My Occasional Rants

Dave Mulligan's Blog

 
 
I never really intended to start a blog. I have plenty to do without one, and I didn't want the responsibility of keeping one up to date. But as I get older I find that there are issues on which I would like to express an opinion. I have also learned that I have a snowball in hell's chance of affecting them unless I am very lucky. And being right (I am always right) isn't enough.

The logic of this is simple - keep it to yourself and you have NO chance. Say something and you have a chance, however small.

My features on Low Energy Lightbulbs and the (now thankfully rejected) Whinash Wind Farm have shown me that sometimes I feel strongly enough to distort the NVM Digital website a bit. So it seemed like a good idea to make a bit of permanent space for my occasional outbursts. This is it!

Dave Mulligan
15/11/08

If you'd like to comment on anything please contact me at blog@nvmdigital.com

Do our local recycling and refuse collection schemes make environmental sense? -  7/11/2009
CFLs - How do I dispose of my first dead CFL? -  7/11/2009 | CFLs - Quality, dangers, & embedded energy 14/3/2009
Recycling -  does it save energy, CO2 etc.? 27/1/2009 | They all said it couldn't be done 20/1/2009
CFLs flicker back to life! 7/1/09 | CFLs in my home | P.S about CFL Light Quality | Use less energy AND eliminate fuel poverty? 27/11/08
Recycling Waste Wastefully 15/11/08


Retired Fire Extinuisher MI132Do our local recycling and refuse collection schemes make environmental sense? -  7/11/2009

Our local authority, Craven District Council, have recently announced that they will, in common with several other local authorities, reduce domestic waste collections from weekly to fortnightly. They claim that there is no evidence that this will cause an increased public health risk.

When faced with a superficially dubious proposition a friend of my used to resort to an "appeal to reason" by testing an "upside down" version. Here this would be "Would more collections increase the public health risk?" Answers on a postcard etc...

They are also helping to reduce our consumption of plastic bags by advising us to wrap some items because of the longer residence in the bins (Incidentally we have no "single use" plastic bags - they are all re-used unless damaged or dirty)

We are also the proud possessors of  blue recycling bins with internal containers for glass and tins, the main space being for paper. We have already been told that they no longer separate glass and tins, so the two containers now do the same job. We are now told that we will be able to mix plastic bottles, tins, and glass in the same blue bin. The two internal containers are now redundant, and we will be given PLASTIC BAGS for waste paper!. This too enables us to cut down on our usage of plastic bags, and maybe to recycle some paper locally (rather than in CHINA, which is its current energy-efficient destination) by the good offices of our very strong winds.

Isn't the gratuitous disposal of things before they are worn out part of the reason for having so much waste to dispose of?

While these changes may well help our cash-strapped local authority financially might there not also be planning and global energy issues in all this? (Not to mention targets - an issue in itself)

Back to Top
 

CFLs - How do I dispose of my first dead CFL? -  7/11/2009

Well - Here I am yet again!! Faced with my first CFL failure I now wonder whether I should put it in the bin (as the previous DOE advice permitting the binning of up to 20 fluorescent tubes seemed to indicate (European Report p46)) or take it somewhere somehwere else. Being a law-abiding soul I thought I would check up, as the WEEE implementation should have changed things since, as well as mercury,  LELs/CFLs also contain a PCB (printed circuit board). 

And indeed it has. But to what?

DEFRA advice
"The public should contact the local authority for advice on where to dispose of broken or intact CFLs as they should be treated as hazardous waste and should not be disposed of in the bin." 

House of Commons briefing paper "The phasing out of incandecent light bulbs" SN/SC/4958 24/7/09
"All retailers have to provide return and recycling facilities" 

Incidentally the House of Commons can't spell "fluorescent".

I bought this bulb from B&Q who did not make a point of telling me about their return and recycling facilities. They are 14 miles away.

My local authority (Craven District Council) have a rather good recycling facility in Settle, and would almost certainly accept my dead CFL. They are 11 miles away. 

A special trip to either, using over 2 litres of petrol, would use about 20 Kwh of energy, directly contribute about 7 Kg of CO2 to the atmosphere, and more than cancel the energy saving I may have made with this bulb.

The temptation to put it in the bin is almost (but not quite) overwhelming! 

I bet I'm not alone.

Back to Top
 

"CFLs - Quality, dangers, & embedded energy (Well - here I am again!)" 14/3/2009

I've been less enthusiastic about this recently because, despite the evidence against and the paucity of evidence for, the "machine" is winning, as incandescent bulbs of any useful wattage vanish from our shops.

But I do get drawn back in! 

There are three new items which I should point out to you:

1) "Dangers of Low Energy Lightbulbs" Daily Express 14/3/09

If you have already read "Low Energy Light Bulbs – Savers or Wasters?" and "Low Energy Light Bulbs – More about Mercury" and blog you won't find anything new here, but it is interesting to see one of our largest national newspapers making some noise about the subject! I suspect that a fading echo of the noise is all that will result.

2) "The Indian experience of CFLs"

An electrical engineer from India with a long practical experience of using CFLs points out that the lifetime and quality of CFLs is hugely varianble - from 6 months (!!!) to 6 years depending on their origin. If this is true then the money saving argument for CFLs collapses for many users.

He believes that manufacture to international standards is the answer.

3) At long last!! An answer to embedded energy

If you go to http://thewatt.com/node/175 (thanks to Jason for the link) you will find a highly technical and competent treatment of this issue. The author's conclusion is that a CFL only needs to operate for 50 hours to pay back its embedded energy. I haven't yet fully taken in this article, but, while I am fairly persuaded by it, I would make the following points:
 

1) The basis article is from the proceedings of "Right Light" - the bi-annual European Conference for Energy-Efficiency - who might be thought of as having a view in the same manner as the Daily Express. The full title is:

"Life Cycle Analyses of Integral Compact Fluorescent Lamps Versus Incandescent Lamps - Energy and Emissions" by Annette Gydesen & Dorte Maimann, Technical University of Denmark, Denmark which can be downloaded from: http://www.iaeel.org/iaeel/Archive/Right_Light_Proceedings/Abstracts/RL1_Abstracts/RL1AbE11.html

2) There is only a guesstimate for disposal energy cost.

3)There is/was a fascinating discussion sequence on the page which showed that the issue is still not clear-cut. In particular alternative sources of embedded energy calculations would be valuable. Today (11-2-2010) I can't find it any more???

After reading through this article and (unsuccessfully) chasing an alternative embedded energy calculation I came across the following: 

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE ECO-DESIGN CONSULTATION. FORUM HELD ON 28 MARCH 2008. General Lighting product
 
 

Noting the date of March 2008 it is fascinating to see this group of  EU experts debating and contesting the many points which concern myself and others AFTER key decisions had been made at EU and national levels. A phrase involving carts and horses comes to mind. I need to read this more carefully but there was an interesting mercury insight (routine mercury reply - CFLs use less energy therefore save on mercury emitted by coal-fired power stations):

"Sweden mentioned that it produces no mercury in power generation"

Back to Top
 

Discarded date stoneRecycling -  does it save energy, CO2 etc.? 27/1/2009

I was rather delighted to hear Peter Jones (Government recycling adviser) on the BBC 24 hour news service (21.22 27/1/2009) saying 

"We've got to urgently, I believe, start getting a grip on how this material is fed through the system, whether we're actually adding to or reducing the overall impact in terms of global warming potential of this process." 

I sometimes feel a bit lonely asking this sort of question. After a lifetime of working in industrial research, I am of the firm opinion that answering questions like this is stage 1 of any project. Much of what is being done to address global warming seems to be exploitation of commercial opportunities supported by conviction (It must be right/it shall be done) and feasibility (it can be done) rather than analysis (should it be done?).

I wonder if he will get an answer?

In a similar way I am suspicious of the energy credentials of our local garden waste recycling scheme. I believe that garden waste should be recycled (wherever possible) by composting within the garden. This is because garden waste contains nutrients ("goodness") which have come from the soil, and taking it somewhere else means that these nutrients have to be replaced. The only recycling exception I would make (because of the severe difficulties in small gardens) would be trees and the like.

The scheme does not accept trees and branches, but does accept all the things which I think should be kept. It produces the following energy (for which please, at present, read CO2) demands:
 
 

Energy demands
1) Construction, operation, and maintenance of new recycling vehicles travelling considerable distances.
2) Construction of a very large number of substantial plastic wheely bins for garden waste.
3) Extra fertilizer (energy involved in manufacture and distribution) to replace garden depletion.
Energy savings
1)  None

I only use the service for one thing. It accepts poisonous hedge cuttings. Previously I burned these (biomass conversion to CO2 which is going to happen anyway when composted).

See also Recycling Waste Wastefully 15/11/08

Back to Top
 

Headache!!They all said it couldn't be done 20/1/2009

I recently had a day of failing at almost everything I did. It reminded me that years ago I heard this little poem:

They all said it couldn't be done, but he said he could do it
So he planned he schemed and he thought and he dreamed
And he finally found a way through it
And he tackled that thing that couldn't be done
And do you know, he couldn't do it!
If I've infringed somebody's copyright please forgive me - I've no idea where this came from!

Back to Top
 

Low energy bulb swirched off to save moneyCFLs flicker back to life! 7/1/2009

CFLs (aka LELs - Low Energy lightbulbs) are back! The Daily Mail is reporting "panic buying" of tungsten bulbs. Others "slam Mail energy efficient bulb scare story". This is a bit of a hobby horse of mine (Low Energy Lightbulbs). So brace yourselves!
 
 

Daily Mail

"Revolt! Robbed of their right to buy traditional light bulbs, millions are clearing shelves of last supplies"

BusinessGreen.com

"Lighting experts slam Mail energy efficient bulb scare story"

Can you guess which sides of the argument these organisations are on?

Old hands won't learn anything new here - lots of old chestnuts. But it is interesting to see which arguments are being used today.
 

"Critics say they can cause skin rashes, migraines and epilepsy" (Daily Mail). 

CFLs are just fluorescent strip lights in disguise. We have had them for many years. There are people who react to this type of light, and they should be excused CFLs. But most of us are not affected, and have not been affected.

"Concerns over the Mercury contained in CFLs was also downplayed. The Lighting Association said that all CFL bulbs were in line with EU regulations governing the use of hazardous substances, adding that guidance was widely available to ensure consumers dispose of bulbs safely." (BusinessGreen.com). 

Yes - but do you know what it is or where to look for it? Try the DEFRA website, and also read the section about "How should I deal with a broken CFL?" which includes "Vacate the room and ventilate it for at least 15 minutes...". Draw your own health conclusions!

My beef is and always has been that important issues are avoided and downplayed in the rush to CFLs. I STILL don't know if they save CO2 on a global scale (vital!) - all I know is that people assert this without presenting evidence. In addition mercury is "brushed under the carpet", while disposal problems and health issues are glossed over. 

But these issues are tractable. I suspect that our governments are nervous about telling us too much, in case we don't understand and come to a different conclusion!

And I can't help but be a little suspicious of the money involved in changing to LELs. My estimate (see More about Mercury) is that the UK tungsten light bulb stock will be replaced by about 400,000,000 LELs per year - perhaps a bit less if they really do last longer. At anywhere between £1 and £8 each, according to my recent shopping experiences, this adds up to between £400,000,000 and £3,200,000,000 pounds (£3.2 billion) per year.

That's an awful lot of turnover and financial clout!
 

CFLs in my home

I now have 8 CFLs installed in my home, supplementing seven existing fluorescent strip lights. I'm not that worried as long as they don't break while hot - in which case my first act will be to run away. Where light heat output probably doesn't count towards heating the financial (not environmental) case for CFLs (assuming reasonable bulb lifetime) is compelling. I do expect to save money - until they find ways of increasing the price of electricity to the point where I find it difficult to afford my bills again.

I have put low heat output to positive use in my loft, where there is always a risk of leaving them on accidentally (fire risk). This is the place for the most offensive (stark white light - see below) bulb. I don't intend to read or spend much time there.

Elsewhere slow start-up can be infuriating. Some take minutes to develop full intensity - longer than we need them switched on! We have a Victorian house with fairly large rooms and have used (single) 100w and 150w bulbs in the past. We haven't yet been able to get hold of equivalent CFLs, and the largest we have found (20w) are too big for many of our light fittings. Our only real success is our kitchen, where we have three light fittings each kitted out with a 20w CFL (but still only just bright enough). 

P.S about CFL Light Quality

I can't resist this!

"Last summer the Energy Saving Trust ran the Light Bulb Pepsi Challenge at shopping centres across the country and found that the vast majority of people could not tell the difference between the light provided by the different bulbs."  - BusinessGreen.com

They can't have been looking at the two I have in my loft!

These photos are not fiddled! They are unbalanced Fuji photos taken within seconds of each other in two adjacent parts of my loft. The ceiling and wall surfaces are identical. The CFLs are of similar power but are from different manufacturers. The left hand light is commendably similar to that of a tungsten bulb. The right-hand bulb is designed to make you confess.

First CFL failure - 5/11/09

This is (was) a relatively inexpensive (about 10 times the cost of the equivalent tungsten bulb) scew-fit 20w CFL on our cellar steps. Usage must have been less than 1 hour/day for less than a year - say 250 hours. It died with a rather terrifying fast flicker. During the same period we have had no tungsten failures - rather better performance than normal. They may know that they are in a contest.

Our current house tally for 2009 is:

CFLS - 15 (1 failure)
Fluorescent strip lights - 3 (no failures this year)
Tungsten filament - 6 (no failures this year)

Obviously not conclusive, but equally obviously not the best start for our CFL practical experience! Time may tell.

Back to Top
 

 

Low energy bulb swirched off to save moneyUse less energy AND eliminate fuel poverty? 27/11/2008

This will be brief as it's both a little and a big idea.

High fuel prices hit the poorest hardest. In the saddest cases some people, particularly the elderly, feel that they can't afford to heat their homes and die of hypothermia. This has already happened, and could happen again. People with money tend not to die of hypothermia.

We are also concerned about using too much energy and increasing global warming, although it has been near-invisible as a news item this week (recession, India terrorism)!

I have felt for some time that if we (as a people, a nation, or whatever) were serious about reducing energy consumption we would turn our pricing system upside down. Why encourage people to use more by making energy cheaper at higher usage?  These are the unit costs on my most recent gas and electricity bills (in UK pence/kilowatt-hour):
 
 

Gas
Electricity
7.2p/Kwh for the first 463 Kwh
24.1p/Kwh for the first 86Kwh 
then 3.6 p/Kwh
then 11.5 p/Kwh

So after I've used quite a bit the price halves.

If we want to cut down energy use surely the tariffs should be the other way round with the unit cost going up the more you use. This could have the important fringe benefit of eliminating fuel poverty, particularly if the first x units (where "x" is enough to survive) were FREE.

An end to fuel poverty?

This seems like an impossible dream, and I don't expect it to happen. I wish it would.
 
 

I tried to find out more about tariffs. The British Gas web site is full of claims about how much you can save by doing this, that, or the other, but is just about impenetrable when trying to find the cost of a unit of electricity or gas. Their "Our Prices" page produced again and again, (and again) the message:

"A system error has occurred. Please try again"

I find that I am again and again, (and again) reminded of Sturgeon's Revelation:

"90% of everything is crud" 

(changed to "Sturgeon's Law" and "crap" in Wikipedia - not my recollection)

Theodore Sturgeon - famous science fiction author.

Back to Top
 


RecyclingRecycling Waste Wastefully 15/11/2008

During World War II we cut down lots of nice iron railings to support the war effort.

"The railings were said to have been melted down and used for munitions, but in reality this was often an exercise to boost morale"

This is a quote from the COI News Distribution Service, and is therefore somewhat official. Will we say something similar in the future about waste recycling?

I arrive at these pessimistic thoughts because of recent news about the "recycled" waste mountains which are building up in the UK (see for example "Recycling industry in a slump"). This is because the price for waste has collapsed thanks to reduced demand, which is in turn due to the credit crunch (banks have a lot to answer for already - no doubt this will grow). And a large part of the market is China. On the other side of the world!

I would think that many people rather like the idea of recycling, as summed up by the nice (green) official logo above. This gives us a comfortable feeling of things going round and round, with no waste and no demands on the planet for additional materials. Of course everyone realises that it can't be as simple as this, but we would expect it to be close. The recent news highlights just how far from reality this image is.

I guess that most of us think (or thought) that, for example, the waste paper we carefully sort out is collected and taken to somewhere not too far away where it is reprocessed into slightly brown paper or the like. Far from it - literally! It turns out that much of it goes to China and the Far East. I have no axe to grind with these countries at all. My hangup is about tranportation. Clearly shipping to "round the corner" and the "Far East" involve using up vastly different amounts of energy. And I thought that was what much of this was about! 

I am particularly worried that I have heard several people who are (were) recycling converts saying basically "What's the point"? There used to be a rather clever saying - "Think globally - act locally". I thought this encompassed much of what we needed to do to save the environment and, ultimately, ourselves and our children.  But, if our waste goes half way round the world, what's the point?

Could it be just to boost morale? Like the railings?
 
 

To show you how cantankerous I can get with the bit between my teeth it is clear that the recycling business is being tripped up by (that ugly word) "money". The recycling "industry" is a network of businesses which rely on us (you and I) to collect their materials for them for nothing. And we can even be punished for not sorting out our waste correctly! As the waste has a financial value shouldn't we be charging our local authorities for the sorted waste be provide? What other business gets its stock-in-trade for nothing?

And another thing (7/1/09)! 

As you may have heard people can be fined for putting out their refuse on the wrong day. Where I live the Christmas break caused utter confusion, with almost everybody putting their bins out on the normal collection day (Friday), but collection actually happened the following day. So we had a road full of refuse for more than 24 hours. Can councils be fined for collecting on the wrong day? It would be comforting to think so!

We weren't told about the collection date. Maybe it was on the local authority's website. This of course assumes that everyone has internet access and the enthusiasm to look at this website on a regular basis. 

I am reminded of the excellent "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" by Douglas Adams. The Earth is about to be demolished for a hyperspace bypass. The commander of the Vogon fleet says something along the lines of "What do you mean you weren't told? The plans have been on display in Alpha Centauri for the last ten thousand years!"
 

Back to Top
 

Back to Top