"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
.uk...
Mike Scott wrote:
I'm curious. "Low energy" bulbs are very much in the news - but how
much extra energy is expended in their manufacture compared to a
standard incandescent? I assume it's more - so is there a real net
/overall/ saving over the bulb life? If so, how much?

Assuming that low energy bulbs are more efficient & give off less heat for
a given amount of light, would you not have to replace that heat in order
to maintain the same room temperature?

Yes but
If your room needs heating, use a heater and put it where the heat needs to
be. It's madly inefficient to put a heater about 10 inches from the ceiling
(which is in effect what you are doing with incandescent bulbs). It's not as
though the 'heat' produced by the bulb is a minor part of the cost of
running such a bulb; for every 50p spent on a powering a standard 100W bulb
(probably the typical daily cost at this time of year), at least 37.5p goes
into heating; but your 37.5p would be much more efficective if spent
powering a 'proper' heater.

You pay 50p but only get 12.5p worth of light.
You can do far better spending your 37.5p on powering a proper heater.