"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Serge Auckland wrote:

Quite apart from the problems of disposing of old CFLs, I question the
whole
principle of Low Energy lighting. If you have a conventional bulb, much
of
the energy output is in the form of heat, which will help heat the room,
and
consequently will reduce the need for other heating, central or
otherwise.

That's sort of fine if you want extra heat. Often as not you don't.

If the central heating is on, then you are, by definition, needing extra
heat. The heat output from lighting will mean that the room thermostat (or
radiator valves) will turn off that bit sooner.

The other downside of your idea is that electricity is more costly than
other
heat sources (often by a large amount).

Agreed , but cost isn't part of my argument, energy usage is. The end to end
energy costs of low energy lighting, that is, the energy to make them, use
them and dispose of them compared with conventional filament lighting isn't
at all clear. I have not seen any such figures published, only for the
energy consumption in use, which is clearly lower, but again, the energy
re-use as heat doesn't seem to be taken into account in any calculation I've
seen..

No, that's no excuse for low efficiency lighting.

Graham

It's not an excuse, but to me the case isn't completely made. In my own
home, any light that is on for more than an hour a day is a low energy
light, but that's more an act of faith on my part rather than a soundly
calculated decision.

S.

--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com