Light bulbs banned

[juliejam]

Most of the bulbs i use are no higher than 40watt..
slowly im replacing them all with the low energy bulbs..I feel there
is no real need to use any higher than a 40-60watt at any time.

Ive been told that one of cats sits under the security
light keeping this on while playing with moths alnight..so ive
put a stop to that by not replacing the bulb..the other one
is too high for the cat to trigger the sensor..

Julie

[thunder]

Quote
The experts told us the computers would all crash at midnight at the turn of the millenium & the world would descend into chaos remember.
Endquote

That's not quite true! The experts told us not to worry. It was the press etc and the doom merchants who told us to panic!

henrya

[paulchandler6]

Am currently in the process of changing all our light bulbs to low energy as and when the older ones go and dont use any over 100w except for the security light and will change that soon. So am getting there.

[svenrufus]

Originally Posted by paulchandler6

Am currently in the process of changing all our light bulbs to low energy as and when the older ones go and dont use any over 100w except for the security light and will change that soon. So am getting there.

Actually, replacing old style bulbs with low energy equivalents is the only area that I am aware of where analysis shows it is actully better to do the replacement before the old bulb blows. The energy and money savings are so great, that it is better to ditch the old ones now.

More generally, I'm sorry to say that there is a lot of spurious nonsense coming from people who object to the idea throughout this thread. These bulbs do cost more money, but save much more. They do use more energy in manufacture, but save stacks more over their life than is used in manufacture. They do contain unpleasant chemicals, but less than are released in producing the energy needed to power the old style bulbs over their life, and in a more contained way.

Frankly - and bluntly - the reasons that have been trotted out for resisting low energy bulbs so far are based in conservatism (small 'c') and a selfish unwillingness to accept that we are responsible for our actions. The need for legislation to tackle this issue is a reflection of the deep seated ignorance/complacency of far too many people in our society, and disappointingly, amongst members of this forum. The attempts at justifications for refusing to accept change are no more than that - attempts. They don't hold water, and really just show up how necessary this 'ban' is. Clearly we can't rely on people to look after their own financial best interests by buying in to something that will save them money, let alone what is best for their children and successive generations and the world as a whole, so compulsion is the only option left. (If you're interested in why people don't worry about the savings they will make in the future, and this applies to environmental benefits too, look up 'Future Discounting' - basically it is about the sociological short circuit that tells us that £100 now is more attractive to us than £1000 5 years from now. Makes no sense but it is true)

This legislation is not the final answer, but it is a significant step. Bear in mind that domestic energy use in the UK is responsible for 30% of or energy demands. Lighting accounts for about 15% of that, and using low energy light bulbs therefore cuts our national CO2 emissions by about 4% at a stroke. Where's the argument?!

Also, strange that no one has mentioned that this is not a UK government initiative, it is applying across the EU where the old style bulbs will be banned in the next 2 years. [*Cue diatribes against straight bananas and metric martyrs*]The saving in CO2 output to be made across the EU are vast, reinforcing the value and importance of this 'small' step.

[kshotton45]

I don't think people should be forced to change over. They should be persuaded by education. It's also a big initial outlay.
I changed all of our bulbs about 6 months ago, but it wasn't straight forward, I had to make sure that the physical size and shape was OK for some of the smaller ones . The first ones I bought for the wall lights wouldn't fit. I think they ought to be made so that they fit into the same volume as their predecessors.
I also stocked up with a range of spares.

Keith.

[Ukwildlifeo]

Originally Posted by svenrufus

Actually, replacing old style bulbs with low energy equivalents is the only area that I am aware of where analysis shows it is actully better to do the replacement before the old bulb blows. The energy and money savings are so great, that it is better to ditch the old ones now.

More generally, I'm sorry to say that there is a lot of spurious nonsense coming from people who object to the idea throughout this thread. These bulbs do cost more money, but save much more. They do use more energy in manufacture, but save stacks more over their life than is used in manufacture. They do contain unpleasant chemicals, but less than are released in producing the energy needed to power the old style bulbs over their life, and in a more contained way.

Frankly - and bluntly - the reasons that have been trotted out for resisting low energy bulbs so far are based in conservatism (small 'c') and a selfish unwillingness to accept that we are responsible for our actions. The need for legislation to tackle this issue is a reflection of the deep seated ignorance/complacency of far too many people in our society, and disappointingly, amongst members of this forum. The attempts at justifications for refusing to accept change are no more than that - attempts. They don't hold water, and really just show up how necessary this 'ban' is. Clearly we can't rely on people to look after their own financial best interests by buying in to something that will save them money, let alone what is best for their children and successive generations and the world as a whole, so compulsion is the only option left. (If you're interested in why people don't worry about the savings they will make in the future, and this applies to environmental benefits too, look up 'Future Discounting' - basically it is about the sociological short circuit that tells us that £100 now is more attractive to us than £1000 5 years from now. Makes no sense but it is true)

This legislation is not the final answer, but it is a significant step. Bear in mind that domestic energy use in the UK is responsible for 30% of or energy demands. Lighting accounts for about 15% of that, and using low energy light bulbs therefore cuts our national CO2 emissions by about 4% at a stroke. Where's the argument?!

Also, strange that no one has mentioned that this is not a UK government initiative, it is applying across the EU where the old style bulbs will be banned in the next 2 years. [*Cue diatribes against straight bananas and metric martyrs*]The saving in CO2 output to be made across the EU are vast, reinforcing the value and importance of this 'small' step.

Its all well and good critisizing everyone on the forum that disagrees with you but my opinions are based on what has happened in my experience. In my experience the cheap 25p traditional bulbs have lasted longer than the supposedly longer last energy saving bulbs. These bulbs used to say "lasts 8 times longer" and just say "longer" on the packet. They cost more energy to make and if they last less time or just a bit more then that cancels out any energy saved during there use.

Also the companies making these bulbs aren't exactly brillant. The 1st batch of bulb we had we assumed were duff ones and sent back for replacements. And when these turned out to not last long either we tried to send them back and they said by replacing them once they had complied to trading standards law and we were stuck with them.

And finally whats the point in saving energy when the environment is posioned with mercury?
So you can call all the people objecting selfish or whatever but the simple fact is the legislation has come in too soon. Im all for saving energy but lets make sure the bulbs are upto the job and actually do more good than harm before forcing everyone to use them

[pressld2]

Originally Posted by svenrufus

Frankly - and bluntly - the reasons that have been trotted out for resisting low energy bulbs so far are based in conservatism (small 'c') and a selfish unwillingness to accept that we are responsible for our actions.

I'm sorry but that's just nonsense. If it was conservatism (with any size 'c') or resistance to change then I wouldn't have already swapped as many bulbs as I can. The fact is that I don't need legislation to force me to switch, nor do I need persuading that it's the right thing to do. I'm already there, as are most people I know. What I need is low-energy bulbs that will fit inside my light fittings and work with my switches. As soon as they are available I'll use them - no ban necessary!

Originally Posted by svenrufus

The attempts at justifications for refusing to accept change are no more than that - attempts. They don't hold water, and really just show up how necessary this 'ban' is.

And yet so far you have failed to counter a single one of them.

I personally made four assertions in my first post...

1. They don't work with dimmer switches.

Your response was:

Originally Posted by svenrufus

there are low energy light bulbs that are dimmer compatible, they just haven't penetrated the UK market, as there are so few people wanting them that it is not profitable to sell them here.

So what are you suggesting, that we all emigrate to America? (Last one out turn off the lights! ) As soon as dimmer compatible bulbs are available in the UK then I will agree that my assertion no longer holds water and will stop making it. Until then it's watertight.

2. They don't work with timer switches.

Your response was:

Originally Posted by svenrufus

{silence}

Difficult to argue with facts isn't it? I know this is a fact because I have tried several times over several years to find bulbs that will work with timer switches and always with the same result - failure. Again, this is hardly the mark of a small 'c' conservative looking for reasons not to change. In your first post you put a lot of faith in future technological developments overcoming the issues and I would agree that a fix for this shouldn't be difficult to achieve. But until it is achieved my assertion holds water just fine. (Incidentally, I only installed the timer switches in the first place in order to save energy and do my bit towards lowering emissions. How's that for irony?)

3. They are dangerous to use with power tools because they flicker and can make a moving saw blade or drill bit look stationary

Your response was :

Originally Posted by svenrufus

LED lights are being produced at the moment as replacements for halogen lights, but they are not quite there yet. Ultimately they may replace the Compact fluorescent. They have no flicker, are smaller, and more versatile.

Hmmm. "Not quite there yet." Bit of an understatement I think. Try "miles and miles away". I bought four GU10 LED bulbs at considerable expense and two of them are still in their boxes in my kitchen cupboard. I have managed to use two of them in wall light fittings but as room lights (which is what I bought them for) they are completely and totally useless. An anaemic glow-worm gives off more light. Your faith in future technological advances is touching and I genuinely and sincerely hope you are proved right. But until you are there is no leakage from this assertion either.

4. They are still too big!

Again you have made no response to this unless we include the one above about LEDs being smaller. But this is once again relying on future developments and in no way invalidates my assertion today. An assertion, moreover, that anyone can check by popping down to B & Q with a ruler.

Tormentil raised the issue of them containing mercury and phosphorus to which your response was:

Originally Posted by svenrufus

the energy they save is so great that the coal that would have been burnt to power incandescent bulbs over the life of a low energy bulb runs would have released more mercury than the bulb contains, and in an uncontrolled way.

In the same post you said:

Originally Posted by svenrufus

It is true that there is no way of recycling them yet, but given the market, solutions will be provided.

So in the meantime they will go to landfill or, worse, fly-tipping. If that's your idea of a controlled release then the planets we're living on are even further apart than I thought.

Dave P.

[pressld2]

Originally Posted by Ukwildlifeo

In my experience the cheap 25p traditional bulbs have lasted longer than the supposedly longer last energy saving bulbs.

Yes, that's been my experience too. I didn't include it as an issue in previous posts as I thought I may have just been unlucky but if this is a common experience then it undermines the assertion that the increased energy cost in manufacture is offset by the energy savings in use.

Also, I forgot to mention before that Tormentil said "Cold temperatures reduce the bulbs' efficiency and make them dim excessively." I didn't know that. So does that mean that external lights won't work properly in the winter?

Dave P.

[Paul mabbott]

We've been using these for twenty years and have never had this experience. I don't keep records but changing one bulb a year is unusual!

Are some manufacturers producing shoddy goods? A common rip-off ...

I've missed most of this thread but does anyone out there know anything about physics? It used to be said that fluorescent bulbs of all kinds had their biggest energy loads in the seconds after switching on. One was regularly told that turning a tube on used the equivalent energy of one hour of actual lighting. The significance of this, of course, was that if you're coming back into a room in less than an hour its is better not to switch the lights off!

I've more recently been told that this is a load rubbish .... Brilliant scientist that I am, electronics has always been tricky for me (that's why you have children ... unfortunately mine have now given up physics ... but I digress ) .... Someone here must know what they're talking about?


QUOTE=pressld2;175711]Yes, that's been my experience too. I didn't include it as an issue in previous posts as I thought I may have just been unlucky but if this is a common experience then it undermines the assertion that the increased energy cost in manufacture is offset by the energy savings in use.

Also, I forgot to mention before that Tormentil said "Cold temperatures reduce the bulbs' efficiency and make them dim excessively." I didn't know that. So does that mean that external lights won't work properly in the winter?

Dave P.[/quote]

[pressld2]

Originally Posted by Paul mabbott

It used to be said that fluorescent bulbs of all kinds had their biggest energy loads in the seconds after switching on. One was regularly told that turning a tube on used the equivalent energy of one hour of actual lighting. The significance of this, of course, was that if you're coming back into a room in less than an hour its is better not to switch the lights off!

I've more recently been told that this is a load rubbish .... Brilliant scientist that I am, electronics has always been tricky for me (that's why you have children ... unfortunately mine have now given up physics ... but I digress ) .... Someone here must know what they're talking about?

It's true that they use more energy when starting up but this is only equivalent to a few seconds of normal use. It's always best to switch them off. I spend my life switching off unnecessary lights at home and at work. That way it doesn't matter what sort of bulbs you have!

Dave P.

[Paul mabbott]

I have no problem with going to long-lifes as mentioned in another post. I can't argue the physics but some things here just don't go along with my experience over twenty years ...

Originally Posted by pressld2

I personally made four assertions in my first post...
1. They don't work with dimmer switches.
So what are you suggesting, that we all emigrate to America? (Last one out turn off the lights! ) As soon as dimmer compatible bulbs are available in the UK then I will agree that my assertion no longer holds water and will stop making it.

I have no need for dimmer switches but surely what Sven was suggesting is that it is British suppliers who are not producing the goods - vent your spleen on British manufacturers!

2. They don't work with timer switches.

Know nothing about this! However, why would you use a timer switch for lighting? Growing cannabis I think this is a bit of an irrelevence.

3. They are dangerous to use with power tools because they flicker and can make a moving saw blade or drill bit look stationary

I've never had this problem - I suggest that if someone has a flickering tube then there is something wrong with the set up ....

4. They are still too big!

Yes, I have found that in some fittings (not many) but this has been aesthetic rather than functional - need to change lampshades and that sort of thing ... well, can be done over the years and basically it's a trivial problem that the furnishing industry will welcome!

Tormentil raised the issue of them containing mercury and phosphorus ............

Yes, there is a problem which needs addressing - as with many other examples of selective recycling and the facilities offered. This is very important. However, if you look at earlier threads about sorted household waste you will find that people are stupidly resistant to even the separation of simple goods, let alone recycling to the level of light bulbs! It must change - make your complaints to the recycling authorities - we need far better filtered facilities. It is a sad fact that many/most people will not do anything about efficient recycling unless they are forced to do it by financial or legal action

Pleased to hear that you have been planning your energy to reduce waste - still further to go .... for all of us

Dave P.

[Paul mabbott]

Thanks. Yes, I'm fairly convinced that what you say is correct but I'm intrigued by how the concept became established - I'm not the only one who believed that! Did tubular lights in older days have a much heavier ignition use or was this a rumour put about by the power industry?

Originally Posted by pressld2

It's true that they use more energy when starting up but this is only equivalent to a few seconds of normal use. It's always best to switch them off. I spend my life switching off unnecessary lights at home and at work. That way it doesn't matter what sort of bulbs you have!

Dave P.

[pressld2]

Originally Posted by Paul mabbott

I have no need for dimmer switches but surely what Sven was suggesting is that it is British suppliers who are not producing the goods - vent your spleen on British manufacturers!

Yep, but Sven was doing the spleen venting towards myself and other forum members for being resistant to change. It would help if he pointed his guns in the right direction!

Originally Posted by Paul mabbott

2. They don't work with timer switches.
Know nothing about this! However, why would you use a timer switch for lighting? Growing cannabis I think this is a bit of an irrelevence.

LOL! I may be a naughty boy but not that naughty! I have two timer switches for external security lights (front and back). If it were up to me I wouldn't have these lights at all but, given that wifey insists, I want them to go off at dawn without having to get up at 3am in June! You can get dawn-to-dusk fittings instead of timers but they have exactly the same issue in that they work but putting a miniscule current over the bulb's filament to power the clock or sensor. Low energy bulbs don't have a filament ergo no power to the clock or sensor.

Originally Posted by Paul mabbott

3. They are dangerous to use with power tools because they flicker and can make a moving saw blade or drill bit look stationary
I've never had this problem - I suggest that if someone has a flickering tube then there is something wrong with the set up ....

As I said in a previous post this is not an issue for me either nor I suspect for anyone in a domestic setting. But it's a real health and safety concern in some situations. I'm afraid physics comes into it here. All fluorescent bulbs on an AC circuit flicker all the time. Normally this is too fast for you to notice but it can freeze repetetive motion in the same way (and for the same reason) that car wheels can appear to be stationary or even rotating backwards when filmed.

Originally Posted by Paul mabbott

4. They are still too big!
Yes, I have found that in some fittings (not many) but this has been aesthetic rather than functional - need to change lampshades and that sort of thing ... well, can be done over the years and basically it's a trivial problem that the furnishing industry will welcome!

For some of mine it's aesthetic in that the bulbs poke out of the end of the shades. For others it's that the glass covers will not go back on at all because of the size of the low energy bulb. Either way, I'm just making the point that it's not very green to replace light fittings that have a good ten to twenty years servicable life in them just so that I can use low energy bulbs. Far better to improve the technology and make the bulbs smaller. And If I have to replace my light fittings then that has to be factored into the equation when working out whether the new bulbs really save energy over their whole life.

I must stress again that I'm really not opposed to switching to low energy bulbs. I'm just opposed to banning incandescents before the replacements are fit for purpose. And problems don't get solved by pretending they don't exist which is what it seems to me that Sven is doing.

Dave P.

[pressld2]

Originally Posted by Paul mabbott

Thanks. Yes, I'm fairly convinced that what you say is correct but I'm intrigued by how the concept became established - I'm not the only one who believed that! Did tubular lights in older days have a much heavier ignition use or was this a rumour put about by the power industry?

Just done a quick google search and found a few sites that confirm it's only about 5 seconds worth of energy used when switching on, but none of them say how the misconception came about. I only found out it wasn't true myself about a year ago. Personally I always go for "cock-up" before "conspiracy" so I suspect that it's just an urban myth that grew out of exaggeration.

Dave P.

[Rich_]

I don't think anyone signed up to a wildlife/outdoors forum like this could be accused of not caring about the environment, really. Whether they use light bulbs or drive big cars.

You can however, only be environment friendly to a certain point, if you want to exist in a civilisation in which we are each consuming energy 24 hours a day, and we will only do what suits us as individuals to save energy. If the scientists who say our emissions are responsible for climate change are to believed, it is possible we have made our bed and we are going to have to lay in it?

[Paul mabbott]

Thanks, Dave.
I think we're all more or less in agreement really that a change will be valuable but not before we have the product for the job?
I don't think there should be any great difficulty if the manufacturers and distributors get their "minds" around it ...

How I hate those external 'security' lights - we have fairly small front gardens in our street and, as I walk up the street at midnight, I get flashed at passing every other house! It wouldn't be so bad if they served any purpose .. we have street lights after all! Another example of people being flogged a dead horse by salesmen ...
We really should be looking at these absolutely useless energy wasters .... my big bug is neighbours who have fountains with lights - general yuk but they leave them on all the time ... time for guerilla action? I could steal the cannabis at the same time ?

Originally Posted by pressld2

Yep, but Sven was doing the spleen venting towards myself and other forum members for being resistant to change. It would help if he pointed his guns in the right direction!


LOL! I may be a naughty boy but not that naughty! I have two timer switches for external security lights (front and back). If it were up to me I wouldn't have these lights at all but, given that wifey insists, I want them to go off at dawn without having to get up at 3am in June! You can get dawn-to-dusk fittings instead of timers but they have exactly the same issue in that they work but putting a miniscule current over the bulb's filament to power the clock or sensor. Low energy bulbs don't have a filament ergo no power to the clock or sensor.


As I said in a previous post this is not an issue for me either nor I suspect for anyone in a domestic setting. But it's a real health and safety concern in some situations. I'm afraid physics comes into it here. All fluorescent bulbs on an AC circuit flicker all the time. Normally this is too fast for you to notice but it can freeze repetetive motion in the same way (and for the same reason) that car wheels can appear to be stationary or even rotating backwards when filmed.


For some of mine it's aesthetic in that the bulbs poke out of the end of the shades. For others it's that the glass covers will not go back on at all because of the size of the low energy bulb. Either way, I'm just making the point that it's not very green to replace light fittings that have a good ten to twenty years servicable life in them just so that I can use low energy bulbs. Far better to improve the technology and make the bulbs smaller. And If I have to replace my light fittings then that has to be factored into the equation when working out whether the new bulbs really save energy over their whole life.

I must stress again that I'm really not opposed to switching to low energy bulbs. I'm just opposed to banning incandescents before the replacements are fit for purpose. And problems don't get solved by pretending they don't exist which is what it seems to me that Sven is doing.

Dave P.

[pressld2]

Originally Posted by Paul mabbott

Thanks, Dave.
I think we're all more or less in agreement really that a change will be valuable but not before we have the product for the job?

Exactly. That's my position in a nutshell!

Originally Posted by Paul mabbott

How I hate those external 'security' lights - we have fairly small front gardens in our street and, as I walk up the street at midnight, I get flashed at passing every other house! It wouldn't be so bad if they served any purpose .. we have street lights after all!

Agreed again. But let's not go there - I've still got the bruises from last time we had that discussion in my house!

Originally Posted by Paul mabbott

Another example of people being flogged a dead horse by salesmen ...

And the police don't help. The Met's crime prevention pages repeatedly suggest installing security lights, both with movement sensors and on timer switches. Although in fairness they also say you should configure them so that they don't come on every time someone walks past.

Originally Posted by Paul mabbott

We really should be looking at these absolutely useless energy wasters .... my big bug is neighbours who have fountains with lights - general yuk but they leave them on all the time ... time for guerilla action? I could steal the cannabis at the same time ?

Yeah! Count me in! I've already got the camo gear for the wildlife photography. A bit of burnt cork on the face and a pair of rubber handled wire cutters and I'm ready to roll!

Dave P.