Light Polution e-petition

[Basher]

At the very least it's actually of course benefitting everyone by reducing energy usage (waste).

If as a side effect people can sit in their back garden on a July/August summer night, and actually stand a chance of seeing the Perseids (meteor shower) then what's the problem?

Win win surely

But we're talking about turning lights off in the middle of the night, aren't we?

 

[Gangster]

HEY I GOTS AN IDEA....TURN OFF ALL THE LIGHTS SO I CAN LOOK UP INTO THE STARS AT NIGHT.

wait... WTF?

What a stupid idea...... light pollution. I'm hearing it all now.

 

[Longbow]

Well, that sounds like a pretty conclusive analysis. Let's call the whole thing off

So your comment was serious? I must admit to being confused at what your point is, and indeed even your purpose.

In attempt to make some sense of your (seemingly pointless/cynical) comment? How do I know crime hasn't increased in the last few years when the street light outside has been off rather than left on? To the best of my knowledge:-
- None of my neighbours houses have been broken into.
- None of my neighbours houses have been vandalised.
- None of our cars have been stolen.
- None of our cars have been vandalised.
- No traffic accidents have happened.

Does that help?

You belittle and dismiss someone else's experience as not conclusive enough, and then proceed to post your own not conclusive experience...

 

[PermaBanned]

Signed. But i think it will lose a lot of support just by focusing on astronomy. Yes, that is a real concern but it doesn't affect most people. By talking about the energy costs of having many, inefficient streetlamps on during every dark hour you could bring a lot of people over. Streetlamps which spread light in basically a sphere rather than where it's needed, on walls, through windows, straight into the sky. By designing them properly you could reduce light pollution tenfold and have one streetlamp do the job of two or three.

There's also the biological implications of street lighting, both on humans and wildlife. There are many possible issues that could arise from people never being able to sleep in the dark due to light leaking in from outside. And it's a well reported fact that many birds have severely disrupted sleep cycles due to it.

There's a few demonstrations on this site which help to see the problem:

http://www.need-less.org.uk/

 

[Kemik]

if better use of it = turning off between certain time then I still say no. Street lighting was invented for a reason, and that reason hasn't got any better over the last 20 years or so.

I value the safety of people in the streets at night far above your want or need to look at stars.

As suggested if you don't like city lights maybe move to the country or a small island somewhere off the shetlands.

Better use of it means installing street lamps that target their light where required, rather than against walls, up in the sky, etc.

 

[NeilF]

You belittle and dismiss someone else's experience as not conclusive enough, and then proceed to post your own not conclusive experience...

Come on, be serious.

I can see some stars out of my bedroom window, so all is fine? The statement is obviously incredibly vaporous.

As opposed to my suggestion that since the street light outside my house has been turning off at night (to my knowledge) there hasn't been a single piece of criminal activity. I've even looked on the police website for crime reports, and there's nothing.

 

[NeilF]

Better use of it means installing street lamps that target their light where required, rather than against walls, up in the sky, etc.

It's what's being suggested, but alas some folks here don't want to hear any common sense being proposed... And like so many threads on this forum (for reason) a number of individuals try and grab the stearing wheel and drive off into troll territory.

 

[Basher]

It's what's being suggested, but alas some folks here don't want to hear any common sense being proposed... And like so many threads on this forum (for reason) a number of individuals try and grab the stearing wheel and drive off into troll territory.

So it's not about turning them off in the small hours?

Or a combination of both?

What sort of cost would we be looking at to replace all street slight bulbs for more suitable ones?

 

[Castiel]

It's what's being suggested, but alas some folks here don't want to hear any common sense being proposed... And like so many threads on this forum (for reason) a number of individuals try and grab the stearing wheel and drive off into troll territory.

How much will that cost?

And to what end, is it really necessariy to spend billions on swapping out street lighting just so a handful of people can look through their telescopes or should we simply use that money in our schools, hospitals etc.

While I see benefit in having a more natural environment, I can't support something as relatively trivial when other things are being underfunded or cut altogether.

Sorry Neil, but I just think that there are currently more immediate issues rather than light pollution in and around our towns and cities.

 

[PermaBanned]

How much will that cost?

And to what end, is it really necessariy to spend billions on swapping out street lighting just so a handful of people can look through their telescopes or should we simply use that money in our schools, hospitals etc.

While I see benefit in having a more natural environment, I can't support something as relatively trivial when other things are being underfunded or cut altogether.

The question shouldn't be 'how much will it cost' but 'how long will it take to make that money back' on saved energy costs.

 

[Castiel]

The question shouldn't be 'how much will it cost' but 'how long will it take to make that money back' on saved energy costs.

When they need maintenance then change them, but otherwise it would be hugely expensive as it isn't simply about swapping out bulbs, but altering or replacing the entire unit and/or fittings to accomodate them.

There are more efficent ways of saving expenditure when it comes to energy conservation.

 

[Kemik]

Roads are being dug up all the time. Replace them when that occurs. Change the angle of those possible, add a mirror cover on the top of others. It's all little things that improves the lighting where it needs to be while reduces the light pollution. It can often mean 1 in 3 lights can be switched off permanently too.

 

[Castiel]

Roads are being dug up all the time. Replace them when that occurs. Change the angle of those possible, add a mirror cover on the top of others. It's all little things that improves the lighting where it needs to be while reduces the light pollution. It can often mean 1 in 3 lights can be switched off permanently too.

If the lighting needs replacing then by all means replace it something that is more energy and environmentally friendly, even if the initial cost is slighly higher.

But not a program of changing working, serviceable streetlighting for an alternative, the costs would be prohibitive and the priority with regard to other services simply doesn't add up.

 

[PermaBanned]

When they need maintenance then change them, but otherwise it would be hugely expensive as it isn't simply about swapping out bulbs, but altering or replacing the entire unit and/or fittings to accomodate them.

There are more efficent ways of saving expenditure when it comes to energy conservation.

Perhaps. But it all really boils down to cutting waste. That can be either removing things that don't need to be there or replacing things with more efficient versions. Street lighting could be an example of either, and the solution doesn't have to be as drastic as replacing everything at once with a massively complicated new lamp. There are options which could cost a lot. And there are options which could cost nothing. Acting like nothing could be done or that nothing needs to be done isn't productive at all.

Also, that post doesn't really respond to my point. So what if it costs billions if it could make that back within a few years? I'm not saying it could, i'm just saying that you shouldn't throw out the possibility to quickly.

I mean the main problem is that we aren't really doing anything about energy conservation...

 

[NeilF]

How much will that cost?

No idea... But worth considering surely?

And to what end, is it really necessariy to spend billions on swapping out street lighting just so a handful of people can look through their telescopes or should we simply use that money in our schools, hospitals etc.

While I see benefit in having a more natural environment, I can't support something as relatively trivial when other things are being underfunded or cut altogether.

You're unfairly belittling the matter a little? "Billions just so a handful of people can look through their telescopes?"

Another thread on this forum (you may be familiar with) is the solar power thread, where clearly some individuals are getting a huge rebate (guaranteed for 25yrs), but many argue this is necessary (worthwhile) to improve the technology necessary for helping our (long term) power usage.

As such, could it not be argued that some investigation and investment into possibly reducing our night time energy consumption, is worthwhile?

 

[Basher]

No idea... But worth considering surely?



You're unfairly belittling the matter a little? "Billions just so a handful of people can look through their telescopes?"

Another thread on this forum (you may be familiar with) is the solar power thread, where clearly some individuals are getting a huge rebate (guaranteed for 25yrs), but many argue this is necessary (worthwhile) to improve the technology necessary for helping our (long term) power usage.

As such, could it not be argued that some investigation and investment into possibly reducing our night time energy consumption, is worthwhile?

So why isn't the petition about energy reduction, then?

 

[bitslice]

Street lighting is a waste of money, my car has headlights and I have a nice torch.
Turn them all off and reduce my council tax please.

They don't light up twisty, muddy country roads so what is the point in lighting up motorways where there is a car with lights on every twenty metres.

Not to mention all the ***** on the M6 who put their headlights on at 5:30pm while it's still daylight for another three hours.

 

[andrewdodd13]

LED street lights are becoming popular, they last longer (=> cheaper), use about half as much power (=> cheaper) and can be designed to be non-glaring (=> meh) so I'm all for installing these. There are supposedly 7.5M streetlights in the UK, and at 100W each that's about £1.35M per night in electricity by my calculations (7.5M bulbs * 0.1kW * 12 hours * £0.15 per kWhr). Price per kWhr might be cheaper because of it being such a large contract, but you've then got to factor in maintenance.

As for being able to see the stars... meh. I'd rather have an orange ambience to the city than walk along Edinburgh's streets in the dark at night. On the other hand, my gran's house 12 miles outside the city has no street lights... and no neighbours.

 

[Basher]

Street lighting is a waste of money, my car has headlights and I have a nice torch.
Turn them all off and reduce my council tax please.

They don't light up twisty, muddy country roads so what is the point in lighting up motorways where there is a car with lights on every twenty metres.

Not to mention all the ***** on the M6 who put their headlights on at 5:30pm while it's still daylight for another three hours.

Because having lights on the motorway increases the distance that you can see ahead?

 

[FutileBreadMachine]

So why isn't the petition about energy reduction, then?

Exactly. I would only support a petition requesting that all streetlight replacement bulbs are LEDs (assuming there are appropriate LEDs available). This way we will save money/energy. Spending money on making the stars more visible is a waste of money IMO.