Scuse my ignorance, I've heard of OLED telly screens but not FLED, what are they?
my bad FLCD
Ferro-electric Liquid Crystal Display
Scuse my ignorance, I've heard of OLED telly screens but not FLED, what are they?
Agreed, but why is 21 a higher standard than 20 degrees. Being excessive uneccesarity isn't a higher standard and we now at those factories of yesteryear that used so much fuel with barely a nod at heat efficiency with perplexion. There is no physical reason for 21 to be an appropriate ambient temperature. Lowering it to 17 or 18 would use significantly less fuel and not be unpleasant to relax in.But why 21 degrees?
Nobody achieved progress by setting their standards lower.
True, but how much will it cost and how long will it take to convert existing stock to this level of efficiency, and what is a "comfortable level"?We have the technology to make houses that can stay at such a comfortable temperature with almost no energy input.
Many reasons - health for a start.Why not 21 degrees?
Moving forward by making bad choices isn't a sign of progress.Why not read a novel and have a few meals on a boat, than invent a plane.
Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2012 1:42 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ladylola wrote:
The one key element in this or any energy crisis is always pretty much ignored and that is levels of consumption. To provide a "solution" involves at worst not raising consumption and better still reducing it, we have higher levels of energy production now than we did 30 or 60 years ago and we have a crisis looming now .
Reducing consumption means either turning things off or increasing efficiency. There was a massive hoo ha when std 100w bulbs were banned but that was needed to force the improvement of led both for quality and price. IE a market had to be made in order for the led manufacturers compete. This is what governments do best. Enforce change despite the fuss. They don't get it right very often but in a few years when everybody has gen 10+ lamps there will be no fond memories of filament bulbs
Where they are getting it wrong is 20 years ago there should enforced government assisted insulation upgrades to all homes below a certain energy rating to bring them within acceptable limits. No opt out allowed. All UK homes must comply irrespective of size or age.
Those who refuse will have their homes reassessed and their rates will go up accordingly (ie the cost of not complying)
Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2012 1:42 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ladylola wrote:
The one key element in this or any energy crisis is always pretty much ignored and that is levels of consumption. To provide a "solution" involves at worst not raising consumption and better still reducing it, we have higher levels of energy production now than we did 30 or 60 years ago and we have a crisis looming now .
Reducing consumption means either turning things off or increasing efficiency. There was a massive hoo ha when std 100w bulbs were banned but that was needed to force the improvement of led both for quality and price. IE a market had to be made in order for the led manufacturers compete. This is what governments do best. Enforce change despite the fuss. They don't get it right very often but in a few years when everybody has gen 10+ lamps there will be no fond memories of filament bulbs
Where they are getting it wrong is 20 years ago there should enforced government assisted insulation upgrades to all homes below a certain energy rating to bring them within acceptable limits. No opt out allowed. All UK homes must comply irrespective of size or age.
Those who refuse will have their homes reassessed and their rates will go up accordingly (ie the cost of not complying)
In general I agree with what you say, insulation is the way to go.
Increasing effeciency is a bit of a double edged sword (google the energy efficiecy paradox) because increased efficiency can lead to higher consumption, for example 30 years ago hardly anyone put christmas lights outside their house but now with the new led technogoly lights are everywhere. LED's have a lower consumption than bulbs but the overall consumption has gone up because bulbs were rarely used in the first place. Solar powered garden lights are another example, rather than replacing something inefficient they are being used for a purpose that was non exsistant in the past. Actually a better use is to put them on the window cill and use them in the house instead of the house lights but ho hum.
So, what is their carbon footprint? Positive or negative equity?Whilst they don't consume anything from the grid you do have to take their embodied energy into consideration i.e. the amount of energy taken to produce the bloody things after all they don't just grow on trees
Whilst they don't consume anything from the grid you do have to take their embodied energy into consideration i.e. the amount of energy taken to produce the bloody things after all they don't just grow on trees
So, what is their carbon footprint? Positive or negative equity?Whilst they don't consume anything from the grid you do have to take their embodied energy into consideration i.e. the amount of energy taken to produce the bloody things after all they don't just grow on trees