[J80FAB]

I came across this a couple of days ago, but have only just read it now :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7172662.stm

I got to the last two paragraphs to discover that standard tungsten ligthbulbs are going to be phased out in this country Is this a European thing or another clever idea from the present government ?

Personally I dislike low energy bulbs & think it's a stupid idea. I find their lighting is different from standard ones and dislike the time it takes for some of them to 'warm-up' & become bright.

I only use them for occasionally lighting small areas of the house and for two outdoor lights which stay on throughout the night hence it makes sense to use low-energy bulbs.

I find it perculiar about the claim of saving X amount of tonnes of carbon emissions when in today's society many homes have other more power-hungry appliances which are used throughout the day. Lights are generally turned on for a few hours during the night or when it's dark.

And what about the halogen spot-light bulbs and those really small 'specialist' halogen bulbs ? They can also be hefty on power consumption & cannot exactly be replaced by low-energy ones. Also the candle shaped bulbs, and in particular lighting which has a dimmer switch - low-energy bulbs don't work from dimmer switches.

Looks like we'll have to start stocking up on tungsten lightbulbs or have to buy them abroad !

[sim667]

Ive got dimmer switches all thru my house, i wont be able to use them anymore!

[Mr Incredible]

Originally Posted by sim667

Ive got dimmer switches all thru my house, i wont be able to use them anymore!

Worse than that, you'll have to replace your dimmer switches with normal switches. Even "full on", the presence of a dimmer on compact fluorescent bulbs can cut short your lamp life to just a few hours use.

[PoochJD]

HI,

There's been so much negativity - and rightly so - about this subject in the past week or so! The whole idea stinks to high heaven!

1 - Lo-energy bulbs take about 10 minutes to reach full brightness. So, for bathrooms, toilets, hall closets, etc, where instant lighting is needed, they're useless! Ditto for people with less than perfect eyesight!

2 - The lo-energy bulbs aren't compatible with dimmer switches!

3 - Lo-energy bulbs now contain mercury: this means you can't dispose of them in your normal household waste, nor recycle them, because they contain a "contaminant"!

4 - If a lo-energy bulb explodes, which they can do, you have to deal with tiny fragments of glass everywhere! Great!

5 - They cost more initially, but to reach the same level of light as using current bulbs, you'll need more lo-energy bulbs! Err, doesn't this then mean, we'll end up using more electric, and thus, defeats the purpose of not using more energy?!

6 - Not all lights, lampshades, et al can cope with the style or design of lo-energy bulbs, meaning you may have to end-up replacing perfectly good lights in your house, accommodation or offices!

7 - Lo-energy bulbs have been found to cause some serious health side-effects, including nausea, headaches and other issues, which means some people can't tolerate them, compared to regular bulbs!

8 - The Government is trying to outlaw regular light-bulbs!

That's just 8 reasons why I WON'T be buying new, (supposedly) more efficient green light-bulbs! Moreso, when I can buy a standard 100w bulb from Tesco's, for just 16p! Anyone else think this is just another "dumb" government idea, to get us to pay more for something that isn't as good or useful as they claim?!


Pooch

[sore napper]

I have to agree with the OP. I also find it peculiar that all the attention is on the light bulb. It's one of the least power hungry appliances in a household.

I think all the attention should be turned to the kettle, one of, if not the most power hungry appliance in a household that has regular usage. The kettle in our house must be is boiled at least 50 times a day.

Back to the light bulb. The best thing about phasing out the old light bulb is the fact that they constantly blow and need replacing.

Every light in our house has a low energy bulb. I have to admit, they took a little getting used to, mainly because when first switched on they are dim, but brighten well after a little while.

The most useful advantage with low energy bulbs is that I've never had one blow. So in over 18 months I've never had to replace one where as with a normal light bulb, it could have been replaced half a dozen times.

Although light bulbs wouldn't be on the top of my list for saving energy, it's still a good move, and a start.

[J80FAB]

The government is certainly taking away the basic right of being able to choose between a standard tungsten lightbulb & a low-energy bulb. I think it's utterly ludicrous.

It's a bit like saying we will only sell cars with a 1 litre engine in this country because they emit less CO2. And can you see that happening - NO ! Millions of cars driving round the country 24/7 with large engines pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

PoochJD all those points you've made are spot-on

Particularly the one about bathrooms, toilets & hallways when for most of the time brief & instant illumination is required which you tend not to get with low-energy bulbs. I think there are some which are supposed to get brighter quicker but I'm not aware which ones they are or even if they do 'warm-up' faster.

As for a low energy bulb having the equivalent brightness of say a 60 watt or 100 watt tungsten bulb well that's nonsense aswell. From general observation most of the low-energy equivalents tend to be dimmer.

Originally Posted by sore napper

The most useful advantage with low energy bulbs is that I've never had one blow. So in over 18 months I've never had to replace one where as with a normal light bulb, it could have been replaced half a dozen times

I think that depends on how lucky you are. I've had a a couple of low-energy bulbs blow only after a few months. The same goes for tungsten bulbs - some can last for ages without blowing. With tungsten bulbs I think the thin wire which produces the glow is more susceptible to spikes/current surges in the electricity supply therefore making them blow.

[njp]

Originally Posted by PoochJD

HI,

There's been so much negativity - and rightly so - about this subject in the past week or so! The whole idea stinks to high heaven!

On the contrary, it's an excellent idea, provided that no specific replacement technology is mandated. In my view, CFLs have a number of disadvantages, and I expect them to eventually be replaced by LEDs in the majority of (or perhaps all) applications, as that technology continues to obey its own version of Moore's Law.

1 - Lo-energy bulbs take about 10 minutes to reach full brightness. So, for bathrooms, toilets, hall closets, etc, where instant lighting is needed, they're useless! Ditto for people with less than perfect eyesight!

Much less than ten minutes with the best designs, but not instant. Another advantage for LEDs.

2 - The lo-energy bulbs aren't compatible with dimmer switches!

You can get some that are, but they use discrete levels so they aren't an ideal replacement. I expect intelligent LED lighting to provide a more satisfactory solution in the future.

3 - Lo-energy bulbs now contain mercury: this means you can't dispose of them in your normal household waste, nor recycle them, because they contain a "contaminant"!

Another advantage for LEDs. However, it's worth pointing out that far more mercury is released into the environment as a result of generating the extra electricity that an incandescent bulb uses than is contained in an equivalent CFL. And of course they can and should be recycled.

4 - If a lo-energy bulb explodes, which they can do, you have to deal with tiny fragments of glass everywhere! Great!

Where are all the reports of exploding CFLs? You can break one, certainly, but that's little different from breaking an incandescent bulb, despite horror stories you may have seen from dimwitted journalists.

5 - They cost more initially, but to reach the same level of light as using current bulbs, you'll need more lo-energy bulbs! Err, doesn't this then mean, we'll end up using more electric, and thus, defeats the purpose of not using more energy?!

What? They last much longer, and have a much higher lumen/watt efficiency. That's the whole point. However, it's certainly true that people should consider the entire lifecycle, including the costs of manufacturing and disposal, when assessing the "green" benefits.

6 - Not all lights, lampshades, et al can cope with the style or design of lo-energy bulbs, meaning you may have to end-up replacing perfectly good lights in your house, accommodation or offices!

LEDs can be accommodated in any existing form factor, as well as many new ones. They are the future, not CFLs!

7 - Lo-energy bulbs have been found to cause some serious health side-effects, including nausea, headaches and other issues, which means some people can't tolerate them, compared to regular bulbs!

Mostly overhyped (or just plain nonsense), and certainly not a problem that cannot be solved.

8 - The Government is trying to outlaw regular light-bulbs!

Good! Just as long as it's done sensibly!

[njp]

Originally Posted by sore napper

I think all the attention should be turned to the kettle, one of, if not the most power hungry appliance in a household that has regular usage. The kettle in our house must be is boiled at least 50 times a day.

You can't make a heating element any more efficient. All the electrical energy is already being turned into heat. All you can do is boil less water. That's up to you!

[Singh400]

Not sure where you lot are getting your information from, but you can now use 'lo-energy' bulbs with dimmer switches.

Also, I've got 'lo-energy' all around the house. Upstairs landing has one that needs to "power up" a bit to get to full light. While the one in my bedroom is at full light instantly when I turn it on.

[Chris Muriel]

Reliability : I've had 6 or 7 low energy bulbs blow in the last 3 years of various makes and wattages.

Extra disadvantage : Some RFI (radio frequency interference) is generated by them - but varies by type and manufacturer.
YMMV but not good for many radio amateurs etc.
IR interference is also generated and gives difficulties in some situations with operating remote controlled domestic equipment (TV, set top boxes etc.).

Silver lining : they should at least get cheaper. Currently the only ones that appear to have reached critical (sales/marketing) mass are the horrible looking standard bayonet capped types with "multi-U-shaped" glass.

Chris Muriel, Manchester

[RMCF]

From next year in Southern Ireland there will no longer be old style bulbs for sale. I think it will happen all over, and if you ask me its just another way to get money from us, rather than any real concern about saving the planet.

I for one hate them also. Consider the price of them compared to the old bulbs.

I for one will be loading up with a stock of old style bulbs that will last me for years!!!

And this type of hypocrisy really gets to me. The Gov just go out and ban old bulbs, giving the public ZERO choice saying that its to save energy, yet will they do anything to stop all the office blocks, shopping centres, churches, etc lit up like Xmas trees all night when there is nobody in them. Can't see it.

[njp]

Originally Posted by RMCF

I for one will be loading up with a stock of old style bulbs that will last me for years!!!

By which time you'll feel a bit foolish when you compare them with the ones the rest of us are using.

[Mr Incredible]

Originally Posted by Singh400

Not sure where you lot are getting your information from, but you can now use 'lo-energy' bulbs with dimmer switches.

You need to buy CFL bulbs specifically designed to work with dimmers. If the packaging doesn't say 'For use with dimmer switches' then the bulb life is shortened and according to GE (General Electric) the warranty is also invalidated.

There are some CFL's which can be dimmed by a normal switch in that by turning the light on and off in quick succession, the bulbs circuitry is designed to power the light to different power settings.

[RMCF]

Originally Posted by njp

By which time you'll feel a bit foolish when you compare them with the ones the rest of us are using.

Why would I ?

[Mr Incredible]

For those interested, there is quite a good FAQ section about CFLs on General ELectric web site:
http://www.gelighting.com/na/busines...faqs/cfl.htm#3

[njp]

Originally Posted by njp

By which time you'll feel a bit foolish when you compare them with the ones the rest of us are using.

It would be a bit like stockpiling this year's laptops, having heard that the processors they contain will be phased out in a few months.

I think lighting will get a whole lot more interesting, and that the phasing-out of (most) incandescent lights will be a spur to developing products that are far superior in every respect to the ones we have today.

[RMCF]

Don't think you can compare such a simple thing to a laptop.

I would be buying them to give me light, and they will. And a light that I much prefer than the soft glow of CFL bulbs.

So if they give me light then they are doing their job. Don't think I will feel too silly because the neighbours are using CFLs.

[njp]

Originally Posted by RMCF

Don't think you can compare such a simple thing to a laptop.

There is nothing simple about state-of-the-art LEDs, I assure you. And the comparison is entirely apposite: progress in computer technology has followed Moore's law for many years. Similarly, Haitz's Law (the prediction that LEDs will double their luminous output every 18 to 24 months) has held for over 30 years. As with computer hardware, there has been an exponential rate of improvement.

I would be buying them to give me light, and they will. And a light that I much prefer than the soft glow of CFL bulbs.

So if they give me light then they are doing their job. Don't think I will feel too silly because the neighbours are using CFLs.

Why do you insist that the future lies with CFLs? Even if it did, why do you imagine that they all produce a "soft glow"?

[Flimber]

Varilight do make fully-dimmable and step-dimmable CFL lamps.

[gazbarber]

I use these right through my flat, although the kitchen and bathroom have haligen downlighters.
The time to gain full brightness is about a mintue at most, but happens quite gradualy.
I got all mine at 2 for 1 at morrisions which made them 50p each, and they are branded phillips ones, I've probably already saved the cost over buying 'normal' bulbs.

[J80FAB]

Originally Posted by njp

Why do you insist that the future lies with CFLs? Even if it did, why do you imagine that they all produce a "soft glow"?

He's not insisting that the future lies with CFLs, he never said that. He was simply stating a mere preference to standard tungsten lightbulbs as he's done previously & no he wouldn't look foolish stocking up on standard bulbs and using them, it's his choice & the choice of others if they prefer these types of lightbulb and there's nothing wrong with that.

That's a similar kind of mentality which is exercised by those laughing at others who hang their washing out on the line to dry - something which is regarded as a in some parts of the country - very ignorant & snobbish. It's certainly nicer to let washing dry naturally outside whenever possible rather than having to let it fester indoors or worse still dumping it in an o-so ecomonical tumble dryer to add to those X tonnes of CO2 which the government wants to reduce so that it looks as if it's doing something to combat global warming - utterly mad !

[njp]

Originally Posted by J80FAB

He's not insisting that the future lies with CFLs, he never said that. He was simply stating a mere preference to standard tungsten lightbulbs as he's done previously & no he wouldn't look foolish stocking up on standard bulbs and using them, it's his choice & the choice of others if they prefer these types of lightbulb and there's nothing wrong with that.

You are entirely missing the point. He said he was going to "stockpile" standard lightbulbs, so that he would be able to continue to use them for many years to come. I was merely pointing out that the energy efficient lightbulbs we will be using in the not-too-distant future will be greatly improved from the ones available now (and I don't think they'll be CFLs). In response, he just repeats his objections to some CFLs he's seen:

Originally Posted by RMCF

I would be buying them to give me light, and they will. And a light that I much prefer than the soft glow of CFL bulbs.

So if they give me light then they are doing their job. Don't think I will feel too silly because the neighbours are using CFLs.

I'm afraid your rant about tumble dryers was wasted on me. Are the government planning to outlaw washing lines?

[J80FAB]

Originally Posted by njp

You are entirely missing the point. He said he was going to "stockpile" standard lightbulbs, so that he would be able to continue to use them for many years to come. I was merely pointing out that the energy efficient lightbulbs we will be using in the not-too-distant future will be greatly improved from the ones available now (and I don't think they'll be CFLs). In response, he just repeats his objections to some CFLs he's seen:



I'm afraid your rant about tumble dryers was wasted on me. Are the government planning to outlaw washing lines?

No I did understand your point about the fact that the technology behind energy efficient lightbulbs should hopefully be greatly improved in comparison to those which are currently available, hence you mentioning LED technology which if I am correct has recently been deployed in many traffic light signals around the country because of the brightness emitted by LEDs according to the info provided by yourself.

And as for my rant about washing lines you never know - some local authorities do 'outlaw' the drying of clothes outside in certain areas.

[Peridot]

What puzzles me is that if the case for CFL's is so self-evident, and if so many people are happy to use them anyway, then why is legislation needed to enforce their use?

CFLs use significantly more energy in their manufacture than 'conventional' lamps.

CFLs are categorised as hazardous waste.

CFLs do not give the equivalent light output claimed by the manufacturers.

CFLs do not last as long as claimed by the manufacturers.

CFLs have a low power factor so the generated energy required to power them can be up to twice the claimed energy consumption

The so called waste energy from conventional lamps is converted to heat. Lamps are used for the longest time in winter when premises have to be heated anyway, so this is not in fact waste.

CFL manufacturers are distorting the market by selling CFLs at a loss while influencing governments to ban conventional bulbs. How much will they cost when there are no alternatives available?

Need I go on

[Mr Incredible]

All of which would not mean a jot if LED technology gets its act together.

[Peridot]

Originally Posted by Mr Incredible

All of which would not mean a jot if LED technology gets its act together.

Agreed

[njp]

Originally Posted by Peridot

The so called waste energy from conventional lamps is converted to heat. Lamps are used for the longest time in winter when premises have to be heated anyway, so this is not in fact waste.

I've already explained why I think CFLs are little more than an interim technology, so I won't bother addressing your other points (exaggerated as they are), but the one I've quoted is a rather persistent fallacy in certain quarters.

It isn't "so-called" waste. It's waste, period. The point of switching a light on is to get light, not heat. If it's summer, you don't want the extra heat at all. Some people pay to remove it using air conditioning, making the total energy cost even greater. If it's winter, the heat you do want is more efficiently provided by other fuels, and better deployed more effectively than by having a tiny radiator in the middle of the ceiling.

Incandescent tungsten lamps convert about 5% of the electricity they consume into light, and the remaining 95% into heat. It's time to move on.

[pjclark1]

Originally Posted by Peridot

WCFLs use significantly more energy in their manufacture than 'conventional' lamps.

CFLs are categorised as hazardous waste.

CFLs do not give the equivalent light output claimed by the manufacturers.

CFLs do not last as long as claimed by the manufacturers.

CFLs have a low power factor so the generated energy required to power them can be up to twice the claimed energy consumption

The so called waste energy from conventional lamps is converted to heat. Lamps are used for the longest time in winter when premises have to be heated anyway, so this is not in fact waste.

CFL manufacturers are distorting the market by selling CFLs at a loss while influencing governments to ban conventional bulbs. How much will they cost when there are no alternatives available?

Need I go on

I agree. (especially with the heat not being waste)

[njp]

Originally Posted by pjclark1

I agree. (especially with the heat not being waste)

His weakest argument is the one you agree with mostly strongly? No surprises there, based on our previous encounters!

[Garrett]

I used low energy bulbs for at least 15 years and think there a good idea in the right place.
I do have lighting that required normal bulb that have fittings attach also touch lamps that no doubt will not work with low energy bulbs.
I notice the other week when I went to buy some bayonet bulbs of a certain type the store had non but screw in type.

I seen people have outside lights in for security on all the time even during the day and use normal bulbs. Why the hell don’t they yes low energy ones if the damn thing not being switched on and of with a sensor!

I don’t think people should be forced to switch but rather encouraged to use low energy ones.

At weekend there was a news bulletin about the mercury in the new bulbs anf they said if you have one smash don’t vacuum it up and open the doors and windows for about 10 minutes to get rid of the mercury in them.