On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 04:26:01 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, April 5, 2013 10:26:38 AM UTC+1, MM wrote:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 09:27:07 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

The one issue with hyour senario is that you have to factor in the less
efficiency of the filament bulbs into the costs, but as you are not
replacing all of them I'd definitely suggest the filament idea is the best.
Then when you replace the lights themselves in several years you can make a
decision depending on the technology of the day.

Exactly. And I may well be moving before the new filament bulb has
even done 4 years. Even if it packs up after 2 years, at 50p a pop
when buying a multipack from Amazon is as cheap as chips.
MM

Make that 50p plus all the electricity, which comes in at many times 50p. On economic grounds alone, CFLs are a no brainer.

If you only switch the lights on occasionally, you're going to use
practically no electricity anyway. It's not lights that cost the
money, but heating and cooking. Normally, I rarely use the front room,
but I've got my bed in there at the moment following an operation.
Normally, therefore, I'd hardly ever switch the lights on. The thought
of having a £3.60 bulb in there doing sweet FA most of the time
doesn't exactly enthrall me or my wallet. And that's only one of a
total of four bulbs, two in each of the wall fixtures. Not my choice.
It's what the builder fitted. Replacing *four* bulbs with the
newfangled ones would cost me £14.40 -- or just 2 quid using the
"old-fashioned" filament type. I expect Edison is already turning in
his grave over this kind of "progress".

MM