On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 00:13:10 +0100, Andrew Gabriel wrote (in article ):
One can add a number of additional things to this:
- People don't like being dictated to by the government that they should have a particular kind of lighting in their house. They shot themselves in the foot by it being a different fitting.
- Quality of the light
- People are not that sensitive to the costs of running tungsten lightbulbs.
- People are sensitive to paying a great deal more for other bulbs where they don't see the benefit.
66.1%. This is an anti-dumping duty in respect of PRC.
Aye, it's not so bad now, CFL's are becoming available that are the same= size as GLS bulbs. Excess length was the normal problem.
Are we talking about the trails(?) previoulsy mentioned? That is fing daft people will swap the fittings if they don't like 'em.
Again much improved in recent years.
Agreed, unless you do the maths you don't notice. I think most people expect the big heating loads, kettle, cooker, hob etc contribute most to= the huge power bills. But 500W for 18hrs a day uses a lot of power... ISTR that capital payback for 6 x 9W CFLs @ =A38+ each was 6 months or s= o in our lounge that was lit by 6 x 40W tungsten.
Some very cheap ones are appearing, 99p BOGOF in Morrisons branded Phillips as well not own brand or no brand.
The benefit of CFL's appears in about tow years when you realise they actually do have the sort of life claimed for them.
Irrespective of electricity costs.
Wjat IO find more amusing is that cry that yo will save megawatts by boiling half a kettle. Or reepalcing bulbs.
In fact, all that happens is you burn more oil/gas to heat the house..the stray heat from lights and cookers is a significant contributor to house heating.
Although its true that oil burn in a boiler nets you about 60% efficiency, so does oil burnt in a power station, and 25% of electricity comes from nuclear...the only thing one can say about CFL lghts is they will save you money. Oil is cheaper than electricity...Their impact on the actual carbon figures at first glance would appear to be absolutely zero.
On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 11:18:05 +0100, Dave Liquorice wrote (in article ):
The other aspect of all of this, apart from the lack of attractiveness aesthetically and economically is that this has been introduced as a mandatory thing in the Building Regulations for new houses.
I strongly object to that.
I have no problem with energy saving aspects such as cavity wall insulation and reasonable amounts (up to 250mm) of loft insulation and also condensing boilers.
These all have a demonstrable benefit in terms of energy saving, have an effective lifetime of 15 years up to the final life of the house and do not interfere with people's personal choices.
The whole thing with CFL lighting is a political nonsense.
- In comparison with the other methods of energy reduction, the amount involved is significantly less
- Mandating X number of fittings that won't take other bulbs smacks of big brother.
- The light quality is poor
- Customers are not given an incentive to use these things, but rather an inconvenience.
If this were a serious activity as opposed to a window dressing exercise, a complete set of these bulbs for a house, that would fit in standard fittings would be supplied, with government subsidy.
The reality is that it is not, and the whole thing is in exactly the same category as Part P. Legislation for the sake of it and political window dressing.
I am fortunate not to have any of these lamps, but were I to purchase a new house, one of the first tasks would be to consign them to the skip where they belong and to replace them with lighting of my choice and not that of the government.
the 20W one (nearest to 100W equivalent output) is an inch longer (and there would be even more size difference between the newer smaller size GLS bulbs now being used).
I tried going round my parent's house, but a significant number of the fittings won't take equivalent light output CFLs, only much lower output ones.
It doesn't matter which discount you take off first.
100 100 -20 -10 80 90 -8 -18 72 72
However it doesn't necessary follow that with heating savings the 2nd saving will operate on the reduced amount. If you get a saving of 10% by fitting double glazing and 20% by cavity wall insulation you will have an overall saving of 30%, not 28%. OTOH the saving claimed for turning the thermostat down (3% per degree?) does operate at the current insulation level and can't come anywhere in the calculation but last.
If there was actually a good range of home fittings which took remote ballasted compact fluorescents, it might have worked. However, there are none. (The EU survey was specifically looking at retrofit integral ballasted CFLs though, without changing light fittings.)
The low initial output and run-up time is always very high on the list of complaints about compact fluorescents. Light output being below the claimed tungsten equivalent also comes moderately high up the list, and is often given as a reason for someone having tried one once, and decided not to use them. (This is why I always say ignore the claimed equivalent power on the box, and just multiply by 4 to get tungsten equivalent.)
People not liking the colour in the way you describe is not something I've ever seen any complaints about in consumer feedback. There are a small number of complaints that much higher CCT lamps are not easily available (which would emphasise the features you dislike).
Indeed, and they are completely horrified when you point out how much it costs to run a room full of halogen downlighters.
There are some good quality ones available for 50p now, so this really shouldn't be an issue.
I have CFLs in practically everything, because the appalling design of this place means I have scarcely any natural light and have to use electric 16 hours a day even in midsummer. :-(
On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 19:49:24 +0100, Andrew Gabriel wrote (in article ):
That would have been more reasonable in that the ballasts could be located in equivalent positions to those used for SMPS supplies for tungsten halogen. However, I wonder about the RFI in a scenario like that.
the trouble is that it takes a very long time to get over poor first impressions, especially when the promoters try to pretend that functionality and aesthetics are the same. If there had been more honesty it might have been a different story.
That depends on how they are used and they are dimmable.
Too late. Now buying habits will need to change and it will take a lot of time for that to happen.
You and me both. What a fing stupid way to go about things. Mind you if I was to buy a new house it would be built to my spec and with my choice of fittings. Or do I take it that unless you use specific fittings (instead of "normal" ones with CFLs) you won't get past building inspection?
On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 20:52:37 +0100, Owain wrote (in article ):
Ah but would you want all the glass and mercury?
I have a much better recycling story. I decided that I wanted to have some water storage for plant watering. I didn't want one of these plastic tolies, so found a supplier of "second user" oak barrels. What a find. There was still a good 2-3 litres of an attractive smelling amber liquid in the bottom. I poured it out and filtered it, saving it for future investigation.
On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 22:09:02 +0100, Dave Liquorice wrote (in article ):
I think that you wouldn't. The solution, however, is to simply rip them out after completion.
This strikes me as a very similar game to one concerning food storage a few decades ago. My parents bought a house in the days when building society managers sat on the right hand of God and customers inhabited the primordial ooze.
Not having anything of moment to criticise in the valuation survey, the lender insisted that the house be equipped with a ventilated meat safe. We had had a fridge for over ten years at that point but it didn't make any difference. We bought an old cupboard for five shiilings from a government surplus place and drilled some holes in it. Some galvanised mesh was duly fixed inside.
A letter was written to the building society confirming the safe. A further survey was made although they didn't have the balls to charge for it.
Two days after completion, the cupboard went into the shed where it was used to store paint etc.
However, justice has been done. Said building society has since been acquired by a foreign bank who have gone through it with a hatchet (or perhaps a machete).
There is a limit to how much those in power for one reason or another should interfere in people's lives. Both examples were overstepping the mark so hopefully what goes around will come around....
It is (or was) a convention on Usnet to selectively snip and leave in the relevant part of the previous post which, in this case, was that the two percentages were 20% and 10%. 10% of 80 is indeed 8 and 20% 0f 90 is
You then have a pollution that takes only 65000 years to go away rather than the 5 million it has taken to reduce atmospheric CO2 down to the levels it was last century, from the level it will be at shortly..and whose actual toxicity in terms of lives lost is far far lower than the drilling and mining industry, and whose global effects at best are confined even in the worst case scenario.
However expecting that people will actually work out that Nuclear is far far less polluting than a nice friendly gas fire is actually too much to hope for.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.