Tuesday, 18th November 2008
Prime Minister's faulty arithmetic
Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi said that the average use of energy-saving bulbs would neutralise the increase in the power tariffs for households. This was his reaction to opposition criticism of the new tariffs when he spoke in Parliament about the budget.
He said the new tariffs had been introduced on the principle that everybody paid for their consumption, and subsidies which encouraged waste should be removed. He said that the new power tariffs would mean an increased outlay of between €0.85 and €1.45 per week for most domestic account holders. However, using energy saving bulbs for five hours per day, according to him, would save a family €175 per year.
According to our Prime Minister, experts had confirmed that using energy-saving bulbs - which the government would hand out - would reduce the impact of the new tariffs to zero.
Dr Gonzi's statement was more categorical than that. He had in fact compared the cost of using one conventional bulb and one energy saving bulb for five hours per day.
He clearly tried to assert that the use of one energy-saving bulb would give a saving of €175 per year.
The Times report made no mention of the fact that only after the Opposition members jeered Dr Gonzi's statement did members of his backbenchers pinch his attention that the increase of €1.45 per week will apply on each family member and not on each family.
Irrespective of the reduced cost of using energy savings bulbs one cannot assume a five-hour per day use (1800-2300) as, in the majority of cases, people would be watching television for the best part of that time and the light would be out.
Lighting bulbs takes up little consumption compared to the use of other domestic appliances. Washing machines, electric irons, ovens, heaters, air-conditioners, microwave ovens, electric kettles and other appliances and white goods are the real energy engulfing catalyst.
When we hear a high power propagandist, like our Prime Minister, trying to derail public opinion from the negative impact of the budget with deceptive mathematical comparisons, it becomes clearer that our country needs the change now.
RSS
Comments
Please do not come back with more inane comments like the ones which keep you occupied. Has politics been reduced to such a trifle for you? I am not implying that energy savers are not effective, but to tell Doris Anyone to part with some E60 to appease the blue blinkers borders on the ridiculous.
I suggest you travel to Malta and see for yourself the disgruntled population. But if the flight is expensive, take a boat – it’s an energy saver.
To repeat what I had been saying all along, Lawrence Gonzi is just an orator and like he had no control over his past administration, he has none now. He is no manager - far from it.
A saving of 78% on light bulbs is insignificant when considered with other white goods which consume a lot more electricity. Furthermore, the tariffs did not go up by 78% but nearly 200%. So even taking the light bulbs alone, this is far too short of the 200% increase. This is apart from questioning who is going to leave 5 light bulbs on for 5 hours a day.
Re old household appliances, people do not have the money to change them, and in any case, why should you change your appliance if it is still working perfectly?
This is the stance taken by the factories producing household appliances who through perhaps an insignificant decrease in energy consumption in their products encourage people to change them.
To know how much energy you may save you have to compare the wattage of your old appliance with that of its replacement. You may be in for a surprise at the insignificant difference between the two.
Indeed, modern ones may consume more energy, e.g. plasma screens consume twice the energy of an old CRT TV.
Before buying new appliances have a look at their wattage and compare.
Had Mr. Buttigieg argued that he had done some reliable research regarding the consumption of conventional light bulbs compared to energy saving, he would have been more credible. Instead he stated that having a light on for five hours is far fetched.
Mr. Buttigieg fails to mention that if one has a conventional 60 watt lightbulb, he can easily replace it with an energy saving 13 watt bulb which consumes only 22% of what the 60 watt bulb consumes. That is a saving of 78% and he would get the same light intensity of the 60 watt bulb.
While lighting is used every single day, and in some homes, day and night, other appliances are run periodically and for far smaller stretches than five hours. Even a refrigerator turns on and off as required and here too, one does not expect a 40 year old unit to be as efficient as more recent higher efficiency units.
Mr. Buttigieg may be one of many who wants to continue as if nothing has changed in the cost of electric generation.