# Kitchen Lights help please

Page 1 of 3
• posted on January 26, 2004, 4:50 pm
Hi,
Would someone check my calculation please...
I have been considering fitting downlighters in my kitchen.
The kitchen is roughly 7m by 4m. Reading other posts on this BB it looks as though I should go for around 15 downlighters + additional under cupboard lights for effect...
My calculation is:
15 lights 50W per light 7p/Kw Lights on 15 hours per day
15 * 50/1000 * 0.07 * 15 * 365 = approx £300 per year running cost. Any additional under-cupboard lights are extra on top of this, as are replacement bulbs, etc.
I assume that low voltage downlighters cost the same to run as mains voltage(?)
Seems a bit steep to light just one room in the house!
[At the moment I have a 60w strip light and a 20W low voltage pendant which gives adequate (but not sexy) lighting and only a tenth of the running costs.]
Should I be considering something other than downligters? Is this the cost of a modern-looking kitchen?
Colin
âœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on January 26, 2004, 4:56 pm

15 hours a day seems pretty steep....................in winter you would have to have the lights on for all the darkness hours (even when you are asleep!)...............and during the summer you would be using the lights in daylight!!!! I think you need to recalculate. I doubt my kitchen lights are on for more than 2-3 hours a day in winter and much less in summer.
Angela
âœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on January 26, 2004, 4:58 pm

looks as

cupboard
My kitchen is 3.3m x 3m and we have 6 50W LV halogens lighting the main area, plus 2 more in a glazed cupboard. The amount of light they produce is more than adequate for my purposes.
Presumably you don't have a window in this room and you plan to leave the lights on all day?
Even if you really do need to have artificial lighting in your kitchen for 15 hours/day, do you need to have all 15 lamps burning all the time, or could you divide it into general illumination/tasks?
HTH
Neil
âœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on January 26, 2004, 5:35 pm

You have 1 50W bulb per 1.75 m^2. I am proposing roughly the same...

There is a single window at one end. The lights currently are left on all day.

May be possible. I think the wife/children would object to switching lights on/off all day long.
Would a dimmer switch save electricity?
Colin
âœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on January 26, 2004, 7:18 pm
Colin wrote:

Then teach them, like my father taught me!
15w compact fluorescents in the corners above the cabinets work well, as they wash the ceiling with light which is diffused around the room. These could stay on for extended periods. The halogens provide excellent bright light, but 750w won't be needed all the time, as you seem to concur.
You could go for 3 independently switched lighting sources: 10w - 20w of under cabinet fluorescent strips, Hidden CF wall/ceiling washes to provide general illumination, LV halogens for detail lighting and making the missus go ooohH.
--
Toby.

'One day son, all this will be finished'
âœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on January 26, 2004, 4:58 pm
Colin wrote:

I'll take this opportunity to rant, if you don't mind. This isn't personal - lots of people do what you are proposing :-)
<rant>
I really, *really* don't understand this recent obsession with LV halogens; specifically with using dozens of them to light a room.
When I was growing up, each room had a 60W/100W bulb, and maybe a reading lamp/desk lamp as well. That was plenty.
Why anyone would need or want 750W to light their kitchen is beyond me. I totally do not understand it.
Our kitchen makes use of 3x 21W CFs, and we find this more than enough. Regardless of cost, to use 750W to light one room is *obscene*.
</rant>
--
Grunff

âœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on January 26, 2004, 5:37 pm

After looking at the numbers I must admit that I am also starting to agree with you...
Colin
âœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on January 28, 2004, 12:49 am
Colin wrote:

Its about what a big room takes, sadly. On incandescents.

âœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on January 28, 2004, 1:43 am

It's more about misusing task lights for general lighting. Using appropriate incandescent luminares for providing general lighting would knock the figure down considerably. Downlighters are not for general lighting, so unsurprisingly they are very inefficient if you try to misuse them that way.
They're also very good for puncturing holes in your previously fire resistant ceiling, and as an added bonus, each has the power and heat available to behave as an incendiary device given the opportunity, and their excellent positioning in a brech of the firebreak.
--
Andrew Gabriel

âœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on January 26, 2004, 5:18 pm
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 16:50:58 -0000, "Colin"

The calculations are OK, but the assumptions are probably unreasonable.
First of all, I doubt that you would need all 15 lights for 15 hours a day, the year round. You can divide the lights into groups and switch some on at a time. For example, I have some in the ceiling away from the walls and some closer to the walls to give reflected light. I probably have about a third of them on for many purposes and more when needed.

Approximately.
Don't you like sex? ;-)
I also used small high frequency fluorescent fittings underneath the cupboards for certain jobs.
Being able to mix and select different types of light at different times is quite appealing.

.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
âœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on January 26, 2004, 5:42 pm

I guess careful lighting design is important. I don't want to end up in the situation where I am switching ligts on and off every 5 minutes.

It doesn't usually cost this much ;-)

Is there a certain configuration that you use 95% of the time?
Colin
âœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on January 26, 2004, 8:39 pm
"Colin" wrote | > Don't you like sex? ;-) | It doesn't usually cost this much ;-)
Perhaps you should drop subtle hints to the missus that lots of overhead halogen lighting emphasises bags under the eyes, wrinkles, moustaches (hers) and encourages premature aging.
Of course if she wants her kitchen lit up like a pathologist's dissection table ...
Owain
âœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on January 26, 2004, 10:17 pm
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 17:42:19 -0000, "Colin"

I don't think you need to do that. You can split lighting into general, accent and task.
Most of the time we end up with three different combinations and I have the switches to achieve that with different sets hooked to each.

It does, you know. You just don't realise it...... :-)

Using switching as described above, I have 3 switches, each of which turns on a different scenario. One is for cooking, another for other work in the kitchen and the third is when nothing much is happening and I need light to walk through or raid the fridge so just some accent lights near the wall. It's then just a case of throwing an additional switch when needed.
You can mix technologies of course, although I prefer to keep fluorescents of all types to a minimum because I find them bilious in kitchen applications.

.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
âœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on January 26, 2004, 5:30 pm

My kitchen has 2 semiflush light fittings. (15W yellow compact fluorescent bulbs). This give a nice soft warm glow to the room. For task lighting, I have 4x18W tubes under pelmets and 1x30W tube up the chimney for the range. This gives a total of 132W when it is all on. It is a LOT of light. The under pelmet lights only need to be on when cooking.
Why have 750W just for the main lighting? Do you have a one man vendetta against Bangladesh? Perhaps you like the sight of drowning Polynesians?
Christian.
âœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on January 26, 2004, 5:51 pm

750W seems to be amount recommended by those with downlighters for a kitchen of 28 sq m. Perhaps downlighters are less efficient/practical?
It is a shame that strip lights don't look nicer... They seem much more practical in a kitchen...
Colin
âœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on January 26, 2004, 6:45 pm
I found this quote rather amusing, "I think the wife/children would object to switching lights on/off all day long."
I like a place to be well lit but there is a limit surely!
Do they cope with flushing the toilet or have you arranged for that to continuously flush?
I suppose a PIR type of switch would be possible - we have them in the offices where I work. They dim the lights out after about 20 mins of no movement.
--

Regards

John

âœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on January 27, 2004, 12:12 am
Colin wrote:

Any
Well lets add in bulb costs. 15 lights 15 hrs a day = 225 bulb hours /day = 0.1125 bulb life per day if using 2000 hr bulbs. So you will be replacing bulbs at the rate of 1 per 9 days - on average.
At say £2 a bulb (you can ignore delivery since youll be buying in bulk) that's 365 x 0.1125 = 41 bulbs per annum, or £82 pa, and some exercise :)
So its nearer £400 a year. For 1 room.

no. mains halogen cost more, mains cfl cost less, traditional mains filament cost more.

How many rooms have you got...

which
running
Fls are very efficient, and routinely badly installed and poorly used. They can be made to look fine, but few people seem to have any idea how to do that. I've been in places lit almost entirely by fls, and they looked good. Unfortunately widespread bad practice gives them a bad name.

consider
a) avoiding downlighters which are energy inefficient for 2 reasons - theyre halogen not cfl - they light up the floor which wastes a lot of light b) using cfl not halogen c) not leaving lights on all day long d) using a more sensible level of lighting than 750w e) having the lights on a bank of switches so you can put on what youre comfortable with at the time f) using small lights where theyre needed g) training your family to be responsible
and if you want to take things to extremes, use an external reflector to get more sun and skylight in through the window. It works well.

no, its the cost of what you propose to do. There are plenty of other ways to have a modern looking kitchen. There are even ways to have downlighters without the cost you are looking at here.

no it increases it. I can explain if needed.
Grunff wrote:

me.
I think they just dont know what theyre doing. Anyone who imagines having a 500w halogen floodlight in the room, and then adding some more, will realise its not a bright idea.
I also wouldnt go for PIR, they simply dont make good choices, and are anoying and wasteful.
Want some new ideas?
Regards, NT
âœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on January 27, 2004, 9:47 am

Yikes!
Lots.
I would like flourecsent tubes if I could find some way of making them look nice. I think think that they make a better working light. Has anyone seen any fittings, or got any tips for installation, that would look acceptable?

I am open to suggestions...

I suspected that they didn't save power...
Colin
âœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on January 27, 2004, 1:29 pm

I've done the lighting in two kitchens in last few years. In both cases, I used T4 fluorescent fittings (CPC, B&Q) under the cupboards behind tiny pelmets, and concealed fluorescent tubes on top of the cupboards bouncing light off a white ceiling. This has worked very well with excellent all round lighting, excellent task lighting on the worktops and absolutely no glare. The under cupboard and on cupboard lights are separately switched.
You should consider the colour temperature (and make sure all the tubes are the same). For domestic kitchen lighting levels you want 2700K. This will also match the colour temperature of the other lights in your house and make the kitchen feel warm. If you want to install a significantly higher level of lighting in the kitchen than is perhaps the norm for domestic use, then you can also increase the colour temperture to 3500K, but this will look cold and lifeless unless the lighting level is much higher than you would normally find in a domestic residence. This high level of lighting is something you might particularly want to consider if the kitchen has no natural light and you will be using the lights all through the day. However, it can be overpowering in the early morning and evening when we don't expect such high light levels or high colour temperatures.
--
Andrew Gabriel

âœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on January 27, 2004, 2:29 pm
Andrew, thanks for the advise... (esp. colour temp.)

The lighting configuration you describe implies that there was no 'direct' lighting except for the under-worktops. Is that correct?
Colin