Andy Hall wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 09:27:41 +0100, David Hansen wrote
(in article ):

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 06:39:18 +0100 someone who may be Helen Deborah
Vecht wrote this:-

Given my disabilities, I don't think I can replace my hall lamp fitting
for less than about £100.

How long would it take for me to recoup that expenditure? (Currently
120w, maybe 6 hours/day. New fitting maybe 20w or so) We are talking
several years if it saves 10p per day, aren't we?
Well, the difference is 100W and so in 10 hours you will save one
unit, say 10p. Assuming 300 days in a year, to compensate for your 6
hours rather than 10, that is a saving of thirty pounds a year. That
assumes no gear losses, something the manufacturers are somewhat
quiet about. As there are gear losses and they are not (AFAIK) in
the stated figures then your saving will reduce to say 20 pounds a
year.

What this shows is how worthwhile compact fluorescents are compared
to GLS bulbs, provided that they are a simple replacement.

No it doesn't. For six months of the year, the heat contribution within
the house means that the alleged saving is reduced to half.

If the appearance in the fitting and the quality of the light are
unacceptable then even that "financial incentive" makes the whole exercise of
using these things pointless.

The arguments are very unconvincing unless one has a greeny agenda.




For me the chief reason to go CFL has been to reduce the cost of
replacing bulbs. And sometimes the INCONVENIENCE.


With a supermarket bulb being something like 60p, and lasting in winter
less than three months, and generally being replaced twice a year
overall, thats £1.20 a year. A £5 CFL that least 5 years is worth it on
that basis alone.