Energy saving light bulbs - Hurray I'm vindicated

I think those energy saving light bulbs only save energy by not giving any light. I hate them and have no intention of using them if I don't have to.

 

i agree Alice, the only problem is they have stopped production of our older bulbs,so stock up as much as you can, if you want to save your eyesight. these new bulbs are so good, i have received numerous (energy saving bulbs) free :skp:
they are still in their boxes in my shed!. music.

 

I belong to a couple of Science sites and know the "pro's and cons" I've had these bulbs in all the house for the last two years and haven't had to change a bulb in all that time. That'll do for me:gnthb:

 

I would be very interested to know the actual facts about these. So far, all I personally have had to go on is what the media reports and my own limited understanding of the science behind it all. We all know that the media typically only reports one side of a story so its a safe bet that I don't have the full picture.

Aside from the enegy saved when using a CFL bulb as opposed to a 'conventional' incandescent one, do you know how energy use during manufacturing and disposal compares between the two type? That's a question I've pondered for a long time and I've never been able to find an answer.

 

Quite frankly, the amount of energy we will save by using "energy saving" lightbulbs might save you a bit on your leccy bill, but as for its effect on reducing global warning nationally, I doubt if it's worth the bother.
I think far more energy can be saved by turning off unnecessary lights at home and particularly in office buildings and the like.

We don't help ourselves much, with the predeliction for table lamps and uplighters, do we?
My mum had a 60watt lamp with a shade in a drop pendant from the central ceiling rose in the middle of each room.
In our lounge presently we have two table lamps with dark shades and two wall lights on at the moment, that's 200 watts. We've a central fiiting in the middle of the ceiling, which is never turned on. In the other reception room, we've four uplighters (but usually there's only two on) and a central ceiling fitting and that is never turned on. I will say the uplighters have energy saving bulbs, but fortunately as the uplighters are "pot" you can't see them.

 

Energy saving bulbs are essentially the same, but in the shape of a short coil, as the fluorescent strip lights that you have in offices and shops. And I would say that those are very good and very efficient.

HOWEVER, they are ideal for shops and offices where the lights are on all the time. But domestic use is different, you often switching the lights on for a short while then off again. And as others have said this is not good for them. So all the benefits that you get in an office, don't always translate into benefits in the home.

Another slight misconception is their efficiency on a continuous use basis. Our government tells us that the high energy bulbs are 5 times as efficient as incandescent lights. Whilst this is true of long fluorescent strip lights, the American government says that this is not true of the short coiled sort, and that they are only 4 times as efficient.

I would agree with you Doghouse, that as fast as we are using more-efficient light bulbs, we are also using more lightbulbs. A typical new kitchen could have up to 12 halide spot lights in the ceiling using 3 or 4 times as much power as the kitchen it replaced.

 

Guess what??? I have just recieved a box of four new lamps from N- power.
All for free and unsolicited....

 

Clueless, try Phsorg.com you get all the pros and cons there:wink:

 

Should have kept my big mouth shut.:dh:
I've just had to change one of the bulbs:(:lollol:

 

JWK - I think that they do save energy. But there is no question - they are not as convenient.

But as I said above, our government insists that they are 5 times as efficient as tungsten bulbs but the American government only says 4 times or even 3 times as Clueless's link suggests. As a consequence our packaging uses the 5x factor and which overstates the output. So its better to use slightly more or brighter bulbs, and you will still save money.

And as you say I think they will get better in future.

 

I had a look round that Phsorg.com website, and found it quite informative. My concerns are somewhat resolved now. As I mentioned when I started the thread, my worry was that nobody seemed to know about the environmental impact of production and disposal of CFL bulbs, and as 'green technology' is very much big business these days, and business has to put profit before everything else, if there was anything to shout about, the businesses would be only too eager to do so. The fact that they didn't made me suspicious.

It seems, from what I can gather, that the environmental impact of production and disposal of CFLs vs incandesent bulbs per unit is slightly worse, but factoring in the energy saved during the bulb's lifetime, and the extended life, this is more than offset.

So now I can rest easy, believing that CFLs are better for the environment. That's all I was really after. I was never opposed to them, nor would I promote them, I just wasn't comfortable with the bold claims about their eco credentials with a lack of information to back those claims up.

 

Hi clueless. Yeah, it's a good site. I belong to a few "science" sites but I find that to be the best one.:wink: It gives you both sides of any argument. Have a look at the AGW arguments:hehe: