This is only a preview of the May 2010 issue of Silicon Chip. You can view 29 of the 96 pages in the full issue, including the advertisments. For full access, purchase the issue for $10.00 or subscribe for access to the latest issues. Items relevant to "A Solar-Powered Lighting System":
Items relevant to "Build A Compact 12V 20W Stereo Amplifier":
Items relevant to "Low-Power Car/Bike USB Charger":
Items relevant to "Digital Audio Signal Generator, Pt.3":
Articles in this series:
Purchase a printed copy of this issue for $10.00. |
SILICON
SILIC
CHIP
www.siliconchip.com.au
Publisher & Editor-in-Chief
Leo Simpson, B.Bus., FAICD
Production Manager
Greg Swain, B.Sc. (Hons.)
Technical Editor
John Clarke, B.E.(Elec.)
Technical Staff
Ross Tester
Jim Rowe, B.A., B.Sc
Mauro Grassi, B.Sc. (Hons), Ph.D
Nicholas Vinen
Photography
Ross Tester
Reader Services
Ann Morris
Advertising Enquiries
Glyn Smith
Phone (02) 9939 3295
Mobile 0431 792 293
glyn<at>siliconchip.com.au
Regular Contributors
Brendan Akhurst
Rodney Champness, VK3UG
Mike Sheriff, B.Sc, VK2YFK
Stan Swan
SILICON CHIP is published 12 times
a year by Silicon Chip Publications
Pty Ltd. ACN 003 205 490. ABN 49
003 205 490. All material is copyright ©. No part of this publication
may be reproduced without the written consent of the publisher.
Printing: Hannanprint, Noble Park,
Victoria.
Distribution: Network Distribution
Company.
Subscription rates: $94.50 per year
in Australia. For overseas rates, see
the order form in this issue.
Editorial office:
Unit 1, 234 Harbord Rd,
Brookvale, NSW 2100.
Postal address: PO Box 139,
Collaroy Beach, NSW 2097.
Phone (02) 9939 3295.
Fax (02) 9939 2648.
E-mail: silicon<at>siliconchip.com.au
ISSN 1030-2662
Recommended and maximum price only.
2 Silicon Chip
Publisher’s Letter
Saving energy is not the issue
Back in the April 2007 issue we ridiculed the Federal Government’s proposed ban on incandescent lamps
(introduced by the then Liberal Environment minister
Malcolm Turnbull). In fact, we had a fairly detailed
article on why the whole proposal was impractical.
None of what we said has ever been refuted (nor can
it be) and the amount of energy subsequently saved
in typical households due to the edict is vanishingly
small. Most householders would not be able to identify
any reduction at all from their electricity bills. In fact,
I will wager that most households would now be using more electricity, even if
they have substituted all their incandescent lights, because lighting is a quite
small component of domestic electricity bills.
In the commercial area, in offices, shops and factories, lighting is a bigger
component of energy use, typically around 30%, so it is worth looking for savings. However, most offices and factories use very few incandescent lamps; they
mostly use fluorescent tubes or even more efficient forms of gas discharge lighting. But fluorescent lighting has become more efficient in recent years and this
is the reason for the feature article on slashing lighting energy costs in this issue.
In the first instance, this exercise came about because all the lighting at the
SILICON CHIP offices was looking decidedly dingy. The tubes were overdue for
replacement and all the prismatic diffusers needed cleaning.
The outcome was that we got more light in the office and cut the energy use
by half. But that only means that our total annual electricity use will drop by
about 15%, since we estimate that lighting was about 30% of our total. By the
way, I don’t think the reduction in fluorescent light consumption will have much
effect on our air-conditioning energy. It might reduce slightly in summer but
there would be an equivalent increase in winter and would probably balance
out over the year.
Ultimately, the estimated saving of about $400 a year is hardly worth worrying
about, considering that our annual electricity bill is such a small proportion of
our overall costs. So was it worth doing? Yes, but I would not advocate that all
businesses do it unless they need to change fluoro tubes anyway. And while our
payback period is quite short, it could be quite different in other establishments.
All of which serves to demonstrate that reducing lighting electricity use is only
fiddling in the margins as far as overall energy use is concerned. If Australians
really want to make a large difference in energy use, we would all need to make
very big investments in public transport, drive smaller cars and so on. And while
smaller cars are selling well, there has also been a big increase in sales of SUVs,
so it suggests many consumers are not worried about fuel bills or energy use.
Unfortunately, it seems as though the only way that most consumers, and
the country as a whole, will ever make a significant reduction in energy use is
by governments taking action. But any action will need to be far more credible
than the ban on incandescent lamps, subsidised installation of roof insulation,
free energy audits, subsidised replacement of hot water systems with solar and
heat pump systems and so on.
As far as electricity consumption is concerned, current Australian government
edicts seem to be driven more by “carbon-pollution” reduction mantras than any
sensible strategy. Those same governments seem to be unconcerned about the
increasing number of coal mines, coal seam gas, natural gas and other schemes
to exploit fossil fuels.
If governments were really concerned about carbon dioxide emissions they
would go to nuclear power. Then nobody would worry about reducing electricity consumption, apart from the question of cost.
Leo Simpson
siliconchip.com.au
|