Saving energy is not an option but a duty

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Saving energy is not simply an option, it is a duty. The global mega-trend of “energy use and climate change” has meanwhile also arrived in the daily routine of business.

med_eh_save-energy_249x267Some countries, driven by political climate targets, via tax deals puts businesses in at times difficult positions. On top of that comes the price development of primary energy driven by increasing scarcity of fossil raw materials such as oil and gas and the increase in global demand.

This means that saving energy is high on the agenda for businesses everywhere, as it should be. However, looking at the City of London and the banks and other businesses there the message does not seem to have gotten through again and CEOs do not seem to have gotten the memo, and even government offices are lit up like Christmas trees even when there is no one home.

While they – the government that is – keep riling at households and small businesses to reduce their energy consumption and to turn off lights in rooms not in use and to ensure that the business premises have all appliances turned off no one seems to dare tell the banks and big offices and the government departments to do the same.

Saving energy is not an option, neither for use as individuals and households nor for businesses or government, it is a duty. A duty to the Planet and to future generations and we all have the duty to reduce energy usage and also use of water and other resources.

Do, however, compact fluorescent light bulbs, aka CFLs, really save energy in use, compared to the old, now sadly, and I mean that, phased out old-fashioned Edison light bulbs?

I must say that all my tests with power consumption meters and such, and also as regards to lifespan of CFLs vs. the incandescent, the Edison, bulbs, none have been discovered. I have found that the power consumption of a supposed 7Watt CFL (supposedly giving the same light as a 60W incandescent) is at least 30+ watts and as to lifespan... well, they do not live as long, in my judgment, as did the old style ones. Sorry, but someone seems to have applied green paint or soap suds somewhere here.

It would appear that our governments have been sold a dud there somehow on both counts as far as CFLs are concerned. LEDs are a different kettle of fish altogether but on both counts, ,CFLs and LEDs, the light is harsh bright white which is not very beneficial to people's well-being.

The best option is and was ever to turn off the lights in a room or an area where the light is not required at the time. In the case of CFLs, however, turning them on and then after a few minutes back off seems to reduce their lifespan rather dramatically. Who, I would like to ask and know, was the recipient of brown envelopes with contents again in the EU and elsewhere for the law about CFLs having been brought in?

We must save energy and resources, and it is the duty of all of us, but CFLs do not appear to be much of a help here and their costs are still high compared to the few cents that incandescent light bulbs could be had for a couple of years before they were, basically, banned.

In addition to that the talk about the “phantom power” drawn by cell phone chargers and such like is also to a great extent humbug. The current is so minimal that is does not even register on the scale of things.

On the other hand there are things we can do to save energy and, at the same time money, that really have an impact and make a difference, such as not boiling a full, freshly drawn, kettle of water each and every time that we make a cup of tea or coffee. Also add to this the turning off of lights that don't have to be on and use lower wattage lamps and more direct lighting than 100W overhead lamps, the light of which is but wasted to a great extent.

© 2014