freediver
Gold Member
Online
www.ozpolitic.com
Posts: 47369
At my desk.
|
http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Australias-bulb-action-lightens-up-UK/2007/02/22/1171733956451.html
Australia's move to phase out standard light bulbs has prompted UK campaigners to ask: why can't Britain do the same?
The Guardian newspaper's Leo Hickman pointed out the decision to ban incandescent light bulbs, announced by Australian Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull this week, was taken in a country that refuses to sign the Kyoto protocol enforcing targets for reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
"Isn't it rather embarrassing that a country as ungreen as Australia is showing up Britain?" he asked.
LEDs may light up the future
http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/LEDs-may-light-up-the-future/2007/05/13/1178994975697.html
The light bulb, the symbol of bright ideas, does not look like such a great idea anymore.
MPs in Australia and overseas are talking about phasing out the century-old technology because of its contribution to global warming.
But what comes next?
Compact fluorescent bulbs are the only real alternative right now, but "bulbs" that use light-emitting diodes, or LEDs, are quickly emerging as a challenger.
LEDs, which are small chips usually encased in a glass dome the size of a matchstick head, have been in use in electronics for decades to indicate, for example, whether a VCR is on or off.
Those LEDs were usually red or green, but a scientific breakthrough in the 1990s paved the way for the production of LEDs that produce white light.
Because they use less power than standard incandescent bulbs, white LEDs have become common in flashlights.
Established players in the lighting industry and a host of startups are now grooming LEDs to take on the reigning champion of residential lighting, the familiar pear-shaped incandescent light bulb.
Australia wants incandescent bulbs phased out by 2010.
California and Canada have decided to outlaw them by 2012.
Governments are gunning for the light bulb because it is much less efficient than fluorescents, using about five times more energy to produce the same amount of light.
Lighting consumes 22 per cent of electricity produced in the US, according to the Department of Energy, and widespread use of LED lighting could cut consumption in half.
Much of that reduction would be possible with today's technology, using compact fluorescents, or CFLs. But consumers have not warmed to them.
The light quality has not been satisfactory, most take time to turn on and are not dimmable.
The LED has advantages over the CFL in most of those areas, and judging by this week's Lightfair trade show in New York, it could be a serious challenge to the CFL in a few years. What holds it back is chiefly price, but LEDs are already an economic alternative for niche uses.
In particular, LEDs that produce a yellowish or "warm" light similar to incandescents have improved.
The energy efficiency is no doubt a draw for commercial clients like hotels, but LEDs have another big advantage: they last up to 50,000 hours, according to manufacturers.
That compares to about 10,000 hours for fluorescents and 1,000 hours for incandescents.
Not having to send out janitors to replace burned-out bulbs means big savings in maintenance costs.
|