Comments on: Banning Incandescent Light Bulbs

By: JuliaM

JuliaM — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 18:03:10 +0000

Don’t think there’s anything in them to ‘go off’. And they are small and light too, so storage is not a problem.

But you’d better be quick. You won’t be the only one….

By: Dearieme

Dearieme — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 16:39:51 +0000

If I stockpile the old-fashioned sort in my attic, I presume they’ll not deteriorate until I use them. Anyone know?

By: Philip Thomas

Philip Thomas — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:50:17 +0000

John B, I was aware, I’m actually a scientist myself (though in a different field). I was merely pointing out that the savings are routinely overstated because heat gets falsely labelled as waste. Your point about entropy is why I think microCHP needs talking up. The savings are potentially far more than by banning incandescents.

By: Infoholic UK

Infoholic UK — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:12:16 +0000

john b :

They’re not halogen spots, they’re ickle 40w pearls.

Thanks for the link, but any spiral bulb is going to stick halfway out of the shade and look utterly naff. And the (admittedly singular) review is not exactly encouraging either.

This on the other hand, looks more promising.

By: dearieme

dearieme — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:01:14 +0000

Have they costed for the extra epilectic fits triggered by flickering fluorescents?

By: TimT

TimT — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 12:37:29 +0000

Next thing you’ll be telling me that Evelyn is a man’s name.

By: john b

john b — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 12:30:44 +0000

Bit harsh on Bobby, perhaps?

By: JuliaM

JuliaM — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 12:04:42 +0000

‘She’s’ actually a he. Though, looking at the picture….

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Benn

And I suspect the Benns are some kind of Universe-balancing answer to the Kennedys over in the US. Why should they have all the generational political dimwits…?

By: TimT

TimT — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:13:06 +0000

Hilary Benn? Good God, is she some kind of devil-child of Tony Benn and Hillary Clinton?

By: john b

john b — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:09:49 +0000

@ Philip - that only works if you have electric central heating: generating heat through light-bulbs is about 50% as energy-efficient as using your gas central heating system (because of the entropy-related energy losses in electricity generation. Ask a physicist.) @ Infoholic - you can get dimmable CFLs. Like this one [also, if the little bulbs in your lounge are halogen spots rather than conventional incandescent bulbs, they're not covered by the regulation].

By: Infoholic UK

Infoholic UK — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:13:06 +0000

So I have two years to replace all the dimmer switches in my house with regular on/off ones then. Which means, the ten little bulbs in my lounge, rather than being on 10% power most of the time, will be 100% on all the time.

That’s what I call energy efficiency…

By: Geoff103

Geoff103 — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:09:46 +0000

I must remember to buy a bulk supply of those incandescent lovelies. A gross should see me out.

Despite what the fanatics say, the energy-savers DON’T fit in all circumstances. Why should I replace table and other lamps I chose specifically because I like them and they suit my decor just to switch bulb types?

By: Philip Thomas

Philip Thomas — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 09:01:36 +0000

It’s standard environmental logic: ignore the inappropriate figures. My energy-saving lightbulbs put out more light but less heat, my normal bulbs put out more heat and less light. Heat in many circumstances, e.g. my home during autumn, is not wasted but rather a beneficial by-product. I’m fine for these new bulbs as they let me target my energy use more specifically but they aren’t the screw-in messiah.

By: JuliaM

JuliaM — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 08:57:56 +0000

“Along wih your desires there is the necessity of looking at how the world really is. “

I doubt that worries the typical Greenpeace member; muumy & daddy have set up a trust fund to cover all eventualities, after all…