On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 15:25:14 +0100, Timothy Murphy
wrote:

Derek ^ wrote:

and forgot to factor in the energy used in going round switching stuff
on and off all the time.

Or the diminution of the service life of the tubes, along with the
consequent below -par performance until they are replaced.

Surely energy-saving bulbs would last longer?


TBH it was energy saving bulbs I had in mind (I did mention tubes) .
Their life is shortened and light output diminished by more frequent
switching on and off.

The only filament lamps I have in the house are inside the oven,
microwave, fridge etc.

I must say, I was surprised to read somewhere
that 20% of electricity output is used in lighting.
That certainly suggests to me that wider use of energy-saving bulbs
would have a significant effect.

Around 1961 I was taken on a school trip around the local power
station. They told us they used up 10% of their own output internally,
mostly in lighting up the station yard and the coal heaps.

I would have thought governments should subsidize these bulbs,
if they are seriously interested in keeping their Kyoto promises.

Some of them are already dirt cheap. 2 for a pound

But they come from China where the cost of energy produced by burning
brown coal is a lot less than the UK, so that can not necessarily be
taken as an indication that they are really much better for the
environment.

Some low quality specimens have a very short life, this is very
wasteful of carbon use.

DG