First | < Previous 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Next > | Last
|
| |
|
Message 1 - posted by Today editorial team
(U9592850)
, Sep 13, 2007
What are the merits and problems of so called energy saving lightbulbs? Should we all be switching our bulbs to the energy saving variety??
|
| |
|
|
|
Message 2 - posted by dullahan
(U2365841)
, Sep 13, 2007
Last year when the race for who can give the cheapest energy was on, I suggested that instead of taking X percent off Electricity bills (Which never lasts long) and supply as a bonus to customers two "Energy Saving" light bulbs with each bill paid on time. result-Silence.
The problem with "energy Saving" light bulbs is that they Don't save energy. The light they give out is poor and you need twice as many
This is a reply to this message
|
 |
|
|
|
Message 3 - posted by hotmousemat
(U2388917)
, Sep 13, 2007
When I left university, it was well known that you needed a first class degree to become a tea-boy at the BBC. Seriously, how do you get a job on the 'Today_editorial_team' these days?
This is a reply to this message
|
| |
|
|
|
Message 4 - posted by Raison d'être
(U2389009)
, Sep 13, 2007
Most energy-efficient bulbs do not work with dimmers. Energy-efficient bulbs are not yet a viable option for spotlights. Many energy-efficient bulbs are large and unsightly. Many energy-efficient bulbs take a long time to achieve full brightness.
Those people who like to tell us how to live our lives should just SHUT-UP until these issues are resolved.
This is a reply to this message
|
| |
|
|
|
Message 5 - posted by decraze
(U2340175)
, Sep 13, 2007
I was going to post something flippant...but you know what...I just can't be bothered.
Let's talk about something else, the merits of diesel cars over petrol ones perhaps? Wow, those oil-burners have come a long way haven't they?
How about the merits of satellite dishes over cable? Cable should be superb, constant connection, movies to download from an on-line libary at minimal cost (kill the DVD market dead!), broadband etc etc etc. So why is cable so pants and so expensive and frankly not living up to its potential?
We could even talk about privatising the NHS?
Just...let's not talk about lightbulbs ?
This is a reply to this message
|
| |
|
|
|
Message 6 - posted by cloudyj
(U1773646)
, Sep 13, 2007
Should we all be switching our bulbs to the energy saving variety??Quoted from
this message
No, no, and thrice no. You should never, ever replace a working lightbulb. The amount of energy which goes into making a bulb is far, far more than you will ever save by changing. Yes, get efficient lightbulbs when the old ones break, but do not throw away working things because that means you're throwing away the initial energy input. TET, how are the Today programme's "news-miles" clocking up this year? Perhaps the BBC and its flagship news programme could lead by a green example and not send reporters hundreds of miles when the interview could be done over the phone or via a regional studio?
This is a reply to this message
|
| |
|
|
|
Message 7 - posted by baz157
(U6670409)
, Sep 13, 2007
In principle I'm all in favour of energy-saving bulbs. But the industry needs to develop them in a far greater range of shapes and sizes than seems to be available at present. It's not just a question of screw or bayonet fittings (as Sarah seemed to think on Wednesday's programme when berating Tesco for still selling traditional bulbs).
For instance I have some table lamps where the frame supporting the shade is so low that only round, golf-ball sized bulbs will fit, and I've seen no energy-savers that small. At the other end of the scale, I need one 150-watt bulb (extravagant, but it's only on two or three hours a day) to light my back reception room. As with most Victorian houses, it has only a small window so is generally gloomy without the light on. Again, energy-saving bulbs this bright don't (yet?) seem to exist.
This is a reply to this message
|
| |
|
|
|
Message 8 - posted by Raison d'être
(U2389009)
, Sep 13, 2007
How about the merits of satellite dishes over cable? Quoted from
this message
Satellite MUST be the best option because there is just so much bandwidth - if we could only break the tyranny of the 'Evil Empire'.
This is a reply to this message
|
| |
|
|
|
Message 9 - posted by amoeba2
(U8913269)
, Sep 13, 2007
Our house was fully "switched on" to energy- saving lightbulbs nine years ago. I've had to replace three so far (one of them I smashed accidentally with a ladder!) - that's out of about a dozen. The one in the living room DOES take a while to light up fully, but I think that's because I got the wrong wattage or something. I can't see why the government can't subsidise ESLB's whilst at the same time taxing manufacturers of "ordinary" light bulbs so that they are more expensive than ESLB's.
This is a reply to this message
|
| |
|
|
|
Message 10 - posted by ibell
(U2408336)
, Sep 13, 2007
Nobody has yet mentioned the health hazard posed by these efficient mercury based lightbulbs should they break in your home. Or the pollution implications of their disposal.
These are the primary drawbacks but there is also the issue of power-up energy costs. If a bulb is to be used for repeated short periods and turned on and off repeatedly, such as a bulb used to cross a dark hallway or in a cupboard, an oldstyle filament bulb may use less energy.
This is a reply to this message
|
| |
|
|
|
Message 11 - posted by wwatcher
(U2345220)
, Sep 13, 2007
What are the merits and problems of so called energy saving lightbulbs? Should we all be switching our bulbs to the energy saving variety??Quoted from
this message
What are the merits and problems of this so called 'messageboard'? Should we all be switching our energies from this intelligence insulting variety?
This is a reply to this message
|
| |
|
|
|
Message 12 - posted by sthilda
(U3612164)
, Sep 13, 2007
agreed,but I do think it best to wait until the old ones break...there are arange of shapes and sizes now and I find the katest ones dont need the warm up time like the earlier ones did...
This is a reply to this message
|
| |
|
|
|
Message 13 - posted by piasaba
(U9588678)
, Sep 13, 2007
The 'energy-saving' bulbs are OK for lighting staircases, bedrooms, corridors and the like. We use them for that purpose but the light they emit is too weak for comfortable reading. If you want to be able to read easily you need a brighter lamp. I understand that they may be more expensive and energy-consuming to manufacture and may contain materials more harmful to the environment than the tungsten variety. Are there any scientists/engineers out there who can enlghten us?
This is a reply to this message
|
| |
|
|
|
Message 14 - posted by The Magnetist
(U2350104)
, Sep 13, 2007
Seems to me that the bright lights of the BBC have been replaced with low-power dim ones.
This is a reply to this message
|
| |
|
|
|
Message 15 - posted by ibell
(U2408336)
, Sep 13, 2007
Satellite MUST be the best option because there is just so much bandwidth - Quoted from
this message
More energy used in a broadcast than a wire signal. Plus there is the "electromagnetic smog" issue. We still don't know what all this EM radiation might be doing to us.
This is a reply to this message
|
| |
|
|
|
Message 16 - posted by wwatcher
(U2345220)
, Sep 13, 2007
Seems to me that the bright lights of the BBC have been replaced with low-power dim ones.Quoted from
this message
 Is talking about lightbulbs the modern equivalent of fiddling while rome burns? I hope we get the chance to discuss hemlines. Down or up in 2008?
This is a reply to this message
|
| |
|
|
|
Message 17 - posted by The Magnetist
(U2350104)
, Sep 13, 2007
"Are there any scientists/engineers out there who can enlghten us?"
As with Lawyers and Accountants I have decided that as a scientist I will charge for any advice I give on technical matters. For too long have scientists and engineers sold themselves short.
So: £10 please.
This is a reply to this message
|
| |
|
|
|
Message 18 - posted by Raison d'être
(U2389009)
, Sep 13, 2007
I visited Standen a few months ago, the National Trust property that was the home of William Morris. The house was lit by reproduction CARBON filament bulbs which gave a fantastic warm light. Perhaps this should be the way forward.  This is a reply to this message
|
| |
|
|
|
Message 19 - posted by David_McD
(U2926102)
, Sep 13, 2007
<<So: £10 please.>>
I will do it for £9.50.
This is a reply to this message
|
| |
|
|
|
Message 20 - posted by martingoldman
(U9657860)
, Sep 13, 2007
I was virtually incandescent during the feature on energy saving light bulbs this morning. There is not a full selection of sizes in most shops, and having been victim of the craze for small bayonet cap fittings, find that there is only one retail supplier of low energy candle size bulbs (and they cost about £8 each), and for small globes, they just simply don't exist as low energy bulbs.
New Scientist magazine, some years ago, published an article suggesting that low energy bulbs are a con from a green point of view. It was alleged that they altered the phasing of electricity, tricking the meters into a lower reading, but the power was actually dissipated on the transmissions lines, needing just as much electricity to be generated as for conventional bulbs.
This is a reply to this message
|
| |
|
|
First | < Previous 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Next > | Last
|
Home
How to 
Are you being