Low energy light bulbs - comparison

[meow2222]

Either the figures you looked at were grossly inaccurate, or perhaps they were correct decades ago.

NT

[meow2222]

No bother is involved, CFL relamping uses less total bother than filament.

NT

[meow2222]

No bother is involved, CFL relamping uses less total bother than filament. When you factor in the number of hours you ahve to work to pay the run costs, CFLs are way less bother.

NT

[T i m]

I wonder what makes someone dislike the above so much whilst others can use them without any 'issues' Andy (genuine question).

Our main living room is generally lit by one CFL laying on a bit of foil on a high shelf. It's on a time switch, comes on at dusk (10 mins after the electric curtains close) and off at 12:30 ish. That lamp has been up there for *ages*. The main center light has a filament lamp in it because I haven't found a suitable (sized) CFL replacement yet.

Dusk to dawn 9W CFL's in the front and rear lobby (they illuminate the entire hall / kitchen and seem *very* bright when we come down in the night), CFL's in bathroom, toilet, landing, dining room, middle bedroom, Daughters room. Our bed room still has filament for the same reasons as below. Twin flouro's in the kitchen.

Bottom line, we switch them on, they light up, we do our thing, rarely needing to supplement these lights with anything else.

Are we just 'coping', don't think so. Are we interested in style over function or economy / environment (energy use / lamp life), no. Can't remember anyone coming in and commenting how dark it is in here or 'isn't that light a funny coloured ... .

When the 'fossils' do run out how will you cope with candle light or yer solar charged LED light Andy ;-)

Horses for courses though I guess.

All the best ..

T i m

p.s. I saw CFL based floodlight the other day .. I'm keeping my eye out for one locally as the 300W flood lamp that covered the back garden failed about 2 years ago ...

[Andy Hall]

Absolutely agree. This is just a sop for people to think that they are doing something, done as a diversion from the real issues that actually do make a difference but which are considered to be too hard.

I wouldn't worry too much about that. Opinions are like ani. Everybody has one.

[Andy Hall]

Good location for one....

[Andy Hall]

You salve your conscience if you are gullible enough to be taken in by the hype surrounding all of this.

[Andy Hall]

Incrementalism like this is a very weak argument

[Andy Hall]

I know it's a genuine question. The genuine answer is that I find the light artificial and bilious. The minor cost savings, if any, are therefore irrelevant and the energy savings are not significant in the overall context of things that can be done.

I don't buy into the argument that says that energy in the form of electricity needs to be saved.

Replacing perfectly good technology in the form of tungsten lighting which most people do seem to prefer based on sales volumes really makes no sense; and when one learns that there is government sponsored coercion in terms of forcing the issue via building regulation, it is very clear that there is a rat.

If one were to say that use of fossil fuel were the *only* way to produce electricity then that would make it a discussion point.

Focus should be on alternative sources of supply for electricity such as nuclear fission and ultimately fusion generation and improving the technology around those further.

Instead of this, we are presented with a "no gain without pain" argument which really holds no water at all; and which in effect, is very similar to the ancient practice of self flagellation as atonement for sin.

If people want to buy these things and use them and if it makes them feel good, then that's fine. I don't feel about to follow suit because I find the aesthetics poor and the technical and ecological justifications questionable at best. As soon as the element of government compulsion comes into the mix with these weak justifications, I close the shutters.

One exterior application is the only one that I have found as an appropriate use for a CFL.

I have a lantern outside which illuminates an area where the dustbins are stores. This is switched on only when I need to go out after dark to put rubbish in the bins and is switched off again afterwards. I don't care about the light quality for that but it is inconvenient to access the lantern to change a tungsten bulb.

[Andy Hall]

Both are negligible.

[meow2222]

I'd agree on the rat. The sensible way to make them more popular is to solve the problems, and this is simple to do. Why no cfl mfr has done it I dont know, maybe theyre too busy hiring monkeys for peanuts trying to compete on cost, so have no-one to sit back and ask how they can change the market and satisfy the customer better.

I've not dealt with them.:

CFLs upto 105w.

NT

[robert]

IMHO the energy saved is over stated, in the UK for at least 6 months of the year the energy "wasted" goes towards heating the house , okay its expensive but not totaly wasted.

I have to yet to find any figures for total life energy comparisons between standard tungsten and low-energy bulbs. LE bulbs must take more energy to manufacture (and dispose of), it may not be significant but I would like to see the figures.

I've not been a big fan of the LE bulbs in the past but as I am installing new lights at present in a largish house I was pleasantly surprised at the number and quality of design of LE light fittings now available . Worthwhile for hall and landing lights at least. Robert

[Tony Bryer]

True, but more of concern now (as far as Building Regs etc is concerned) is that in most cases you are displacing a lower CO2 fuel (gas) with a higher CO2 one (electricity).

[David Hansen]

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 17:49:27 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:-

Nice try, but your arguments remain as unconvincing as ever.

If energy saving light bulbs were the only thing people are being encouraged to do you would have a point. However, they are not the only thing people are being encouraged to do.

[David Hansen]

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 17:51:29 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:-

Yawn.

[Andy Hall]

I'm not setting out to convince anyone.

.. and your point is?

[David Hansen]

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 17:22:09 GMT someone who may be T i m wrote this:-

They have been around for 5-10 years. They generally take three PL type bulbs. Probably not as much light from one as a 300W linear halogen light, but plenty of light for most tasks.

Whether one should leave such lights on for a long period is another matter...

[Andy Hall]

OK, understandable point although this doesn't have to be the case.

Even so, one wonders why there is not similar regulatory discouragement in terms of provision for electric space heating and cooking in new houses if there are alternatives available at a site.

Either one of those would make a far bigger difference.

[Dave Liquorice]

Er, "sales volumes" is a false measure unless corrected to take into account the much longer life of CFLs over tungsten. I was buying and getting through 16 or so 40W tugnsten candle bulbs for the lounge lights a year until I replaced them with 6 CFLs. I have yet to replace those CFLs and they have been in for at least two years alomost certainly longer...

I quite like the extra cash in my pocket. Tungsten 6 x 40 x 18 =

4.32units/day. 6 * 9 * 18 = 0.972 units/day. Saving 3.348 units at 7.191p/unit, 24p/day, 92 quid/year (once you've added the VAT) or a weeks groceries.

[Dave Liquorice]

I didn't say rated equivalence I said "rated power and lumens output" both are measurable using standardised units. If the maker was telling porkies and some one measured the lamps they would be in serious trouble.

I don't trust marketing puff and the equivalence stuff is just that. Real hard quantifiable facts I trust, if you can find 'em in the puff.

The ones I've looked at recently all have a little ratings section normally giving the voltage range, power consumption life and lumens. This applies to (branded) tungsten as well CFLs. Quite often on one of the box flaps.