B****** Light Bulbs

[BrumJim]

Unless you live on the ceiling, the heat from an incandescent lamp is as good as useless.

I don't.

Oh, and all our normal bulbs have been replaced by fast starting energy saving ones that save us money. Have replaced on halogen with an LED, but as yet, not the range or brightness to complete the job. But when they are, I will change them all, as LEDs are incredibly efficient compared to halogen, and last for ever.

 

[Davidc]

The free ones I've come across have (unsurprisingly) been some of the poorest performance lamps I've seen and I'm sure you're right about the impression they've created.

I'm also sure that we in Europe will eventually follow some Asian countries and classify the Tunsten Halogen incandescent lamps with the tungsten filament ones and do away with them.

the presssure for carbon emissions reductions will only increase, and presumably there are going to be howls of protest as more of our inefficient old technologies are removed. If current trends continue will we see the LED lamp replace the compact flourescent?

The LED TV may replace the LCD and plasma ones - will there be complaints if they'r ethe only ones allowed? I saw a 1969 vintage colour TV, 22", recently, still in use, which said it consumed 400w. My last CRT one, from 1999 (which literally went bang) had a 130w rating. Its LCD replacement uses 60w. Anyone think we should still use the 1969 technology?

IMO Sometimes compulsion is the only way to make things move forward and is justified and right.

 

[marinyork]

I disagree profoundly with the OP but I'm not going through this for the nth time. If one does a little bit of work one can find energy saving light bulbs in many different colours, in different fittings, different shapes and sizes and different flavours. My micro spirals work very well for reading, I actually prefer them. The 26W in my bedroom also works much better than 100W light bulbs, I even managed to convince some former Japanese housemates in the end of that Mr Pig and they probably made you look like a yoghurt knitter in comparison .

 

[Davidc]

Someone somewhere made the point that the old ones contributed to heating your house in a small way, and since the new ones don't, you'll have to turn up the heating, costing you and the earth more...

No, costing very much less. Sorry, you are wrong.

1. Electricity costs more than gas if you use it
2. The heat ends up in the wrong place
3. the extra heat is there whether needed or not.

The argument is wrong. BRE have done the measurements and have also included the heat gains from lighting in their building energy consumption models. All of those models show the savings in money and energy use available from doing away with old lighting technologies.

 

[Amanda P]

Someone somewhere made the point that the old ones contributed to heating your house in a small way, and since the new ones don't, you'll have to turn up the heating, costing you and the earth more...

Someone made this point seriously?

Yes, incandescent light bulbs will heat your house - but very inefficiently.

Even if you do have to turn up your heating (doubt you'd notice the difference unless you lived in the world' best insulated house), you'd then be heating your house with an efficient heating system designed for the purpose, not with incredibly inefficient devices designed (badly) to light it, not heat it.

So you'd still be better off.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

Someone made this point seriously?

In desperation, I think.

 

[661-Pete]

I think that - as far as the UK and Western countries are concerned, the energy savings are minuscule: I seem to recall digging up a figure of "0.5%" or something like that, on a similar thread on this topic.

Against this there is the risk that people will just leave their lights on 24/7, to circumvent the start-up problem - which is definitely an issue for some types of bulb (I have some CF R80 spots which are very slow to full brightness).

I'm afraid I'm not convinced - though I do have CFLs fitted around most of my househould.

A propos, yesterday I had to buy a new pair of (filament) bulbs for the fridge. I needed 2 x 25W bulbs of a particular shape. I discovered that the closest match (described as 'picture lights') were very expensive: £3.99 each. The next wattage up (40W - described as 'cooker hood lights') were £1.99 each. I ask myself: why double the price for half the wattage? Where's the incentive to save energy there?

 

[Amanda P]

Instead, ask yourself: do I really need[/] lights in the fridge?

 

[661-Pete]

Instead, ask yourself: do I really need lights in the fridge?

Actually I did consider this. True, one of the two lights would have been sufficient (evidently the first one had blown some time previously and we never noticed). But with no lights at all, what with the door position and kitchen lighting arrangement, it's not easy to see into the fridge at night. Also, fridge lights by their very nature aren't meant to be lit for long periods! But I take your point.

 

[Amanda P]

what with the door position and kitchen lighting arrangement, it's not easy to see into the fridge at night.

**Imagines Pete improving the kitchen lighting by leaving open the fridge door while he works, and the energy efficiency consequences thereof...**

But I take your point.

It wasn't a very serious one!

 

[661-Pete]

**Imagines Pete improving the kitchen lighting by leaving open the fridge door while he works, and the energy efficiency consequences thereof...**

*** remembers those horror stories (urban myths?) of little two-year old Tommy coming down to the kitchen at 2 a.m. for a snack, and he can't reach the light switch so he just opens the freezer door ... ***

Has this actually happened to anyone? (our Junior is now grown up)

 

[marinyork]

Against this there is the risk that people will just leave their lights on 24/7, to circumvent the start-up problem - which is definitely an issue for some types of bulb (I have some CF R80 spots which are very slow to full brightness).

I would say people do this anyway. In anycase people are good at thinking up new and unoriginal ways of wasting electricity. One sees it in people installing more and more lighting. In the face of this I actually think the ban is a good thing. People have had years and years to get used to energy saving lights and unfortunately there are people ten a penny against them. A ban is really necessary, unfortunately, like the smoking ban. We tried the nice way and it didn't work. We have to try the nasty way.

As lightbulbs come in standard sizes and fittings it is fairly easy to regulate. I would say that is qualitatively different from trying to say ban LCD tvs, where the LED backlit LCD displays are years away from being cheap. Infact it seems unclear where things will go.

 

[zimzum42]

Someone made this point seriously?

No idea where i heard it, may well have been on LBC, lol!

 

[andrew-the-tortoise]

Been using low energy ones since they first came out [and were quite expensive], not had any problems with them - but have noticed a significant improvement in light output over the last 15 years.

Only had to change them when they have got broken [changing duvet covers, wii controllers!!!], so are very reliable once fitted.

It is just a case of getting used to them.

BTW we have migrain sufferers in the house, and the amount of migrain attacks are no more than when we had conventional bulbs.

 

[Mr Pig]

But are these bulbs so evil they must be banned? I the new ones were so wonderful surely people will just move over to them without being forced to?

It's the removal of choice I object to.