In article ,
Huge writes:
On 2009-10-27, mark wrote:

"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...
I was in Dunelm today. By the checkouts, were rack upon rack of those
little pieces of the devil's work known as CFLs. A large sign at each rack
proclaimed "11W CFL 99p each or 5 for 50p".

My immediate thought was that some little work experience erk had got this
wrong, and it should have read "or 5 for 50p *each* ". But no, it was
correct. Buy one for 99p. Buy five for 10p each. Now I can accept that at
99p each, costs of manufacture, shipping, distribution, and everyone
making their cut, might juuuusssst about work, but at 10p, we're
talking plain ludicrous. I'm pretty sure that even if these things are
being slave-made in China by the million, 10p is only going to cover the
costs of the materials,


Arfa



I think it may be due to a predicted shortfall in electricity production 'v'
demand in years to come. If the government spends a few million pounds on
getting us to use low energy bulbs and insulate our houses etc., then the
need for new multi-billion pound power stations can be delayed for a few
years.
Just a theory.

It's not just a theory.
I refer you back to a longer article I wront 3 years ago...
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk....a4a9973c?hl=en

It's how the energy companies are satisfying their Government mandated targets
for reducing energy demand. IOW, not only are CFLs a con, but they're being
provided by gaming (ie conning) the scheme in the first place.

They've stopped posting out boxes of them, after some followup
research showed most of the recipients simply shoved them in
the cupboard and never used any of them, and next most common
was trying out just one and finding it was too dim, and shoving
it back in the cupboard with the rest of them, and households
who buy their light fittings from Ikea and don't have a single
bayonet cap lampholder in the house, and finally people who
couldn't get them to physically fit in their fittings.

Altogether, a stunning failure, but one which with even a tiny
little bit of better planning by someone with a clue (i.e. not
the government), could have worked much better.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]