Light bulbs banned

[Billy Wobble Dagger]

Just found this on the bbc news site.

BBC NEWS | UK | Switch off for traditional bulbs

Basically it says that all high wattage light bulbs (150 watt) will be banned from next January. With all other traditional bulbs, ie 100-40 watt being banned in the next four years.
Good news, but why wait for four years. Why not ban them all from next January? Modern environmentally friendly bulbs are already widely available and as far as I know the wide range will fit nearly all fittings, except, I haven't seen any coloured ones, for outdoor lights although I think they are 25watt anyway.

And while I'm ranting about saving power. We always turn our sky box off at the wall along with the TV, video etc. When sky is switched on it defaults to the help channel. The help channel states that to save the planet remember to switch the sky box to stand by when not in use. Surly they should be saying switch off at the wall. So what is the reason for this, what are sky doing that requires us to keep our boxes on stand by!
As a side line all our electrical equipment is switched off at the wall when not in use, micro wave, cooker (not gas) TV etc lamps. Not only are we saving energy but hopefully cutting the risk of fire as well.

BWD

[lol geoff]

Lets hope these new bulbs are a bit better looking than the current energy saving bulbs.

I used to unplug the phone line to our sky box but started getting threatening letters from them. Apparently they have to check that the box is connected to the same telephone line that it was connected to in the first place. This is to stop people from ordering sky multiroom and then transfering the second box to another address.

[thunder]

Just hope they soon invent a low energy bulb that switches on quickly, otherwise I can see a lot of people being injured by trips or falls

henrya

[pressld2]

Slow start up is just one issue of many with the current low energy bulb technology. While I'm all in favour of saving energy in any way possible, low energy light bulbs are emphatically NOT yet a replacement for traditional bulbs.

They don't work with dimmer switches, they don't work with timer switches (so my external security lights can't use them), they are dangerous to use with power tools because they flicker and can make a moving saw blade or drill bit look stationary and, above all, they are still too big! They come with all the standard fittings, bayonet, ES, SES etc., but the actual bulbs are about 50% bigger than traditional ones. This means that they don't physically fit in many of the light fittings in my house. How green will I be if I have to throw away perfectly good light fittings and replace them with new ones just so that I can get bulbs to fit? And as for LED bulbs to replace halogens, well I tried that (at considerable cost) in my son's bedroom but when I turned them on they actually made the room look darker!

As I said, I'm very much in favour of saving energy and already use low energy bulbs wherever possible. But for at least seventy percent of my household lights it's still not possible with current bulb technology.

Dave P.

[thunder]

Didn't I read recently that school children were getting headaches because of all the flicker from modern equipment including fluorescent lighting in schools? Soon we'll all have headaches and the government won't have to worry about the children because it will be the norm!

henrya

[Tormentil]

Originally Posted by pressld2

They don't work with dimmer switches, they don't work with timer switches (so my external security lights can't use them), they are dangerous to use with power tools because they flicker and can make a moving saw blade or drill bit look stationary and, above all, they are still too big!

They're also no good in ovens, or micro waves. Cold temperatures reduce the bulbs' efficiency and make them dim excessively. They use more energy to produce and they contain mercury and phosphorus and at present there is not much in the way of recycling facilities for these.

[Gaina]

Ah great, now Nanny MacBrown is going to tell me what type if lightbulbs I can use.

I do a lot of Art and Crafts and I need to work with Daylight Bulbs so I don't know how they are going to cater for those people (and the people wth S.A.D - has anyone thought about how light affects them?).

You know what really gets me? They are telling us to recycle, use low energy lightbulbs, taxing our flights etc, then they go and build more houses, don't give aircraft and car manufacturers any incentive to make cleaner vehicles and then on top of that, America buys India's emmissions quota so the can pump even more 'you know what' into the atmosphere than they already do, which is far more detrimental. And lets not start on the annihilation of the rainforests for palm oil....

Methinks a few lightbulbs aren't going to change much in the grand scheme of things

[ron1863]

Does it also include halogen bulbs. We have one (500w) in our motion detector, which is good for deterring intruders.

[svenrufus]

It's a bit disappointing to see some of the negative comments here about the idea of legislating for low energy light bulbs. Surely the fact that moving to this form of lighting will save the UK from producing about 2.3 million tonnes of CO2 a year is a reason significant enough to make the small sacrifices of convenience that people seem to fret so much about. It has been estimated that if every household switched just one light bulb to a low enegy version, it would require the UK to run one less power station. I live in a flat that has 7 light bulbs (all now low energy), many houses must have at least twice this amount. How many power stations would this add up to (or rather, subtract)?

Some of the arguments against them are outdated, some are wrong, some are incomplete. For example, 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. Once the market removes incandescent bulbs, the market demand will peak, and they will become available. Another outdated argument is that they are slow to start - that was true in the early years, but now they are instant, no discernble difference.

Tormentil comments that they contain mercury which is true, but 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. It is true that there is no way of recycling them yet, but given the market, solutions will be provided. (Although my council won't accept conventional light bulbs for recycling, so I may be wrong on that - something else to lobby for!) The extra energy required in their manufacture is more than compensated for by the energy saved, and the differential would be greater with economies of scale in manufacture if more were made and bought.

As far as the other specialist requirements of bulbs that have been referred to, I can't answer to the current market, but in most things in human endeavour, when the demand exist, the demand is met. I can only suggest that if there is no 'natural light' equivalent in low energy bulbs, such a thing will probably develop soon. In fact, even more energy efficient bulbs are coming onstream in the form of LED lights, which have whole ranks of LED's using virtually no electricity. As LED's come in a few different colours, they are combined to give a range of different tones to lights, so there may already be natural light options. Again, I say that the market will drive the availability of this sort of option.

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 flourescent. They have no flicker, are smaller, and more versatile.

Gaina comes closest in what has been contributed so far to making fair criticism. It is true that there are so many other things that need to be addressed to make sense of the proportionality of this sort of measure, but that does not mean that this is a wrong step to take. We should expect better of our government, but let them know that this is the sort of measure that we demand, and that it needs to be followed up by more radical measures, rather than simply criticising with nothing more constructive to offer.

This has been a bit of a rant, sorry about that, but I for one wholeheartedly welcome this move, it comes not a moment too soon. Having won this battle, we can now move on to the other issues we need to sort out. It may be too little - it may even be too late - but it is a step in the right direction, and no complacent self interested inertia arising from our habits and customary practices should be allowed to take away from that progress.

[Kerry]

[quote=Gaina;173629]You know what really gets me? They are telling us to recycle, use low energy lightbulbs, taxing our flights etc, then they go and build more houses, don't give aircraft and car manufacturers any incentive to make cleaner vehicles and then on top of that, America buys India's emmissions quota so the can pump even more 'you know what' into the atmosphere than they already do, which is far more detrimental. And lets not start on the annihilation of the rainforests for palm oil....

[quote]

I think that they target items that are taxable and don't address the issues that cause most damage to the planet such as food production. They can't tax what goes into your mouth and so little is said about the damage to the planet from what you eat on a daily basis. See this report on the farming industries affect on the planet: http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/libr...d/A0701E00.pdf This is far, far more damaging than cars or lightbulbs but they can't tax you to the hilt on this and little is ever mentioned about it.

[thunder]

Quote
Another outdated argument is that they are slow to start - that was true in the early years, but now they are instant, no discernble difference.
Endquote

Perhaps that is so - but I bought one only a couple of years ago and it is so slow to start that I vowed never to buy another. How is one to know which type one has bought?

henrya

[Rich_]

Now that they have sold most people the idea that we are solely responsible for climate change, I'd have thought the phasing out of standard light bulbs would have been one of the 1st & more popular energy saving measures introduced & most effective too, when viewed against the other measures they have taken like charging you extra for a plane ticket as if it will make the plane emit less co2 when it takes off!!

The new bulbs allegedly last a lot longer as well as saving you money on your fuel bills, as opposed to costing you money in "green" taxes like most other things that are being forced on us. When you see the display lighting left on all night in shop windows in towns & cities nationwide, as well as what we use in houses that's a lot of light bulbs burning.

It's no good criticising people who drive big cars or Landrovers if we won't use energy efficient light bulbs just because they don't look as nice in your lamp or take a few minutes to brighten up. I have been replacing light bulbs with the new ones for the last couple of years and not found the few minutes warm up time a problem for anything I am doing.

[Billy Wobble Dagger]

Thank goodness for some positive replies. svenrufus and Rich_ I totally agree with you both, and I'm some what surprised at the complaints from others. I thought on this forum, at least everyone would already be using low energy bulbs. Yes it is only the beginning and maybe to late, but this is a step in the right direction, nanny state or no nanny state. Lets hope that Gordon Brown or the next PM come up with some other simple green ideas. How about packageing, or is that another thread?

BWD

[Kerry]

Originally Posted by Billy Wobble Dagger

Thank goodness for some positive replies. svenrufus and Rich_ I totally agree with you both, and I'm some what surprised at the complaints from others. I thought on this forum, at least everyone would already be using low energy bulbs. Yes it is only the beginning and maybe to late, but this is a step in the right direction, nanny state or no nanny state. Lets hope that Gordon Brown or the next PM come up with some other simple green ideas. How about packageing, or is that another thread?

BWD

The problem with any green idea is that different people percieve things differently and have different priorities as to what causes the most damage to this planet. I believe that somethings are window dressing and the major issues remain completely unaddressed. Everyone has the power to make a massive change to the planet and they don't need the government to do it for them; this change is in their own shopping basket every week, but you try discussing the issue with most people and they aren't prepared to change because they like what they eat. The government (and all parties are the same) will try to pick on an issue to get them good publicity and attract votes, all the parties do it, but they ignore the larger issues and don't bring them to the peoples attention. We might have an election coming up and one of the issues that is important to some of the general public is the environment. Low and behold they suddenly have gems like this up their sleeve. The government and the other parties know that this is just window dressing. Sorry but I have become very cynical over this after having looked at the much broader picture. Yes this does need addressing but there are far greater issues that damage the planet that are completely ignored.

[lol geoff]

Originally Posted by Rich_

It's no good criticising people who drive big cars or Landrovers if we won't use energy efficient light bulbs just because they don't look as nice in your lamp or take a few minutes to brighten up. I have been replacing light bulbs with the new ones for the last couple of years and not found the few minutes warm up time a problem for anything I am doing.

I'm sorry to be realistic but if these new light bulbs aren't aesthetically pleasing or a bit on the quirky side most people probably wouldn’t use them voluntarily.

[Rich_]

No need to appologise for realism Geoff, this is exactly what I was hinting at. People are "Green" when it suits them, including & especially politicians.

I just thought low energy light bulbs were one of the more palatable and efective measures being foisted upon us, compared to the extra taxes we will be suffering to supposedly help save the planet. I use low energy bulbs because I won't have to change them as often and the electric bill will be slightly less, the benefits to the environment are incidental .This is how it works, I'd have thought in modern society (politicians inluded). What's in it for me?

I am far more concerened about habitat destruction etc, you can see that happening without scientific facts and figures to try & convince you it's happening.

[thunder]

Originally Posted by lol geoff

I'm sorry to be realistic but if these new light bulbs aren't aesthetically pleasing or a bit on the quirky side most people probably wouldn’t use them voluntarily.

A good point. As I mentioned before, I bought a low energy bulb a while ago and found it not fit for purpose, and I would like to save energy! How are people who don't really care going to be persuaded to change? And I think we are entitled to expect that replacements for ordinary incandescent bulbs are at least as good as those they replace. Isn't that what progress means?

henrya

[snowdrop]

I'm worried now. Do the new bubs flicker? Couldn't this bring on fits? And what about those with light-sensitive eyesight?
Sigh, still, I suppose its better than candles.

[Rich_]

Originally Posted by thunder

How are people who don't really care going to be persuaded to change?
henrya

I don't think this will be an issue if they are phasing the old ones out, they'll have to use them or sit in the dark. Like the extra they have put on fuel & road tax, it's not optional, unfortunately.

[Gaina]

I am not aversed to the idea of products being manufactured to be as environmentally friendly as possible, I just see a lot of particular circumstances like the ones discussed so far that I fear they have failed to take into account as they so often do in the clamour to rush through new legislation.

I'm still waiting for the brave man or woman who has the gumption to suggest one strategy that would really make a huge impact on the burden we're placing in the environment - controlling numbers of our own species.

[Ukwildlifeo]

The biggest problem with the bulbs is there NOT green. They cost more (in money and energy terms) to make and contain nasty chemicals like mercury. Plus they only last about 1 and half times the amount of normal bulbs and cost 7times more. Im all for true green changes but this is going to make things worse.

[pressld2]

I'm sorry if I came across as negative - I didn't mean it that way. I am definitely in favour of saving energy and reducing CO2 emmissions in any way possible including using low energy bulbs every where I can. Like Svenrufus, I have replaced 7 standard bulbs with low energy ones (although in my case that's out of a total of over 40 including all room lights, lamps, wall-units, exterior security lights etc.) As soon as the technology allows I will replace more and look forward to the day when I can have 100% low energy bulbs. Unfortunately that day has not yet arrived. Banning old technology before the replacement is ready is counter-productive and likely to cause a backlash from those less committed to green policies than the majority of us on this forum appear to be.

From a personal viewpoint I am nearly always opposed to banning things on principle. If you can't bring people round to your way of thinking through education and persuasion then there's a good chance that your case isn't strong enough. In my view that's where we are now with low-energy bulbs. If they were a realistic alternative to traditional bulbs then they would have taken off in a big way I for one would have them throughout my house. There is a reason (or six) why I don't.

And at the risk of being cynical as well as negative, Mr Benn's announcement is a politician's promise in what may turn out to be an election year. He, like the other parties, knows there is a big green vote out there and he wants a piece of it. It's a very easy thing to say but a great deal harder to implement. If he was really serious about the subject he would have committed funds to research and development aimed at fixing the technological problems so that we can all switch to low-energy bulbs in four years time.

Originally Posted by snowdrop

I'm worried now. Do the new bubs flicker? Couldn't this bring on fits?

Yes they do flicker (very fast) and yes there have been reports of them causing headaches although I'm not sure about them inducing fits. The flicker is many times faster than strobe lighting for example. I have never had a problem with the flicker myself and I'm quite sensitive to it. If I use a PC monitor with a refresh rate below 75 hertz it takes less than 10 minutes for the pain to start but I have an 8 watt compact fluorescent in the desk lamp where I'm sitting now and I feel fine! I believe the recommendation for PC monitors (the old CRT ones, not the flat panels) is a minimum refresh rate of 72 hertz so as long as bulbs are above that they shouldn't cause a problem. And the point I made earlier about the flicker making power tools look stationary is only relevant in noisy environments, like building sites or college workshops, or for deaf people. In most cases you would be able to hear if a tool is switched on.

For me the biggest problem is use with dimmer/timer switches as I have dimmers in the living room and bedrooms and timers on the porch and patio lights. It's not a lot of use to me that the dimmer problem has been fixed in the US if I can't buy the bulbs in my local B & Q, and as far as I'm aware the timer switch problem still hasn't been fixed.

The second biggest problem is the size. I don't have dimmer or timer switches in my bathroom or downstairs loo but if I replace the existing 60W candle bulbs with the equivalent 15W low energy bulbs then I cannot get the glass cover back on. The day someone produces a 15W the same physical size as a 60W candle is the day I switch but no one has managed it yet.

Dave P.

[thunder]

Originally Posted by Rich_

I don't think this will be an issue if they are phasing the old ones out, they'll have to use them or sit in the dark. Like the extra they have put on fuel & road tax, it's not optional, unfortunately.

I think people will be able to get them over the web!

henrya

[badger426]

I've used them for years, you get used to them but they won't fit in some light fittings.