On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 11:18:05 +0100, Dave Liquorice wrote
(in article om):

On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 09:05:45 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:

Number one reason given for not using them was not fitting in
lampshades/lightfittings people want to use or already have.

Aye, it's not so bad now, CFL's are becoming available that are the same
size as GLS bulbs. Excess length was the normal problem.

They shot themselves in the foot by it being a different fitting.

Are we talking about the trails(?) previoulsy mentioned? That is fing
daft people will swap the fittings if they don't like 'em.

- Quality of the light

Again much improved in recent years.

- People are not that sensitive to the costs of running tungsten
lightbulbs.

Agreed, unless you do the maths you don't notice. I think most people
expect the big heating loads, kettle, cooker, hob etc contribute most to
the huge power bills. But 500W for 18hrs a day uses a lot of power...
ISTR that capital payback for 6 x 9W CFLs @ £8+ each was 6 months or so
in our lounge that was lit by 6 x 40W tungsten.

- People are sensitive to paying a great deal more for other bulbs
where they don't see the benefit.


The other aspect of all of this, apart from the lack of attractiveness
aesthetically and economically is that this has been introduced as a
mandatory thing in the Building Regulations for new houses.

I strongly object to that.

I have no problem with energy saving aspects such as cavity wall insulation
and reasonable amounts (up to 250mm) of loft insulation and also condensing
boilers.

These all have a demonstrable benefit in terms of energy saving, have an
effective lifetime of 15 years up to the final life of the house and do not
interfere with people's personal choices.

The whole thing with CFL lighting is a political nonsense.

- In comparison with the other methods of energy reduction, the amount
involved is significantly less

- Mandating X number of fittings that won't take other bulbs smacks of big
brother.

- The light quality is poor

- Customers are not given an incentive to use these things, but rather an
inconvenience.

If this were a serious activity as opposed to a window dressing exercise, a
complete set of these bulbs for a house, that would fit in standard fittings
would be supplied, with government subsidy.

The reality is that it is not, and the whole thing is in exactly the same
category as Part P. Legislation for the sake of it and political window
dressing.

I am fortunate not to have any of these lamps, but were I to purchase a new
house, one of the first tasks would be to consign them to the skip where they
belong and to replace them with lighting of my choice and not that of the
government.