Do dimmer switches work with Low Energy Bulbs?

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:51:34 +0000 (UTC), snipped-for-privacy@cucumber.demon.co.uk (Andrew Gabriel) had this to say:

ISTR that the Statutory Instrument for banning the manufacture or import of light bulbs was tagged on to an enabling Act which didn't cover light bulbs... :-)

Oh dear. You couldn't make it up...

How may politicians and civil servants does it take to change a light bulb?

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 23:14:21 +0000 (UTC), snipped-for-privacy@cucumber.demon.co.uk (Andrew Gabriel) had this to say:

Actually I'm seriously surprised that nobody seems to have challenged this.

I was a (technical) civil servant for a while, but based in an outpost an awful long way from Whitehall, and have been known to change light bulbs (well, fluorescent tubes) _by myself_ (shock horror) rather than wait for somebody to come along and do it via triplicate paperwork and bids to HM Treasury...

AND fit up/wire workbenches and install radio and other stuff in cars, all above the call of duty, just to get the job done.

I think I did change an incandescent light bulb once at work - in an anglepoise lamp :-))

In message , Frank Erskine writes

Lightbulbs2U are where I got mine from

Simplistic view of supply/demand.

Bill

I hate the people who like to ban things. All it means is that they think they know how better than me how I should live. They can bollocks. If I want to use traditional light bulbs I will. I've got 50 years' supply, so they can't stop me. If there was any real connection between the type of bulb I use and global warming it might be different, but there isn't.

I see that they want to stop us eating meat as well. Sounds like I'll be rearing lambs in secret then.

Is there any aspect of our lives that these morons don't want to mess around with?

How the hell do they think they can get C02 emissions down when the world's population is increasing like it is? Not a prayer.

Bill

Only in your mind it would seem.

I was not suggesting that one should not make use of the new technology where appropriate, however it is not wise to actually blanket ban a technology, where for some applications it is the *only* viable solution.

Depends on your lamp. I bought a pair in Tesco a couple of weeks ago that would be very dangerous for use over stairs. They produce no usable light output for a good couple of mins. (I have also bought some that were very much better - I was hoping that these would be similar since they were the same brand etc).

Why ban them at all? If you want to indulge in social engineering, why not take a two pronged approach 1) make the new technology better than what it replaces, and then raise the price of the old technology via taxation etc. That way you leave the route open for people to access old lamps where they are required, and provide an incentive to move to new technology via several inducements.

Challenge it? Why? The fact it is tacked on to the end of an unrelated Bill does not make it any less of a law. Far from it.

There is a surprisingly large proportion of our laws that are passed in this way. The alternative, to wait for a dedicated slot in the Parliamentary programme, could delay passing legislation for months or even years.

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 03:41:10 -0000 someone who may be "Bill Wright" wrote this:-

I take it you are against the ban on murder?

If we wish to decrease population in order to reduce emissions then it makes sense to start with those who are emitting the most? Yes?

That means starting with rich westerners.

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 04:12:25 +0000 someone who may be John Rumm wrote this:-

I imagine that the usual suspects would object if people proposed higher taxes with respect to lamps. They certainly complain about higher taxes in all other forms of environmental measure.

Better than rushing through a ban on incandescents though. I try to be "environmentally responsible" but it makes no sense for people to have to replace light fittings and switches which work perfectly with new ones because they can no longer get lightbulbs that fit.

If I was "in charge" I would first try to ensure that all fittings and switchgear sold were compatible with energy effecient bulbs before even thinking of phasing out the less efficient bulbs.

I think the ban was really introduced as a result of lobbying from the manufacturers of CFLs, rather than due to any environmental concerns.

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:32:25 +0000 someone who may be Mark wrote this:-

Really.

On the one hand they have production lines which churn out established designs. These are sold for a relatively low price.

On the other hand they churn out newer designs, sold for a higher price, but I suspect the profit per unit sold isn't great.

If I was a lamp manufacturer I would lobby for me to be able to keep producing the old designs, while still selling the new design at a higher price.

Well that trumps all other discussion doesn't it.

They'll lie their collective heads off just to * Get Money * each and everything they say may be taken as just a salesman's puff.

Derek

Because they can get away with it. They let people chose whether to fly in aeroplanes because there's be a rumpus if they didn't, but they know they can get away with the lightbulb thing without too much fuss.

Bill

That isn't remotely comparable and you know it. Use your bloody common sense.

Bill

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:49:32 -0000 someone who may be "Bill Wright" wrote this:-

I note that you were unable or unwilling to answer the point.

It seems that there are some things you are content that there is a ban on. Therefore you presumably do not hate people who like to ban things, but only hate people who ban things you don't like being banned. If that is in the case we are now in the realm of politics, rather than absolutes.

David Hansen wibbled on Wednesday 28 October 2009 18:06

I would feel quite safe, short of doing a national survey, that the vast majority of the UK population believe that murder is bad and are not unhappy about it being illegal.

The same cannot be said on anything like the same scale for:

Lamp shennanigans as we are discussing, HIPs Part P

Tim

Just thought I'd chuck in 2p on the 'environmental' debate.

(1) There has been plenty of action on the supply of CFLs but a remarkable lack of action on the disposal, even though they allegedly contain harmful chemicals and should not just be ditched in land fill. Apparently you have to take them to a specialist disposal point instead of having them collected with rubbish and recyclables. Yeah, right. Sure to be 100% compliance with that one. Then again it is easier to make a few manufacturers change their product than make the teeming millions in the UK dispose of specialised rubbish sensibly. Especially if you don't supply an easily accessible infrastructure such as regular collections door to door. Does every used AA and AAA battery with harmful chemicals go for specialised disposal or do the majority go to landfill? Cleaning that lot up should keep the next generation gainfully employed.

(2) This week I watched a recording of a talk - "Climate change & extinction by Richard Leakey (recorded from the Royal Society)". It was suggested that much of the carbon based pollution came from impoverished nations (Third World?) with soaring birth rates and no alternative source of energy to the burning of wood. Policing their carbon useage is not something that can be achieved by consumer legislation. It was also suggested that there would be major climate change within the next 20 years in Africa, with major rivers drying up. To me this makes all the fuss about CFLs akin to trying to empty the Lake District of water using a tea spoon. Also allegedly much of the melting of polar ice caps is due to carbon from burning wood (presumably by the 3rd world) coating the snow and ice and absorbing more heat from the sun. A scary talk.

(3) On pricing - ISTR the cost of incandescent bulbs dropping enormously once CFLs became available. Presumably because if there was no price difference everyone would buy CFLs because they were cheaper to run. On that basis I would suggest that banning old style bulbs might be a good idea to prevent new and more efficient technology being held back by the dumping of old technology onto the market. Strange how the incandescents dropped from £3 to 30p so quickly. I don't understand why New Labour didn't follow the usual route and add a surcharge to the incandescent bulbs to bring the price back up. They could then raise taxes and claim to be green at the same time. Then waste the extra money.

Should we start cross posting to uk.political.rant.yet.again ?

Cheers

Dave R

David WE Roberts wibbled on Wednesday 28 October 2009 22:19

I was at the dump today. Dutifully sorted a load of crap prior to moving. I found the bin for batteries - but I did not noticed a place for CFLs. Maybe I'll ask tomorrow. T Wells dump is fairly fully featured, eg they take asbestos and have skips and bins for pretty much every other category.

Scary. Short of nuking them out of existence, what can you do. The poor sods don't really have the luxury of the debate of "hmm, CFL or tungsten". Life is running at a whole different level for a lot of them.