Im Zweifel LED Lampen – für die Umwelt

12. December 2012

Kompaktleuchtstofflampen, Halogendampflampen oder LED-Strahler? Wie soll man bei dem riesigen Angebot an Leuchtmitteln im Supermarkt noch durchsteigen? Der umweltbewusste Verbraucher steht immer häufiger vor Rätseln um Energieeffizienz, Umweltverträglichkeit und Lichtqualität. Es gilt ganz neue Regeln zu lernen. Die wichtigste lautet: Den Anwendungsort beim Kauf beachten! Wem das zu kompliziert ist, der hält sich am besten an die einfachste Regel: Im Zweifel LED!

Was man so alles mit LEDs machen kann!

Was man so alles mit LEDs machen kann!

Im März 2009 Jahren beschloss die Europäische Union, die gute alte Edison-Glühbirne in die Geschichtsbücher zu verbannen. Der stufenweise verbotene Verkauf der Energiemonster ist mittlerweile so gut wie abgeschlossen. 2009 mussten die 100 Watt Birnen, 2010 die 75 Watt, ein Jahr darauf die 60 Watt und September dieses Jahres auch die Glühbirnen unter 60 Watt daran glauben. Ab 2016 werden auch die stromfressendsten Halogenlampen verboten sein.

Im gewöhnlichen Handel steht der Verbraucher nun vor der Auswahl zwischen verschiedenen Energiesparlampentypen.

Die bekannteste unter ihnen ist die Kompaktleuchtstofflampe. Das Patent der Lampe mit den, ineinander geschwungenen oder nebeneinander gebogenen, milchigen Röhren wurde bereist vor 150 Jahren entwickelt. Ihre Leuchtkraft entfaltet sich durch verdampfendes Quecksilber. Aufgrund dieser Eigenschaft wurde sie häufig als Umweltschädigend in der Entsorgung kritisiert. Dem ist mittlerweile aber nicht mehr so. Allerdings braucht das Leuchtmittel brauchen lange um hell zu werden, machen dunkles, teilweise sogar ungemütliches Licht. Dafür sind sie mit 2-10 Euro relativ günstig.

Anders sieht es mit der Halogendampflampe aus. Ihr Licht kommt dem der Glühbirne, vor allem in der exakten Farbwiedergabe, sehr nah. Zudem bewegt sich auch ihr Preis im ähnlichen Rahmen. 2-3 Euro zahlt man für die gängigen Modelle. Allerdings sind sie laut Stiftung Warentest (Test Ausgabe 09/11) auch die stromfressendsten Energiesparlampen, Verbrauchen zudem viel Quecksilber in der Produktion und schneiden bei der Haltbarkeit schlecht ab. Die Halogendampflampe lohnt sich also nur dort, wo man wirklich ein klares, helles und farbgetreues Licht benötigt.

Der Testsieger von Osram

Der Testsieger

Der Allrounder unter den Energiesparern ist die LED Lampe. Statt auf einen glühenden Draht, setzt sie auf viele kleine strahlende Halbleiterkristalle.Dies ermöglicht eine hervorragende Energiebilanz. Auch bei der Helligkeit, lässt die LED nicht zu wünschen übrig. Lediglich die billigen Modelle produzieren oft einen Blaustich in der Farbwiedergabe. Apropos billig: Das ist der einzige Hacken am LED. Preise zwischen 30-40 Euro sind keine Seltenheit. Der Testsieger der Stiftung Warentest, die Osram Parathom Pro Classic A 80 12 Watt kostet gar ca. 45 Euro. LEDs sollte man also vornehmlich an Orten verwenden, wo oft das Licht brennt. Denn bei längerer Brenndauer amortisiert sich der Preis schnell.

Was gibt es noch zu wissen, beim Kauf?

Bei Energiesparlampen gilt es auf andere Werte zu achten, als die Wattzahl. Wichtig sind die Angaben für Lumen und Kelvin. Die Kelvinangabe bezieht sich auf die Lichtfarbe. Gemütlich empfundenes warmweißes Licht liegt bei etwa 2500-3300 Kelvin. Ab etwa 3300 Kelvin beginnt das als kalt empfundene neutralweiße Licht. Die Lumen geben wiederum den Lichtstrom bzw. die Helligkeit an. Orientierung bietet diese Vergleichstabelle:

  • 25 Watt: 180 bis 200 Lumen
  • 40 Watt: 350 bis 390 Lumen
  • 60 Watt: 590 bis 650 Lumen
  • 75 Watt: 800 bis 890 Lumen
  • 100 Watt: 1 150 bis 1 270 Lumen

 

PS. Ich möchte an dieser Stelle auf eine Ungewöhnlichkeit, die mir bei meiner Recherche aufgefallen ist, hinweisen: Die EU hat mit der so genannten Öko-Design-Richtlinie zwar den Gebrauch, aber nicht die Produktion der energiefressenden Glühlampen verboten. Afrikaner, Chinesen und Amerikaner dürfen also munter weiter Strom verbrauchen. Ein etwas komischer Gedanke, wenn man an den steigenden Energiebedarf der Chinesen denkt und daran, dass es ja um die Umwelt auf der ganzen Welt geht!

Diese Österreicher müssen noch lernen:


Plea for a Europe of regions

20. October 2012

The decicion is made. The nobel prize is awarded to the European Union. Immidiatly you can hear the the anti-european voices start to visper. They tell you that the european process is still in progress, that Europe is in a huge financial crisis and that the seperation movements in some union states grow. All this is right. But all these arguments are less relevant compared to the european idea and the fact that the union process is one of the reasons why we have a six decades long peace time in Europe. The nobel peace prize decisions was right. It gives us a clou about how important polical visions are for worlds peace. Let us force this process. Here is my plea for the next step: A Europe of regions.

It is a matter of fact that a lot of european countries have internal problems with the diversity of there people. Just take belgium, for example. The fleming and the walloon people don’t speak the same language. How can they be one country? And the well known example of the basques. Why they have to live in two different political systems? Is it so difficult to give them there own government? It won’t. We just have to tear down the construction of national states. Who need germany, france, spain and belgium? I live in Berlin. That’s my region.

That sounds crazy in the first place. But let’s take a look in the history. The national states are a construction of the modern times. The time when the capitalistic system rose. One of the main reasons of it’s success, was the growing of economic power and there issues. The new system needed states with a inner free trade zone to grow there GDP. And it needed states which act like a political union to trade with each other. The idea of national states arranged this setting.

But a lot of national state based on myths. When the united kingdom was build, for example, the kelts, the gaelic and the english people had not much in common. Just the fact that they live on the same island. In the 17th century they took the protestantic religion and the liberal bill of rights as the national myths. The late german union used the myth of the king friedrich barbarossa. Nothing than politic and economic reasons stuck the countries together, in this time.

Sure there is much more that connects germans from freiburg to flensburg and british people from plymouth to aberdeen, nowadays. That is because they live together as one country for a huge amount of time. It whould be possible to create a similar community in Europe. If we start now!

In my vision Europe needs one government for the whole Union. The Idea that the german minister of finance Wolfgang Schäuble mentioned is one step. But I want more! Every political issue that affects the whole Union must coordinated by this highest political level. Foreign policy, defence, environment, economy and parts of education, for example. Subordinated we have the regional governments. They need to be strong enough, to create there own cultural system, but so weak that they’re not able to act autonomous in economic questions.

This regions would give us the cultural background to say I’m a part of Berlin, the Cornwall, Catalonia or Silesia. The EU add the political background to say I’m a part of Europe. Two hearts in one body. Sure that is a vision. But some days visions can come true. Or would you have thought about a peaceful European Union without border controls, a common parliament and one currency, in 1930? Thanks to the nobel prize commitee to remind us how crazy this idea six decades ago sounded.


Explain the difference between Piratebay and Google Books…

29. August 2009

OK, now it is obvious. The Pirate Bay will die. Even if the founders of the biggest file torrent search engine are very skilled in searching and finding new ways of distribute there stuff, once all way will finally barred. We now these process from the past: Do you remember napster, kazaa and e-mule. All these file sharing pages had to walk there long way to the graveyard. But please also remember what happened meanwhile this long trip: The time where the courts, the police and at least the concerned industries (in this case mostly the music and the film industry) are distracted from the fight against the old project is always the time for a new project to develop unnoticed. After napster came kazaa, after kazaa e-mule and so on. But this time it seems to be different.

The new way of distributing files, the bit-torrent system and the development of search engines offers new opportunities. Nowadays it isn’t necessary to visit a page, like the still existing mininova which collect bit torrent links. It is much easier. Just type in a name of a file and the word “torrent” or “free download” in the input field in google You can find a lot of god replies. This is related to the google-way of thinking. Googles search engine algorithm based on the “wisdom of the crowd”-sys

tem. The mass of people decide what is important wand what is not. The more people link in there comments to a page, the higher is the ranking. The interesting point about this is, that so much people link and use the torrent pages that there are always on top. It is a huge group of people, who download torrents or link to one torrent page. And this seems to be as impossible to stop as the thought to shut down google because of the possibility to break copyright law with its engine.

By the way. Shut down google would be a great idea in the view of the old elite. Google is doing a lot of stuff, which afford the use and distribute of free material is the internet. Google books is only one example, but a god one. In this case the court is on the side of the shared knowledge maintainer. They let google digitalise and distribute books from different authors without asking them about there personal copyrights. The american court used a law which is called the fair use. It says that knowledge which is important for the society has to be shared. This is like a containment of the personal copyright.

Something like that is exactly what we need nowadays. For sure we need a new system of copyright. The remix culture is not made for personal rights. The generation internet wants to have everything available at every time. Personal thoughts have to be shared with other people to make the society more intelligent – make them smarter. And that of course make the individual smarter, who now how to handle this new distribution ways of information. Privacy was yesterday, today is social haven! The old elite is scared about that. They try to stop the progress, but on the other hand they forget that the the future is written. The google-system has graduate, now can the real future begin.


Internet and Democracy

23. April 2009

Does the internet help our society?

Many people talk about the internet as it is a saviour for the our societies communication and the democracy. But does it really help us? I would like to offer my thoughts about that. First we have to go back to the first principles of democracy, which are: equity, freedom of choice, freedom of the information and the possibility of a passive and active participation on the opinion-leading process. My argumentation leads my to a comparison of these principles to the current media and contemporary communication scene. The pre-internet media, like radio and the printing press had the problem, that they were not able to guarantee all the democratic principles. Of course they were way forward in comparison to the early 19th century, but newspapers and radio stations created only a subordinated public sphere, which allows you to choose between different preselected information. To take part on the conversation you needed the good will of the media station. So you could never become a equal partner. Since the 20th century the regular media scene is dominated by big companies and the states. It depended on money and political influence if you voice could be heard.

In the Internet can everybody write everything and of course read everything what he wants. It is obvious that the internet gave us more freedom and more equality in the media case. But that isn’t changing the fact that there is still a preselection ongoing. The difference is that the filter isn’t completely controlled by money and political power. Of course there is still a great influence from the global players and the states, but it is much easier to avoid this influences by type in the url that pleased yourself. The preselection in the web is basically controlled by social competence. Social competence – also called soft skills – means in this case the power to interact and a kind of control discussions with people and developments of opinion-building processes in social network. Your weblog for example will be only successful, when you find people who read your posts. But for that you need a network, people who think that you are an expert, a person which they want to follow.

So what’s happening now is, that people or groups which have a great social competence – the so called peer-groups – get more power. Things like morals, norms and a form of lifestyle will be decided in these groups, not in a national debate anymore. So we are less depending on the national media or the will of the state – we start to depend more and more on peer-groups. In the Text “The daily we” warned the Jurisprudence-Professor Cass R. Sunstein against the further balkanisation and like may people he is afraid about this process. He claim that “a common set of frameworks and experiences is valuable for a heterogeneous society”. I agree with that, but I can’t see incoherency to the peer-group phenomena. We can build the a common value system only when we’ve found our own value system. And it seems to be much easier to find yourself in your peer-group, than in the state. And if we don’t find a answer to ore questions in one group, we can join another or found our own. That is the new freedom. Of course we have to be careful. Social competence can be utilised. But I’ll be confident that the community will handle these problems.

To come at least to my incoming question. I would like to answer that the internet can’t be seen as a saviour. Ok, it helps us. But it is only a tool. Like the spade for the gardener. But digging and planting flowers, we have to do by ourselves