodies would reveal enough energy savings to
decommision an entire power plant.

Anyone here has any info on it ?

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

 

[Dorfus Dippintush]

Suzy wrote:

"Bruce Varley" <bxvarley@weastnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:13h47798ltclle1@corp.supernews.com...
"Phil Allison" <philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:5ndlbaFhkvmfU1@mid.individual.net...
"Mauried"
It does seem somewhat strange that incandescents have been banned but
not halogens.

** Huh ?

You got any proof of this ??

AFAIK halogen bulbs will get the chop too - maybe just a little later
than the common ES and BC lamps do.


Has anyone done a calculation to determine what the alleged power
saving of going to CFLs is , in terms of what percentage of reduction
of total generated power in Australia is.

** The power saving in watts of electricity consumed is a non issue. The
*overall cost saving* to consumers by using CFLs in place of
incandescents is an issue.

However, to just break even on cost, a CFL has to last 2000 hours or -
the available evidence says that most will fail to do that in domestic
use.

Far as the dreaded green house gass emissions are concerned - it will
make NO DIFFERENCE.

Main reason being that a coal fired power station cannot quickly reduce
coal consumption with reduced load. Domestic lighting is used almost
entirely at night, when the demand load on the grid is low and so it does
not require any extra coal consumption to supply it.



...... Phil
Sure, coal fired plant *can* be slower than gas plant, particularly gas
turbines. But it isn't that slow. Even for chain grate combustion...hour
or so at most. Fair bit quicker for pulverised fuel.

The main reason why domestic lighting changes will have minimal aggregate
effect on GHG is simply that proportionally their contribution to total
energy usage is close to zip, simple as that.
For once I agree entirely with Phil, and I'm glad someone quoted him and
thus defeated my killfile list on this occasion!

Coal feeders in power stations use variable speed drives and can (and
do) change load in seconds. Getting a boiler to raise steam temperature
may take a few minutes, but the load change on a grid system is very
gradual unless a generator drops off the system due to a fault. See if
you can get hold of a load graph. The bigger the grid the more stable it
is. I think nearly all coal fired power stations in Australia would use
pulverized coal. I doubt any would use moving grates.

Peak loads caused by reverse cycle air conditioners are the main problem
on a grid. That's when you'd run a peaking plant such as gas or oil. Oil
is very expensive. Most grids get around this now by getting industry to
shut down non-essential plant, this is done by the grid controller using
an automated control system.

Dorfus

 

[Mauried]

On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 14:47:35 +1000, "Phil Allison"
<philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote:

"Mauried"

It does seem somewhat strange that incandescents have been banned but
not halogens.


** Huh ?

You got any proof of this ??

AFAIK halogen bulbs will get the chop too - maybe just a little later than
the common ES and BC lamps do.

This is taken directly from the Greenhouse Office website in their FAQ
section re Halogens.

* Good quality halogen lights will continue to be available, but
halogen lights that use too much energy will be phased out.


And thats the only referance I can find re halogen lights and any ban.

Given that there is no definition of what constitutes a halogen light
that uses too much energy its hard to know what they are talking
about,re whats going to be phased out.

 

[Phil Allison]

"Mauried"

It does seem somewhat strange that incandescents have been banned but
not halogens.


** Huh ?

You got any proof of this ??

AFAIK halogen bulbs will get the chop too - maybe just a little later
than
the common ES and BC lamps do.


This is taken directly from the Greenhouse Office website in their FAQ
section re Halogens.

* Good quality halogen lights will continue to be available, but
halogen lights that use too much energy will be phased out.


And thats the only referance I can find re halogen lights and any ban.

** Yep - and it basically says that halogens are to be banned.

Given that there is no definition of what constitutes a halogen light
that uses too much energy its hard to know what they are talking
about,re whats going to be phased out.

** The efficiency of small halogen bulbs ( ie dichroic downlights) is hardy
any better than that of standard incandescent bulbs.

The only " halogens" you can expect to escape the ban are large wattage
types ( ie PAR lamps etc ) used mainly for outdoor lighting & entertainment
purposes.




........ Phil

 

[Mr.T]

"John Tserkezis" <jt@techniciansyndrome.org.invalid> wrote in message
news:4711fa18$0$19339$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

When your power bill is in the order of a bazillion dollars a year, they
jump over hoops, and the GovCo gets into the act by saying "their"
substidy is
good because it creates many more jobs (and much more taxes).
It gets paid for one way or another.

As long as you ignore how much the taxpayer is subsidising some jobs, whilst
saying too bad to thousands of others!
What makes an Alcoa job more important than a Telstra one for example?

In Alcoa's case, they determined that power lines from the main grid
(and
along with other subsidies) was cheaper than doing it themselves.

Of course it is, when you are being subsidised by other users and taxpayers!

At the end of the day, it always comes down to two things: Dollars and
Cents.

No, greed and corruption!

MrT.

 

[John Tserkezis]

Mr.T wrote:

What makes an Alcoa job more important than a Telstra one for example?

It makes more money for govco. And they're the only ones who count.

In Alcoa's case, they determined that power lines from the main grid
(and along with other subsidies) was cheaper than doing it themselves.

Of course it is, when you are being subsidised by other users and taxpayers!

But, after some time, they're going to make that money back via pay tax on
the people who work there. (where they wouldn't if alcoa wasn't there).
Not only that, they're going to keep making money once it's paid off.

Only cost is in the meantime (short term), they're down n Gazillion dollars.
That's of no consequence, because they can make up the shortfall with little
money spinners like another fuel levy, or more speed cameras or something
equally as benign to society.

At the end of the day, it always comes down to two things: Dollars and
Cents.

No, greed and corruption!

And the difference is??
--
Linux Registered User # 302622
<http://counter.li.org>