On 2007-01-18 17:22:09 +0000, T i m said:

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 10:12:43 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

I haven't yet found any low energy lamps that I would entertain having
in the house. I find the light quality poor and colour rendition
obtained distinctly artificial looking and strange to the point of
having a bilious effect.

I wonder what makes someone dislike the above so much whilst others
can use them without any 'issues' Andy (genuine question).

I know it's a genuine question. The genuine answer is that I find the
light artificial and bilious.
The minor cost savings, if any, are therefore irrelevant and the energy
savings are not significant in the overall context of things that can
be done.



Our main living room is generally lit by one CFL laying on a bit of
foil on a high shelf. It's on a time switch, comes on at dusk (10 mins
after the electric curtains close) and off at 12:30 ish. That lamp
has been up there for *ages*. The main center light has a filament
lamp in it because I haven't found a suitable (sized) CFL replacement
yet.

Dusk to dawn 9W CFL's in the front and rear lobby (they illuminate
the entire hall / kitchen and seem *very* bright when we come down in
the night), CFL's in bathroom, toilet, landing, dining room, middle
bedroom, Daughters room. Our bed room still has filament for the same
reasons as below. Twin flouro's in the kitchen.

Bottom line, we switch them on, they light up, we do our thing, rarely
needing to supplement these lights with anything else.

Are we just 'coping', don't think so. Are we interested in style over
function or economy / environment (energy use / lamp life), no. Can't
remember anyone coming in and commenting how dark it is in here or
'isn't that light a funny coloured ... shrug.

When the 'fossils' do run out how will you cope with candle light or
yer solar charged LED light Andy ;-)

I don't buy into the argument that says that energy in the form of
electricity needs to be saved.

Replacing perfectly good technology in the form of tungsten lighting
which most people do seem to prefer
based on sales volumes really makes no sense; and when one learns that
there is government sponsored coercion in terms of forcing the issue
via building regulation, it is very clear that there is a rat.

If one were to say that use of fossil fuel were the *only* way to
produce electricity then that would
make it a discussion point.

Focus should be on alternative sources of supply for electricity such
as nuclear fission and ultimately fusion generation and improving the
technology around those further.

Instead of this, we are presented with a "no gain without pain"
argument which really holds no water at all; and which in effect, is
very similar to the ancient practice of self flagellation as atonement
for sin.

If people want to buy these things and use them and if it makes them
feel good, then that's fine. I don't feel about to follow suit
because I find the aesthetics poor and the technical and ecological
justifications questionable at best. As soon as the element of
government compulsion comes into the mix with these weak
justifications, I close the shutters.



Horses for courses though I guess.

All the best ..

T i m

p.s. I saw CFL based floodlight the other day .. I'm keeping my eye
out for one locally as the 300W flood lamp that covered the back
garden failed about 2 years ago ...

One exterior application is the only one that I have found as an
appropriate use for a CFL.

I have a lantern outside which illuminates an area where the dustbins
are stores. This is switched on only
when I need to go out after dark to put rubbish in the bins and is
switched off again afterwards. I don't care about the light quality
for that but it is inconvenient to access the lantern to change a
tungsten bulb.