The huge screens sacrificed on the altar of greenhouse effect
By Denis Delbecq • January 16th, 2009 in 0:09 · Category: Actuality
In Las Vegas, city of energy dissoluteness, the industrialists of the high-tech hurry up in Consumer Electronics Show. Every year, the huge screens on plasma win a little more in diagonal, with models which attain from now on 150 thumbs (3,81 metres). But these systems of displays with big show will not soon be able to enter the European Union (EU) any more. The Committee of Brussels plans to impose a limitation of the electrical consumption of screens, which would return the biggest models to the oubliettes of history. A measure intended to economise energy and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The liquid crystal flat screens are relatively not very voracious in electricity, compared in tube cathodic. But their growing size erases technological benefit of a feature. In the same way as fridges grow more quickly than their effectiveness improves.
All over their conception, screens on plasma use 50 % - 100 % more than other flat screens. What led the EU to prepare a text which should be adopted in spring. The most consumer screens will be banned, while others will have to be accompanied with a tag energy as other domestic apparatus. Also, the consumption of these apparatus in mode stays up should be limited. The EU has already decided on the banishment of bulbs with incandescence after 2012. In Great Britain, the abolition of the hundred watt models and more caused a frenzy of purchase of the consumers. They rushed on the supplies of bulb with incandescence rather than to buy fluocompacts models, five times as competitive.
January 14th, the Transport system of electricity, which manages the network of distribution of current in France, announced that consumption had augmented by 1,2 % in 2008, in data corrected by climatic vagaries. The basics of increase come from manners in low tension (individuals, public lighting, service sector, etc.) where consumption believed 3 % in one year. The multiplication of the electronic apparatus (DVD, computers, Internet cases) linked 24h / 24 explains a lot of this increase.
Picture: © Denis Delbecq
Article read 2,888 times. Tags:électricité, energy, europe, climatic rechauffement
Comments in 
Parcontre, let us ask administrations schools, and other public batiments to diminish the plutot heating than to open fenetres, to diminish lightings public, and many other wastings of group.
Let us give up being productive guilty and making pay the incompetances of our leaders
Well there n is qu the number of bulb with fabricated incandescence has compare there have that among bulb low consumption, more they price will be more achetera will go down, she they are there periode of transition, therefore as tote transition, is of difficulty and the time of adaptation.
impossible [Quote] to put a bulb bases conso. in a small bedside lamp without her seeing herself. [/quote]
I I arrive at it, then I think that you will arrive at it.
[quote] Let us give up making guilty and making pay the incompetances of our leaders [/quote]
They are when meme a bit guilty of their incompetences seen that we elect them.
[quote] On the contrary, let us ask administrations schools, and other public batiments to diminish the plutot heating than to open fenetres, to diminish lightings public, and many other wastings of group. [/quote]
Really it is tres complementaire and it goes without saying!
Besides, by speaking recycling and pollution, I see that they approach the subject of the economic bulbs Which knows that these bulbs contain some mercury to get a spectre of white enough radiance? In small quantities certainly, but if everybody puts on there in 2012. (besides, I perhaps read well this in sciences&vie) it will perhaps be necessary to lean over the reprocessing of these grilled bulbs!
We are not still in 2012. and our leaders either he seems.
Ideal would be LED, but they are still far from a total solution.
The sparkling determined on tubes fed with alternating current 50 Hz, is much less embarrassing with fluocompactes lamps modern, fed by an electronic ballast with high frequency (more than 10 kHz).
The mercury is however a true worry. These lamps could be recorded, as bottles This would encourage the users to bring it back rather than to throw them. (That is said by passing, it would be possible to make the similar for piles …)
@DOMINIQUE: A lamp fluocompacte hard 6 - 10 000 hours against 1000 - 2000 for bulbs with filament. Furthermore they are not very sensitive to overvoltages who often shortens the life of bulbs when they are located at the beginning of line.
They consume 5 times less of electrical power for the same luminous power.
During his life, a fluorescent of 20 W in 5 € will use 200 20×10000 = kWh, instead of a bulb of 100 W which would use 1000 at the same time kWh. An economy of 800 kWh.
Count: even if she cost 10 times more to the purchase, has not photo there!
Fluorescent compact lead us of problems of more important reprocessing and especially more complex to organise.
On the other hand, having changed all my bulbs I note points according to:
- Side consumption I saw no impact strictly the 1st year (next years I came back on aglow for a part of my lightings), it is necessary to say that I have a home in electrical heating and the conso of bulbs it is the feature of the pencil
- then light is very very bad, therefore there or I had one before 60W, I light do not put one 12W fluorescent but one 20W where from a lesser economy (and 2×20W to replace one 100w), is better by going about things so but remains of much less good qualitée than on incandescence
- Side life I changed my incandescent lamps every 12 - 18 months, I changed all my fluorescent bulbs compact last year is at the end of 2 years (I have philips and of crossroad), some broke down at the end of 6 months (about 1 of 5)
- To use only for one lighting of ambience, of garden and especially not for a functional lighting portrays reading, bedside lamp where it is necessary to put it so much and so powerful as disparait interest
In conclusion:
- side life I will not venture on a number an hour but I will say 1,5 - 2 times more that a classical lamp.
- side consumption mêm type of remark: a consumption reduced from 2.5 to 3 times (what to belong 5 times announced is already not so wrong)
- side luminous effectiveness, for me it is only for lighting of ambience but not for use (or then number and powerful therefore without interest type my current office 6 neon to have a very correct light, when 2 break down they would imagine in an old people's home!)
In the final, I keep them where I want righteous man a light of ambience (practices when equipment is fragile in heat, because they heat up not much)
as well as in the garden
Otherwise, for lamps very efficient at level lumibnosité they have lamps in metallic iodure (portray sodium), which are nevertheless complex to be set up, they are big with a system of choke, but give a light very close to that of the sun (they are used a lot aquariophilie marine there, where to grow plants) with a consumption (test personally in the support)
2 lamp of 150W HQI
measured power 170W for one and 180W for other one (you should not always trust in inscription of power), brightness restored the very upper to a halogen of 300W for each and quasi identical to a halogen of 500W.
I have it had 20 years ago and not having marine aquarium anymore for 12 years, I imagine that the new models are at the same time more compact and more competitive (they heated up, but me a lot changed them only every 3 years with a length of lighting of 12 h a day)
I confirm (measures made with the aid of a luxmètre) that a fluocompacte of 20 W gives the same luminous intensity as a normal bulb with filament of 100 W in the same conditions of use (you should not compare fluorescent one bare and a blip with reflector).
As for their length, it is true that the market is flooded with products of poor quality generally fabricated in China, even for known marks. It is the ballast of these lamps that gives way (it heats up too much), not the tube. There are systems where they change only the tube (as for "neon") and the ballast of which shows no sign of weakness. But, go to know why, these only tubes cost more that a fluocompacte with its ballast (of shit).
If it is precise that these lamps give a less nice light than halogens (ahead thinks she is even foul!), it is only by comparison and they are very well made there in the daily.
I to you guaranteed that at home light is not the same with the equivalent fluorescent bulb, I have a corridor, dark where I had a lamp before of 75W in the darkest part and one of 60W on the least dark part, currently with 2 lamps of 20W fluorescent (therefore there theorie 200w in incandescence) I have less light than before
That's true that the power of led is not top but I installed 12 (of 3 led each) in a (very dark) dressing as a supplement to one 20w and it compensates well enough for 3 blip of 60 or 75 W which I had before.
In bedside lamp or lamp of office, I think that I will never be made there