Energy Saving Lightbulbs

Hi all, I just wondered what your views on these were.

We got a few quite a while back & I don't like the way they take time to get to full power, if you know what I mean. Also, at that time they all seemed to be one size

Also was told by a 'blind' charity that they don't recommend them for badly sighted people because of this very reason (time not the size )

Then on the news recently was a professor ( yes I know) who was basically saying that people having these bulbs aren't going to do much for global warming, it has to be the power sources.

What's the truth do you think?


cheers

 

Have a look at this thread, Most of us seem to be against them:

http://www.gardenerscorner.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=19145

 

"I just wondered what your views on these were."

Ah, one of my hobby-horses!!, here's my two-penny-worth:

We switched over the long-life bulbs a while ago.

The number of bulbs I change is dramatically less than before (now a rare event, previously several every week). This doesn't seem to have been everyone's experience.

The light doesn't seem as bright, and they take a while to get going (only really a problem where light is on for short time - for a light on in a room I'm sitting in for hours I can live with the warm-up period). The newer ones seem better (brighter, better "quality" of light, and get going faster)

But my opinion is that we all have to use less energy. Using less is good, installing devices that use less is also good, installing devices that take less energy to "make" is also important.

I'm concerned that the complexity of making these bulbs may be using more "stuff" than the old bulbs did ... but like many things that may improve over time. We haven't been using long life bulbs for long, the old style bulbs have been around for a hundred years or more, and obviously they "improved" over that time (and the amount of light the early versions gave out was pitiful )

In our house we have reduced Electricity, Oil (central heating) and Petrol usage by about 50% over the last 2 years. Still using a lot though, and need/plan to do more to save more.

 

We have them in our house. I don't mind them, but I do wonder how energy saving they actually are in real terms. Like many "eco freindly" things, information about energy used in production, shipping and disposal doesn't seem to be widely available.

 

While being very eco-sensitive (and hopefully sensible), and always ready to chose machinery that waste less energy etc, I never could get myself to like these bulbs. I tried them several times over the years. Expecting them to improve in quality. They don't, or not enough. I am notgifted with good eyesight and these things just don't cut itfor me. Actually the only bulbs I amreally confortablewith are alogens. I use them only in a few lamps sincethey seem to last very little with me.But the quality ofthelight is gorgeous. I guess each have something where they are not ready to compromise on their living standards. Light quality is one of those things for me. May it's the SAD, I don't know.
I hope LEDs become better soon. I like them alot in principle,just wish they were not so bluish.

 

Ivory they are producing led's with white light now,they now combine red,blue and green to achieve this,they are however expensive but will probably come down in price, Iagree it is the right way to go.

 

"Like many "eco freindly" things, information about energy used in production, shipping and disposal doesn't seem to be widely available"

Yup agreed. However, if they last 10,000 hours, instead of 1,000, then the shipping cost is cut by 90%, and the fact that they have fallen in price so much must mean that the production cost is not great.

No idea how much rare elements they use though ... but I do expect that recycling them will become "normal" once there are enough for someone enterprising to start a factory. After all, we threw the old ones in landfill for 100 years or more ...

But like you Ivory, over the last few years I have found I can't read the small print except in very bright light, and my bedside light is going to have to be replaced with something brighter.

LED's may be the answer ... very long life, low energy, and a decent light - albeit hard to get good brightness at the moment (I believe many of the bright clusters of LEDs currently available generate enough heat to cause premature failure of the individual bulbs)

 

80% of our bulbs are energy saving. In fact everywhere it's practical to have them we do.

 

Same here, although I don't know if a difference in price has been seen as the cost of electricity has gone up so much.

 

Shouldn't think it does but I feel better doing my 'bit'.

 

I think long life are 18watt as against 100 watts for old style?

So you save 100 - 18 = 82 watts per bulb

I'll guess 6 bulbs lit for 4 hours per day = 82 watts * 6 bulbs * 4 hours * 365 days = 718 kWh per year at about 14p/kWh = £100 saved per year (Seems rather high to me, maybe I've got my assumptions wrong?)

Multiply by the number of houses in the country, add on the offices ... and I expect you get several power stations that can be turned off.

Scale up for all the countries in the world ...

... add Salt and Pepper to taste!

 

Going off on a slight tangent, why should the "West" be responsible for enacting so many green policies when China supposedly opens a new coal fired power station every day/week/month (can't remember the exact rumour). I understand leading by example but a bit of quid pro quo wouldn't go amiss either.

 

You've just reminded me of something that really bugs me. Ordinary households keep getting the blame for excess energy use, but residential households are only responsible for something like 2% of the UKs carbon emissions.

I have to walk past the local "JobcentrePlus" on my way into work in the mornings. The heat that radiates out through their windows is quite considerable, that's all wasted energy.

The office where I work is also a massive waster of energy.

I once emailed the Carbon Trust to tell them I was concerned about excessive energy waste in my office (I had contacted our internal "officer for the environment" first). They didn't even bother to reply.

Big business gets let off for everything, and ordinary householders are forced to make token gestures that cost more and have negligible impact, just so our government can win votes by jumping on the green bandwagon.

 

I've got a couple of thoughts on that.

Although the Chinese are building coal fired power stations like they are going out of fashion (which I suppose they are!!) I believe they are also installing more green-tech than anywhere else in the world.

As I understand it their per-capita CO2 emissions etc. are way below ours (having fewer White good per person etc.) ... so although they may overtake us if they carry on as they are, right now they could accuse us of not doing enough. Depends on your viewpoint though.

And lastly, even if they could do better I feel that if those that can make savings do so then that creates more time for others to follow suit. So if UK PLC saves X tons of CO2, and China increases by X tons of CO2 we are even-stevens ... but that does rely on the hope of others following suit, in due course. Same applies to folk who can afford to install green-tech devices just now, and of course there are also those that can't.

I subscribe to the last view, in the sense that if I can save X units of oil then that will be available for my children / grandchildren whilst their generation try to find alternative forms of energy (plus save me a bob or two hopefully - my family refer to my shade of Green as "Mean Green"!)

But I do find the view from the moral high ground pretty murky at times :(

 

Ever seen the Canary Wharf towers at night time? Every window seems to be lit up like the world's biggest Christmas tree. The argument that its for aeroplanes circling London is rubbish - all the towers have flashing red lights on top and up the sides at intervals. I dread to think how much energy that uses.