B****** Light Bulbs

[tyred]

The traditional bulb was much easier to read with. Also, it's difficult to find anything above 20W.
They are also ridiculously fragile if you try to use them in a lead lamp, the slightest knock (easy to do when you're underneath a car) will break them. The fact that they cost more than conventional bulbs means any possible saving will go out the window. Has anyone looked at how much energy they need to manufacture compared to tungsten bulbs?

Anyone who believes this will have the slightest impact on climate change is sadly mistaken and like Mr Pig, I object to the removal of choice.

 

[tdr1nka]

As much as I am in approval when it comes to saving energy and all it's related costs, the disposal of new low power bulbs is something that needs to be factored in as well.

You can find the guidelines on disposal on this site, just below the graph.

 

[marinyork]

The traditional bulb was much easier to read with.

I disagree. See above.

Also, it's difficult to find anything above 20W.

No it's not.

They are also ridiculously fragile if you try to use them in a lead lamp, the slightest knock (easy to do when you're underneath a car) will break them.

They are fragile. Then again tungsten lamps were relatively easily broken by knocks.

The fact that they cost more than conventional bulbs means any possible saving will go out the window.

Wrong again. You have a choice, the better ones are more expensive, the cheaper ones are not.

Has anyone looked at how much energy they need to manufacture compared to tungsten bulbs?

Yes.

Anyone who believes this will have the slightest impact on climate change is sadly mistaken and like Mr Pig, I object to the removal of choice.

Easy steps to reduce energy bills and energy security are other reasons.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

"Removal of choice"? What kind of saddo needs a "choice" of lightbulbs?

 

[Davidc]

I am fundamentally aopposed to your point of view tyred, and can't add much to what marinyork has said, but will nonetheless add:

The fact that they cost more than conventional bulbs means any possible saving will go out the window.

For that to be the case you must be paying over £45 for eah low energy (CFL) lamp.

Has anyone looked at how much energy they need to manufacture compared to tungsten bulbs?

Yes. About 10% more than a canventional tungsten filament bulb. (See Carbon Saving Trust website for more detail)

Anyone who believes this will have the slightest impact on climate change is sadly mistaken.

The savings, worldwide, are huge. (See Carbon Saving Trust website for more detail)

I object to the removal of choice.

So do I, all the things we want to do are being banned. Its just like having to wear a seatbelt, not being allowed to use a mobile phone when driving, and not being allowed to burn high sulphur coal in my mother's open fireplace in London.

And why can't I buy that brilliant colclean cleaner any more. It was only pure CFC, far less environmentally damaging than releasing excess CO2.

 

[gbb]

At risk of getting into a pointless and parallel discussion, the business of heat put out by filament lamps...There are two ways of looking at it....


Its easy to think that although (in some peoples opinion) an incandescent lamp put out better light, if you have a traditional lamp and a new energy saving lamp, of the same wattage, the energy saving lamp will put out more light, simply because it's more efficient. (You must remember that light outut is measured in lux...not watts.)

But, there is a logical offset IMO. Incandescent lamps give off heat,( just as your old TV does) and however small or large that is in the scheme of things, that heat is contained within the house, offsetting somewhat your heating bill. Try handling an incandescent lamp while its on ...you wont...it's bloody hot. That heat doesnt just disappear.

Even if you read the stats one way or the other to try to understand the whole story, you'd be none the wiser. I dont believe half of whats written, it depend on who's writing it, what their priorities are...and who's paying them !!


I'm in favour of the change, but the mistake they've made is either not promoting good quality energy saving lamps, or underrating the wattage generally available that will give an equivelent light output.
Basically, they've promoted the whole idea with substandard lamps. Clever people eh ?

 

[Arch]

"Removal of choice"? What kind of saddo needs a "choice" of lightbulbs?

While we're at it, I demand to be allowed to drive a combine harvester down the main shopping street in York. Ok, so I might kill a few people and rip up the tarmac, but I demand the choice anyway...

What sort of saddo gets irate about lightbulbs? I think we have our answer.

Perhaps those people would like to just sit and think for a moment how bloody lucky they are to have light bulbs at all or the power to operate them...

 

[Davidc]

At risk of getting into a pointless and parallel discussion, the business of heat put out by filament lamps...There are two ways of looking at it....


Its easy to think that although (in some peoples opinion) an incandescent lamp put out better light, if you have a traditional lamp and a new energy saving lamp, of the same wattage, the energy saving lamp will put out more light, simply because it's more efficient. (You must remember that light outut is measured in lux...not watts.) yes about 5 times as much

But, there is a logical offset IMO. Incandescent lamps give off heat,( just as your old TV does) and however small or large that is in the scheme of things, that heat is contained within the house, offsetting somewhat your heating bill. Try handling an incandescent lamp while its on ...you wont...it's bloody hot. That heat doesnt just disappear. Just gets wasted staying high up in winter, out the window for 3/4 the year

Even if you read the stats one way or the other to try to understand the whole story, you'd be none the wiser. I dont believe half of whats written, it depend on who's writing it, what their priorities are...and who's paying them !! Not on this, it's simple arithmetic.


I'm in favour of the change, but the mistake they've made is either not promoting good quality energy saving lamps agree, or underrating the wattage generally available that will give an equivelent light output no, just promoting lamps which take too long to brighten up.
Basically, they've promoted the whole idea with substandard lamps. Clever people eh ?

See earlier posts. There is a small heat contribution from incandescent bulbs, massively offset by wastage.

The CFLs are rated for more light output in their main working life. The cheaper older ones take a while to reach full brigtness though.

FWIW these are the numbers in a simplified form for a CFL replacing a 100w lamp:

Carbon Dioxide per unit (kWh) average for UK = 60g (government figure)
Energy saving from using a 20w CFL in place of a 100w tungsten lamp for 1 CFL lamp:
6000* hours at saving of 80w: 80x6000/1000 kWh = 480 units
Number of tungsten lamps used = 6 (typically)
Number of CFLs used = 1 (typically)
provided that the energy needed to make 1 CFL is less than 6 times that for the tungsten lamp this is a gain (can't find actual figures for energy costs so will leave that there)>
Cost saving at 10p per unit = £48
Carbon dioxide saving per lamp = 29kg
Multiply by the number of lamps, allow for usage of lights, do the arithmetic, then multiply by
20,000,000 for households in the country. Then extend it to most of the world (Which has also agreed to this change).

Edit: Apart from anything else my annual savings (for only partial change over) are around £250. I'd rather spend this on something else than wasted energy.

* I have used 6000 as that is the life to the point where light output is the same as for the 100w bulb. The quoted life is 8000, however light output falls off significantly at the end of life.

 

[tyred]

I'm not anti energy saving bulbs and generally use them but there are occasions where it is preferable to use a filament bulb IMO. A lead lamp is the best example. CFL bulbs just far to fragile for a garage enviroment. Filament bulbs can and do break but not as easily as CFLs. Then there is the question of mercury in the CFLs. I would also prefer to use a filament bulb to read with. And like I said earlier, high wattage ones don't appear to be available.

That choice has been removed by people who like to think they are playing God by preventing climate change. The climate has been in a constant state of change since the beginning of time. How did it heat up before during the Medieval warm period for example, when the internal combustion engine or the filament lightbulb were hundreds of years in the future?

 

[SavageHoutkop]

I think the point is you don't need a high wattage for it to be good enough to read with. BioBulbs while expensive are great, the light is instant and the colour is just like daylight. This does mean it's a lot 'bluer' than the traditional yellow-colour of old bulbs, but I've been fooled thinking it's daylight before.

I'm still stuck looking for instant on halogen-replacment bulbs (the fittings with the two funny nobbly bits on the ends GU10?GU35? - I've got some that are great once up to speed but take their sweet time) and also dimmable small edison bayonet fittings.... any tips?

 

[Davidc]

I'm not anti energy saving bulbs and generally use them but there are occasions where it is preferable to use a filament bulb IMO. A lead lamp is the best example. CFL bulbs just far to fragile for a garage enviroment. Filament bulbs can and do break but not as easily as CFLs. Then there is the question of mercury in the CFLs. I would also prefer to use a filament bulb to read with. And like I said earlier, high wattage ones don't appear to be available.

That choice has been removed by people who like to think they are playing God by preventing climate change. The climate has been in a constant state of change since the beginning of time. How did it heat up before during the Medieval warm period for example, when the internal combustion engine or the filament lightbulb were hundreds of years in the future?

Why you prefer the light from incandescent lamps for reading is beyond me, but I can't argue!

My lead light uses a 13w flourescent tube, is about 20 years old and is on its second tube. I wouldn't use a CFL for that either.

The climate change issue itself is too complex for here, however:

1. We are now 100% certain this is human caused. There is no informed dissent.
2. We now know it will be the worst in human existence, likely as bad as the the changes 55 million years ago. The middle ages warming was by comparison trivial.
3. Those studying the issue are apologising en masse for their predictions being wrong. They now calculate that change wll be far more severe and will happen far faster than was thought at the last UN conference - actual events and measurements back this up.
4. We can't stop it
5. If we act now we may reduce the severity of the changes

Any reduction in carbon emmissions is a help. Once we've lost several island states and most of Bangladesh, expect a few more losses of choices as the human world takes action late in the day.

 

[Mr Pig]

Change a light bulb, save the world. I'm sorry but it's rubbish.

Electrician appliances do not contribute to global warming, at all. The problem is generating electricity my dirty methods. The governments could have invested in clean alternatives decades ago, but they didn't, because they put business dollars before the ecology. And they still do.

But now they want to be 'seen' to be doing something so light bulbs get the chop. Do they hit air travel? No, they build a new terminal at Heathrow. Do they do anything much other than talk about change? Not really.

So don't give me this crap about how the Polar Bears will all die because of my old light bulbs, it's nonsense. And if you've got a dishwasher and more than one TV in your house your tree-hugging opinion means zero to me.

 

[Archie_tect]

And if you've got a dishwasher and more than one TV in your house your tree-hugging opinion means zero to me.

Well put...

 

[Arch]

And if you've got a dishwasher and more than one TV in your house your tree-hugging opinion means zero to me.

Well, I have no dishwasher, and one (second hand, B/W probably about 20 years old) TV. But I don't suppose you want to listen to me either?

 

[Davidc]

Well, I have no dishwasher, and one (second hand, B/W probably about 20 years old) TV. But I don't suppose you want to listen to me either?

No chance