Low energy bulbs

[AdamJ]

We have a long hallway with no natural light which has three ceiling lights along it. We replaced the normal 60W tungsten bulbs with 60w-equivalent low energy bulbs.

It used to be that the lights were just turned on when anyone needed to, but as low energy bulbs take 20 to 30 seconds to get to full tilt, by the time they are bright enough whoever was there has done what they needed to do and has gone again. As a result of this, they are now, understandably and necessarily, left on for the complete working day so that when anyone needs to go there they are bright enough to see with already.

Net result, we put in bulbs which use 4 x less energy, but which now have to be left on for 8 hours a day rather than perhaps a total of 10 minutes. My guess is its increased our energy usage, not decreased it.

 

[andysv1k]

Is this somewhere they are used during the day?

You could go for solar lighting, this is where a mirror finish tube runs from the roof down to a fitting, much like a light, it directs natural daylight into the room. absolutely zero energy usage!

the other option to consider is LED's these are similar sort of efficiencies to low energy lamps, but they last much longer (up to 100,000 hours) and they have no start up time, they are full brightness instantly.

Andy.

 

[AdamJ]

I've got a solartube at home - that thing's great. Sadly not here though - there's nowhere to run it from above - there're offices upstairs.

Not thought about the LED lights - I'll have a look at them.

 

[Rhyl Lightworks]

LED lights are available for many types of fittings now, but are not yet very bright. Typically a 1W bulb gives about 16W equivalent of light. Also the light they give has a bluish tinge, which is OK if all the bulbs in a particular area are LED, but can look odd if mixed with CFL or tungsten light.
What make of CFL low energy bulbs have you got? They sound a bit inferior. We have found the current ones by Philips and Osram take 2 or 3seconds to reach full brightness.
Barrie

 

[AdamJ]

LED lights are available for many types of fittings now, but are not yet very bright. Typically a 1W bulb gives about 16W equivalent of light. Also the light they give has a bluish tinge, which is OK if all the bulbs in a particular area are LED, but can look odd if mixed with CFL or tungsten light.
What make of CFL low energy bulbs have you got? They sound a bit inferior. We have found the current ones by Philips and Osram take 2 or 3seconds to reach full brightness.
Barrie

I can't remember what make they are but at £9.99 a bulb they're rather expensive.

 

[Rob-Fisher]

Whilst I am all for energy saving lightbulbs, it does tend to make my house look like one huge walk-in fridge until they have reached full brightness. Does anyone else find this?

 

[ken_uk]

Isn't it going to become law that all bulbs have to be the new energy saving ones soon? I remember reading they are going to outlaw normal bulbs at some point, cant remember the date if comes into effect though.

 

[AdamJ]

Whilst I am all for energy saving lightbulbs, it does tend to make my house look like one huge walk-in fridge until they have reached full brightness. Does anyone else find this?

Yes, and they don't seem to illuminate the same area as a 'normal' bulb.

 

[RedEvo]

I'm sure our living room actually gets darker when we switch the low energy lights on

d

 

I'm sure our living room actually gets darker when we switch the low energy lights on

d

Well leave the lights off,and buy a white stick ,they cost nothing to run

Earl

 

[Cornish Steve]

Isn't it going to become law that all bulbs have to be the new energy saving ones soon? I remember reading they are going to outlaw normal bulbs at some point, cant remember the date if comes into effect though.

If true, it would be a terrible precedent to set. Who does the government think they are, forcing everyone to buy expensive and inferior products for the sake of political ideology?

As we've discussed in other threads, energy-saving products - like every other type of product - will succeed or fail based on their value proposition. Not only must they be at least as good as and no more expensive then existing products, but they must offer a compelling reason to switch. This is how the free market works. The alternative is to let 'nanny' tell us what to buy.

 

If true, it would be a terrible precedent to set. Who does the government think they are, forcing everyone to buy expensive and inferior products for the sake of political ideology?

As we've discussed in other threads, energy-saving products - like every other type of product - will succeed or fail based on their value proposition. Not only must they be at least as good as and no more expensive then existing products, but they must offer a compelling reason to switch. This is how the free market works. The alternative is to let 'nanny' tell us what to buy.

I believe its law already in some european countries.

I don't see how you can describe energy saving light bulbs as inferior as there life span is about 20 times a normal bulb.Yes there is a delay before they reach full brightness but no different to florecent lights.

There used to be a story about an everlasting light bulb that had been developed in the 20's and the big maufacturers had purchased the patent and hidden it away in a Paris bank vault.:|

Earl

 

[Rhyl Lightworks]

I can't remember what make they are but at £9.99 a bulb they're rather expensive.

You've been done! We sell Philips and Osram ones at £5.10 for 6 on our website.
Barrie

 

[Rhyl Lightworks]

Isn't it going to become law that all bulbs have to be the new energy saving ones soon? I remember reading they are going to outlaw normal bulbs at some point, cant remember the date if comes into effect though.

Yes, the current plans are to phase out all incandescant bulbs by about 2011, starting with 100W and above GLS and 60W candle and round (golf ball) bulbs next year. In my opinion, low energy bulbs are far superior to incandescant ones anyway, but getting the message across to some people is difficult. Unscrupulous profiteers, jumping on the bandwagon selling inferior products don't help.
Barrie

 

[Cornish Steve]

In my opinion

But that's the point, Barrie. To your credit, you'd purchase more efficient bulbs because you believe in them. But why should those who disagree be forced by law to do so? So much for 'ethical business'. Such behaviour is about as unethical as it gets.

Would you feel the same way about government actions if you happened to be on the other side of the debate?

 

[Cornish Steve]

I don't see how you can describe energy saving light bulbs as inferior as there life span is about 20 times a normal bulb.Yes there is a delay before they reach full brightness but no different to florecent lights.

If they really are superior, then they'll start disappearing off the shelves and everything will be hunkydory. If they aren't superior, they'll stay on shelves until companies come out with something better. Either way, the government has no right to dictate what products we buy, and legislation on such issues is a terrible precedent. What would be next?

Incidentally, we bought and installed a couple of the new types of bulbs, only to learn that they are a bit of a biohazard. If they break, the carpet onto which they fall must be thrown away. I'm not sure what is the chemical (it's probably mercury), but it's regarded as dangerous. That's not something I want in my house. Sounds to me like we need a little more product development before these bulbs become mainstream.

 

If they really are superior, then they'll start disappearing off the shelves and everything will be hunkydory. If they aren't superior, they'll stay on shelves. Either way, the government has no right to dictate what products we buy, and legislation on such issues is a terrible precedent. What would be next?

well governments have always controlled our energy and product purchases by taxation.

And quite right to.it makes a fairer playing field for the majority,after all we in the civilized world ( UK) live in a socialist society ( cough ,cough )

Unlike the morons across the pond who belive in something somewhat different

But Thats just my opinion as an ex ,Marxist,Communist,Socialist who is saving up hard to be a Tory.

Earl

 

[estwig]

Building control regs state we have to fit x number of low energy light fittings per number of new rooms we build, not just bulbs but fittings. This caused a problem for the fire brigade who became involved, because the fittings are so useless for the reasons already mentioned here, Mr DIY was changing the fittings himself for something from B&Q after we had left.

This created a fire hazard and we were advised that it was no longer necessary to fit low energy fittings, althouth the regs say we should.

 

[KM-Tiger]

Incidentally, we bought and installed a couple of the new types of bulbs, only to learn that they are a bit of a biohazard. If they break, the carpet onto which they fall must be thrown away. I'm not sure what is the chemical (it's probably mercury), but it's regarded as dangerous. That's not something I want in my house. Sounds to me like we need a little more product development before these bulbs become mainstream.

That's interesting, as I have nothing but low energy compact fluorescents here at home, and have never heard of this. Certainly fluorescent tubes do contain small amounts of mercury, and are regarded as 'hazardous waste', which should not be disposed of in landfill. Our local authority has a special disposal facility, but it doesn't seem to be seen as certain death!

As a teenager at school I can remember playing with mercury in the physics lab - fascinating stuff, and I'm still alive! That was a long time ago before the hazard was properly understood, I should add.

 

[ken_uk]

The government is taking away our rights a little bit at a time, not all in one go.

Smoking bans (they even want to ban smoking in the home), Electrical rules stating homeowners cant do certain type's of electrical work even if they are capable of doing it, forcing the use of one type of product instead of another, talking cctv camera's etc...

Perhaps the government has been studying hitler?

"The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed" - Adolf Hitler

 

[Rhyl Lightworks]

But that's the point, Barrie. To your credit, you'd purchase more efficient bulbs because you believe in them. But why should those who disagree be forced by law to do so? So much for 'ethical business'. Such behaviour is about as unethical as it gets.

Would you feel the same way about government actions if you happened to be on the other side of the debate?

I am on the other side of the debate in some matters, e.g. I don't like being forced to pay for weapons and armies or having fluoride added to my water, but I have to accept that we have elected them to take 'informed' decisions for us. If we don't like it, we have the chance every 4 or 5 years to change it, or better still, to campaign and lobby against it. I know it's an imperfect system, but has anyone come up with anything better? Are the ethics of many businesses, which are profit driven with little regard for the environment (unless they see the oportunity of making a fast buck) any better?

I readily admit I am no expert in many matters, and we have a government to draw on experts to take these decisions. However, I do feel I know a little about low energy bulbs, and I approve of their actions on these; yes, market forces would eventually force their use anyway, but it would take much longer and time is not on our side.
Barrie

 

[Rhyl Lightworks]

Building control regs state we have to fit x number of low energy light fittings per number of new rooms we build, not just bulbs but fittings. This caused a problem for the fire brigade who became involved, because the fittings are so useless for the reasons already mentioned here, Mr DIY was changing the fittings himself for something from B&Q after we had left.

This created a fire hazard and we were advised that it was no longer necessary to fit low energy fittings, althouth the regs say we should.

I agree, the building regulations imposing the fitting of low energy bulbs were not well thought out. The fittings had to be ones that would take only low energy bulbs, and these cost more than 3 times the price of 'retro-fit' low enrgy bulbs, which go into ordinary light fittings. The thinking was that people would replace their low energy bulbs with ordinary ones if conventional fittings were used. What happens now is that people intent on doing this change the whole fitting, after the building regs. people have passed it. With hindsight, it would probably have been better to keep to conventional fittings, but only allow them to be sold and fitted with low energy bulbs.
Barrie

 

[AdamJ]

much longer and time is not on our side.
Barrie

I don't buy that argument - switching to low energy bulbs is not going to save the planet. Its a good step, hence I do it sometimes, but its only at the outside got a tiny potential for change.

Re: Being forced to switch. Utter, utter madness. Low energy bulbs are inferior in many ways, and I don't buy the 'its because some of the bulbs are inferior' argument. I have a mix of manufacturers and they're all the same, they take too long to warm up, they don't fit all the existing light fittings, they don't cast the light as well* and they're too expensive.

*In our living room we have four table lights. They were all fitted with 60W tungsten lights. I switched them to low-energy ones, (just checked and they're Philips for what it matters) and the result was terrible - a big dark patch in the middle of the room and along the wall. In the end we took them out and put normal ones back in.

I want to use them, but they're just not up to the job yet, and the gov. certainly shouldn't be forcing the switch to an inferior over-priced alternative.

 

[Rhyl Lightworks]

Low energy bulbs are inferior in many ways, and I don't buy the 'its because some of the bulbs are inferior' argument. I have a mix of manufacturers and they're all the same, they take too long to warm up, they don't fit all the existing light fittings, they don't cast the light as well* and they're too expensive.

*In our living room we have four table lights. They were all fitted with 60W tungsten lights. I switched them to low-energy ones, (just checked and they're Philips for what it matters) and the result was terrible - a big dark patch in the middle of the room and along the wall. In the end we took them out and put normal ones back in.

.

How long ago was this? I have sold and used the Philips low energy bulbs made in the last 2 years and they are as good lightwise as tungsten bulbs. As for price, they cost about twice what tungsten bulbs cost, and pay for themselves within about 2 months with average use. Over the lifetime of the bulb (about 6 years) one bulb will save you about £50 in running and replacement costs. Another advantage is that because they run cooler, there is less damage to light fittings and a fitting which stipulates a maximum wattage of say 60W can have an 18 or 20W low energy bulb fitted, giving an equivalent light of about 100W.
They are basically the same as long fluorescent strip lights, and we have lived with those for many years.
I agree switching to low energy bulbs alone is hardly going to save humankind, but it is one of many small things that can be done.
Barrie

 

[AdamJ]

How long ago was this? I have sold and used the Philips low energy bulbs made in the last 2 years and they are as good lightwise as tungsten bulbs.

We moved house mid-August and it was in this house, so within the last 2 months or so.

I don't think we're going to agree on the 'as good as tungsten bulbs'. I've put low-energy lights in this new house and tried them, I want to use them, but they're just not good enough. It doesn't matter what the manufacturer's specs say, its user's experience that counts. If I turn our hall light I found I had finished walking up the stairs in the gloom, and long before the light has got to full strength. As a result, out went the low-energy bulb and back in went the normal one.

I'm on the side of the low-energy light in this. I keep trying them, both at home and at work, but in most cases, the result is dissatisfaction. They are just not good enough yet.

 

[AdamJ]

They are basically the same as long fluorescent strip lights, and we have lived with those for many years.
Barrie

Not in my living room we haven't, and its domesic users as well as commercial who need to be convinced.

 

[Cornish Steve]

And all of this points out what a great market opportunity there is for a company that can sell an energy efficient bulb that lights up immediately and can brighten a room just as well as traditional bulbs. I'm sure many consumers would pay a 10-20 percent premium for them. The profit motive associated with this opportunity will work better than any government legislation because we'll end up with safe, quality products purchased by choice (the free market way) instead of biohazardous, mediocre products inflicted on everyone by the government (the communist way).

 

[KM-Tiger]

They have been in development a long time. I first used them in the 1980's, and the ones around then were a lot worse for warm-up time than what's available now. My observation is that the modern ones reach full brightness in a couple of minutes where is used to be at least five. They've also got a lot smaller.

Being a tight wad I could see the financial benefit, and that's why I used them, not a moral crusade. It's always been my habit to write the date on when I put them in. I'm proud to say that I still have one dated 1994, though admittedly that's in a not much used table lamp. Combined with never having paid the Lottery Tax, I'm now several hundred pounds better off.

What was true back then, and is still true now though, is the manufacturer's wattage equivalence figures seem simply wrong. The one they say is the same as a 60 watt tungsten lamp isn't. It's nowhere near as bright, so I always use the next size up.

 

[andysv1k]

I still think LED will be the dominant force in the coming years.

Despite the earlier comments that they are not bright enough, i agree a 1w LED is not bright enough for general purpose lighting, however i have access to fittings up to 16w (and that isnt 16x 1w LEDS!)

They are also available in a huge range of colour temperatures now too, so the horrible old white LED's that had a blue tint are a thing of the past (unless of course that's what you want)
Even the LED camera flash on my phone is in a warm white.

LED's run much cooler than either incandescent or CFL's so if you are in an office environment with air con running, savings can be quite large for those systems too.

The new Airbus A380 uses LED lighting throughout...

By choosing LED Lighting and the consequential 80% reduction from conventional lighting cabling mass, the low voltage requirement meant that ¾ ton of on-board generators were not needed. Fuel usage will also drop by as much as 6¼ tons per trip (typically 240 tonnes required for the Sydney/LA flight) or 7 tons of additional passengers/cargo.
The principal saving will be the reduced cost of running the power generation sub systems and air conditioning but with the added value of the elimination of ongoing of maintenance costs.


Andy.

 

[dagr]

At a recent conference sponsored by a monitor supplier, we had a talk from one of the leading research technologists who was categorical that by 2010 all medical grade (i.e. top-of-the-range) flat LCD monitors will have LED backlighting. And probably all flatscreen monitors will be backlit by LEDs a few years later.

 

[Dawg]

I don't know if it is true or not, and perhaps Barry could clear it up, but I remember reading that the lifespan of longlife bulbs is severely affected by the amount of times it is switched on and off. In some cases the life of the bulb was reduced by 2/3rds.
If true, and to what extent it happens if it does, this would affect peoples' perceptions of how useful they actually are.
Or is it just brown, (opposite to green), propaganda?

 

[andysv1k]

CFL's as with all fluroescent lighting do have a shortened lifespan as a result of power cycling.

As to what extent probably depends on many factors, im sure theres some reasonably accurate data out there somewhere.

Andy.

 

[GardenersAlmanac]

I have to agree that the low energy bulbs I use are far too slow to come to full brightness. I am always going up and down the stairs in the dark - which is downright dangerous.

I want to be sensible in the way I use electricity, but the products just are'nt up to it. We have four in our living room in an ancient centre ceiling fitting - they light the room up but are incredibly ugly. Also I have to hang around when I want to go into the spare room/bedroom to pick something up just for the light to get bright. If it was a old bulb I would be in and out in seconds- how can that be saving energy? I have not noticed my electricity usage going down at all since I got the new bulbs. I

Has anyone heard of replacements for halogen bulbs? Are these to dissappear under the gov't legislation too? If so what happens to all those light fittings, etc?

 

[andysv1k]

That is the real problem in my view, replacing halogen lamps.

normal incandescent lamps are nothing special, so using CFL's as a replacement is an obvious choice, the light is aybe not quite as friendly, but its not much difference and personally i dont have any problem with the strike time of CFL's so i have pretty much all lamps in the house with these in.

The problem is that no low energy lamp can yet offer the same attractive light as halogen dichroic lamps, their colour rendering is outstanding and they can really change the look of a room.

I plan on putting a new kitchen in at home at some time in the not too distant future and i will be changing any CFL's for LED fittings and use them as much as possible for wash lighting, however i intend to also install some halogen dichroics too as i know i wont be happy with the lighting unless i also have the options of switching halogens on. To ofset this i may install some solar PV, but not everyone will do this, so there has to be an answer to this, i believe it will be LED's as their colours are getting better all the time, but they arnt quite there yet.

Andy.

 

[Rhyl Lightworks]

I agree LEDs are the way forward and they are getting better all the time. Trouble at the moment is that the reasonably priced ones are still too dim for most purposes. Brighter ones cost the earth.
I also agree that a mixture of halogens and LEDs can give excellent lighting. You can even fit a dimmer to the halogens, so that when bright lighting is not needed they can be dimmed, to give really good ambient effects with the LEDs.
Low energy GU10 and MR16 halogen replacements are avaible, see for example:
http://www.thelightworks.net/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=37_73&sort=20a&page=5

LED bulbs are the same price for coloured ones, and colour changing ones are becoming very popular.
I also agree that increased strike rate does reduce life of fluorescents, and most manufacturers figures for expected lifetimes of bulbs assume average strike rates.
Barrie

 

[Chris H]

Looking through Morrisons last night I noticed their low energy bulbs are labelled as 'soft glow'!!

Whoever suggested in this thread to up the wattage would appear to be correct.

 

[AdamJ]

What Chris said. I'm going to try sticking 100W low energy bulbs where I used 60W tungstens. Assuming they fit the holders.

And I always had you down as a Waitrose man Chris, what're you doing in Morrissons!

 

[greeneast]

I know energy bulbs have a reputation for being slow, but some of the newer bulbs actually light up fairly quickly.

I don't supply bulbs but I visited the Energy Bus while at an exhibition in Norfolk earlier this year and they had working displays of new and old energy bulbs showing the difference!

I am pleased to say we have 14 energy bulbs in our home and no longer have "any" other bulbs except the strip light in the kitchen.

I would hate to go back to the old bulbs that blind you suddenly when visiting the bathroom in the middle of the night but could do with one a little faster that the one that's been there for the last 6-8 years. Will wait till it's life is over first though.

 

[Rhyl Lightworks]

Some low energy bulbs come on to full brightness in less than a second, but others do take little longer. There is a low energy bulb to replace practically every other type of bulb these days (apart from the tiny G4 and G9 halogens - I would avoid buying light fittings that take these bulbs). There are even dimmable low energy bulbs - some of which do not even need a dimmer switch, and craftlight ones - with a very high colour temperature. I think these latter two are superb, if a little pricier than conventional low energy bulbs.

I have recently replaced all our kitchen lights (9 x 35W GU10 mains halogens, fitting in downlighters) with cool white low energy GU10s at 7W each. I think they give a better light than the original halogens (whiter than the halogens yellowish tinge) although, if you prefer, the same bulbs are available in warm white. They are quite pricey - I estimated it would take about 3 to 4 years to recoup the cost (using one-fifth the elcetricity and lasting about 6 to 8 times longer) but they do give a nicer light than the halogens although take longer to reach full brightness. (Incidentally there are low energy bulbs to replace the old strip lights too, but for the cost, I would say it is better to replace the whole fitting for one - I recommend Eterna ones - that takes tri-phosphor low energy fluorescent tubes).
Barrie

 

[Bliam]

I think the low energy bulbs are definitely causing some people to use more energy
I had someone tell me they left their lights on 24/7 because they were so efficient that it required more energy to turn them off than to turn them on.