Interesting mail/press item today which suggested that wholesale
changing to energy efficient lamps would save about the same/more as
all the windmills that we have (or could have?) Did they add in tidal,
too?

.... and their saving would be 24/7 not just when the wind blows.

Perhaps, it's not so sexy having to go to the shop and buy new lamps
:-)

Naffer

In message .com,
naffer writes
Interesting mail/press item today which suggested that wholesale
changing to energy efficient lamps would save about the same/more as
all the windmills that we have (or could have?) Did they add in tidal,
too?

... and their saving would be 24/7 not just when the wind blows.

Perhaps, it's not so sexy having to go to the shop and buy new lamps

er.. they are only going to *save* energy when you need them switched
on.

I suspect there is some doubtful thinking when a government minister
pontificates about how many power stations could be switched off if only
we would stop leaving electronic equipment on standby. I'll bet they
have forgotten that energy *wasted* is actually reducing space heating
requirements during the Winter.

regards

--
Tim Lamb

On 30 Jun 2006 15:01:12 -0700, wrote:



and forgot to factor in the energy used in going round switching stuff
on and off all the time.

Or the diminution of the service life of the tubes, along with the
consequent below -par performance until they are replaced.

DG

In message , Tim Lamb
writes
In message .com,
naffer writes
Interesting mail/press item today which suggested that wholesale
changing to energy efficient lamps would save about the same/more as
all the windmills that we have (or could have?) Did they add in tidal,
too?

... and their saving would be 24/7 not just when the wind blows.

Perhaps, it's not so sexy having to go to the shop and buy new lamps

er.. they are only going to *save* energy when you need them switched
on.

I suspect there is some doubtful thinking when a government minister
pontificates about how many power stations could be switched off if
only we would stop leaving electronic equipment on standby. I'll bet
they have forgotten that energy *wasted* is actually reducing space
heating requirements during the Winter.

And then when someone suggests that shops shouldn't keep their lights on
all night, they get attacked as it "reduces their competitive edge"

Don't get me started on office blocks


--
geoff

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 22:47:15 +0100 Tim Lamb wrote :
I suspect there is some doubtful thinking when a government minister
pontificates about how many power stations could be switched off if only
we would stop leaving electronic equipment on standby. I'll bet they
have forgotten that energy *wasted* is actually reducing space heating
requirements during the Winter.

It is, but for a lot of the time you don't have the heating on, and,
secondly, heat from electricity is reckoned to create twice the CO2 per kWh
that mains gas does.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 23:27:30 GMT, raden wrote:



And then when someone suggests that shops shouldn't keep their lights on
all night, they get attacked as it "reduces their competitive edge"

Don't get me started on office blocks

Is that a challenge ;-)

I noticed nowadays some have the lights on 24/24 7/7,
before the building is even finished and completely unfurnished.

You can see straight through the empty floors. :-(

DG

Tony Bryer wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 22:47:15 +0100 Tim Lamb wrote :
I suspect there is some doubtful thinking when a government minister
pontificates about how many power stations could be switched off if only
we would stop leaving electronic equipment on standby. I'll bet they
have forgotten that energy *wasted* is actually reducing space heating
requirements during the Winter.

It is, but for a lot of the time you don't have the heating on, and,
secondly, heat from electricity is reckoned to create twice the CO2 per kWh
that mains gas does.

I had to smile at the "scientific" figures given on energy savings by a
well know presenter at the end of his recent series. It was like:
If you do this you will save 30%, if you do that you will save 20% and
so on. What was obvious was that each % given was the saving on your
original energy consumption, as soon as you moved to 2nd option the
saving would be lower as you would no longer be using as much energy.
Of course they also took off the biggest first. You will note that when
retailers give 2 discounts, say 20% then 10% the 10% is off the reduced
not original price.

Derek ^ wrote:

and forgot to factor in the energy used in going round switching stuff
on and off all the time.

Or the diminution of the service life of the tubes, along with the
consequent below -par performance until they are replaced.

Surely energy-saving bulbs would last longer?

I must say, I was surprised to read somewhere
that 20% of electricity output is used in lighting.
That certainly suggests to me that wider use of energy-saving bulbs
would have a significant effect.

I would have thought governments should subsidize these bulbs,
if they are seriously interested in keeping their Kyoto promises.

--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail (80k only): tim /at/ birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

Timothy Murphy wrote:
Derek ^ wrote:

and forgot to factor in the energy used in going round switching stuff
on and off all the time.
Or the diminution of the service life of the tubes, along with the
consequent below -par performance until they are replaced.

Surely energy-saving bulbs would last longer?

I must say, I was surprised to read somewhere
that 20% of electricity output is used in lighting.
That certainly suggests to me that wider use of energy-saving bulbs
would have a significant effect.


As would simply eliminating 90% of street lights and all the other light
pollution.


I would have thought governments should subsidize these bulbs,
if they are seriously interested in keeping their Kyoto promises.

In message , Tony Bryer
writes
On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 22:47:15 +0100 Tim Lamb wrote :
I suspect there is some doubtful thinking when a government minister
pontificates about how many power stations could be switched off if only
we would stop leaving electronic equipment on standby. I'll bet they
have forgotten that energy *wasted* is actually reducing space heating
requirements during the Winter.

It is, but for a lot of the time you don't have the heating on, and,
secondly, heat from electricity is reckoned to create twice the CO2 per kWh
that mains gas does.

Right. You are tightening up on factual precision but failing to make
good sound bites for politicians. You could include *no standby waste*
when kit is in use.

If they were serious surely legislation could prohibit the sale of
equipment fitted with standby mode. Otherwise it is waste verbiage.

regards
--
Tim Lamb

In message , Broadback
writes
Tony Bryer wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 22:47:15 +0100 Tim Lamb wrote :
I suspect there is some doubtful thinking when a government minister
pontificates about how many power stations could be switched off if
only we would stop leaving electronic equipment on standby. I'll bet
they have forgotten that energy *wasted* is actually reducing space
heating requirements during the Winter.
It is, but for a lot of the time you don't have the heating on, and,
secondly, heat from electricity is reckoned to create twice the CO2
per kWh that mains gas does.
I had to smile at the "scientific" figures given on energy savings by a
well know presenter at the end of his recent series. It was like:
If you do this you will save 30%, if you do that you will save 20% and
so on. What was obvious was that each % given was the saving on your
original energy consumption, as soon as you moved to 2nd option the
saving would be lower as you would no longer be using as much energy.
Of course they also took off the biggest first. You will note that
when retailers give 2 discounts, say 20% then 10% the 10% is off the
reduced not original price.

Digressing even further.... I hate mixed statistics in the news media
such as *targeted saving of 10%* led to a reduction of 53! Unless you
know the original number or what %age 53 represents, the statement is
meaningless.

regards
--
Tim Lamb

On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 10:48:36 +0100, Tim Lamb wrote:

If they were serious surely legislation could prohibit the sale of
equipment fitted with standby mode.

Then lots more stuff would be left fully on... They ought to insist that
*everything* goes to standby after say 3hrs of "no use". I doubt that
many videos, set top boxes, TV's, computer systems etc that are actually
in use don't get some user input every 3 hrs or less.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

wrote:

I would have thought governments should subsidize these bulbs,
if they are seriously interested in keeping their Kyoto promises.

So they take our money then reduce the cost of the light bulbs to us
with it. How handy. Dont forget all that wasted paperwork, regulation,
accounting and so on - they'd end up costing us more not less. The
price ticket would be less but we'd pay more than the difference in
other taxes, so we'd pay more overall.

This seems to me absurdly pessimistic.
Governments have promised (in effect) to reduce energy consumption,
so it is up to them to work out how to do it.
This seems to me a very simple way to make a non-negligible impact.

At the minimum, VAT could be removed on energy-saving bulbs.
Also, the government could insist on energy-saving bulbs being used
in institutions it controls or has influence over.


--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail (80k only): tim /at/ birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

Timothy Murphy wrote:
wrote:

I would have thought governments should subsidize these bulbs,
if they are seriously interested in keeping their Kyoto promises.

So they take our money then reduce the cost of the light bulbs to us
with it. How handy. Dont forget all that wasted paperwork, regulation,
accounting and so on - they'd end up costing us more not less. The
price ticket would be less but we'd pay more than the difference in
other taxes, so we'd pay more overall.

This seems to me absurdly pessimistic.

I agree there are other approaches, but any price subsidy only costs us
more not less. Why folks arent taught that at age 8 I dont know.


Governments have promised (in effect) to reduce energy consumption,
so it is up to them to work out how to do it.
This seems to me a very simple way to make a non-negligible impact.

At the minimum, VAT could be removed on energy-saving bulbs.
Also, the government could insist on energy-saving bulbs being used
in institutions it controls or has influence over.

The problem with this government, and the British people, is they seem
to think that forcing others to do things they wont themselves is the
way to go. It seems obvious there are at least 2 problems with this
model. Taxing filament bulbs would be a better option, and still leaves
everyone the optoin of doing as they choose instead of being
frogmarched by the semi-competents that think they know best and think
they have some kind of mandate to force us to live by their half baked
rules. Like part P. And the same will be happening to plumbing and gas
soon.


NT

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 10:48:36 +0100, Tim Lamb wrote:

If they were serious surely legislation could prohibit the sale of
equipment fitted with standby mode.

Then lots more stuff would be left fully on... They ought to insist that
*everything* goes to standby after say 3hrs of "no use". I doubt that
many videos, set top boxes, TV's, computer systems etc that are actually
in use don't get some user input every 3 hrs or less.

Tryng to force everyone into one-third-considered solutions is no
solution. Thats the kind of thinking that brought us part P.

A better solution would be to require info tags for new electrical
goods. These would state the annual use cost with stated conditions so
buyers suddenly have an incentive to buy more efficient goods. They
could also state estimated product life, though there would inevitably
be argument there. Items with tags saying 'no information' would be
permitted, but this is effectively admitting the worst, so many mfrs
would want to rate and declare their goods.

Since tag information is all optional, you can still buy whatever you
want if you like. It will create a market for energy efficiency. And
importantly, it avoids forcing a hypothesised and expensive solution on
everyone, it allows manufacturers, sellers and buyers to say no to the
scheme, it allows for the scheme to not work if thats how it turns out
without a load of new costs and obligations being lumbered on everyone.


NT

On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 15:25:14 +0100, Timothy Murphy
wrote:

Derek ^ wrote:

and forgot to factor in the energy used in going round switching stuff
on and off all the time.

Or the diminution of the service life of the tubes, along with the
consequent below -par performance until they are replaced.

Surely energy-saving bulbs would last longer?


TBH it was energy saving bulbs I had in mind (I did mention tubes) .
Their life is shortened and light output diminished by more frequent
switching on and off.

The only filament lamps I have in the house are inside the oven,
microwave, fridge etc.

I must say, I was surprised to read somewhere
that 20% of electricity output is used in lighting.
That certainly suggests to me that wider use of energy-saving bulbs
would have a significant effect.

Around 1961 I was taken on a school trip around the local power
station. They told us they used up 10% of their own output internally,
mostly in lighting up the station yard and the coal heaps.

I would have thought governments should subsidize these bulbs,
if they are seriously interested in keeping their Kyoto promises.

Some of them are already dirt cheap. 2 for a pound

But they come from China where the cost of energy produced by burning
brown coal is a lot less than the UK, so that can not necessarily be
taken as an indication that they are really much better for the
environment.

Some low quality specimens have a very short life, this is very
wasteful of carbon use.

DG

On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 16:55:13 +0100 Timothy Murphy wrote :
This seems to me absurdly pessimistic.
Governments have promised (in effect) to reduce energy consumption,
so it is up to them to work out how to do it.
This seems to me a very simple way to make a non-negligible impact.

You can't make people reduce their electricity usage: "Up to 3 low
energy lamp fittings had been specified in the original proposals for
the dwellings in the sample. The fittings had generally been installed
in hallways, landings and some bedrooms, but few remained in the
completed and occupied dwellings. Most had been removed by the
occupants, and occupants expressed their intention to replace soon
those few that remained." BRE Survey 2004

http://www.est.org.uk/uploads/docume...ort_Oct_04.pdf
(PDF)

At the minimum, VAT could be removed on energy-saving bulbs.

That will only make a difference if the selling price reflects the
cost of production rather than being based on an assessment of what
the market will bear,

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

Tony Bryer wrote:
On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 16:55:13 +0100 Timothy Murphy wrote :

At the minimum, VAT could be removed on energy-saving bulbs.

That will only make a difference if the selling price reflects the
cost of production rather than being based on an assessment of what
the market will bear,

I also think it would be too little difference to sway anyone. So heres
another scheme to increase cfl use - this work by addressing the
problem:

create a British standard (voluntary) for cfl lamps that meet all the
following criteria:

CCT = 2700k
CRI = / 85% - exact number open to discussoin but must be good
quality, there are too many that arent
Stated equivalent wattage figure is realistic (almost none today are)
Total ownership cost is under half that of filament bulbs (rules out
overpriced)
Tip to base dimension printed on package or bulb
Mean Life / 5000 hrs

Why? There are good cfls, not very good ones and bad. Most people dont
even know theres any difference. This BS mark on a bulb would ensure
its a quality one.


NT

In article ,
Tony Bryer writes:
You can't make people reduce their electricity usage: "Up to 3 low
energy lamp fittings had been specified in the original proposals for
the dwellings in the sample. The fittings had generally been installed
in hallways, landings and some bedrooms, but few remained in the
completed and occupied dwellings. Most had been removed by the
occupants, and occupants expressed their intention to replace soon
those few that remained." BRE Survey 2004

I found an EU survey on adoption a year or so back, which
broadly agreed. Number one reason given for not using them
was not fitting in lampshades/lightfittings people want to
use or already have.

That will only make a difference if the selling price reflects the
cost of production rather than being based on an assessment of what
the market will bear,

Not helped by the EU slapping import duty on them, so price has
stayed artificially high in the EU for some time (not sure if
this is still the case, as I've seen cheaper ones recently).

--
Andrew Gabriel

On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 12:17:58 +0100, Derek ^
wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 23:27:30 GMT, raden wrote:



And then when someone suggests that shops shouldn't keep their lights on
all night, they get attacked as it "reduces their competitive edge"

Don't get me started on office blocks

Is that a challenge ;-)

I noticed nowadays some have the lights on 24/24 7/7,
before the building is even finished and completely unfurnished.

And all the computers on.

You can see straight through the empty floors. :-(

DG

On 02 Jul 2006 23:13:10 GMT someone who may be
(Andrew Gabriel) wrote this:-

I found an EU survey on adoption a year or so back, which
broadly agreed. Number one reason given for not using them
was not fitting in lampshades/lightfittings people want to
use or already have.

Lamps like the following are much the same size as GLS lamps
http://www.lightbulbs-direct.com/pro....asp?ProdID=75

There are also candle bulbs and spotlights
http://www.lightbulbs-direct.com/pro...asp?ProdID=105
http://www.lightbulbs-direct.com/var...l.asp?var=3680

In the past energy saving lamps would not fit in some fittings, but
I doubt if there are many such fittings now. I recently helped a
member of the family fit them in bulkhead lights which wouldn't take
any styles of compact fluorescent bulbs before.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 00:13:10 +0100, Andrew Gabriel wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Tony Bryer writes:
You can't make people reduce their electricity usage: "Up to 3 low
energy lamp fittings had been specified in the original proposals for
the dwellings in the sample. The fittings had generally been installed
in hallways, landings and some bedrooms, but few remained in the
completed and occupied dwellings. Most had been removed by the
occupants, and occupants expressed their intention to replace soon
those few that remained." BRE Survey 2004

I found an EU survey on adoption a year or so back, which
broadly agreed. Number one reason given for not using them
was not fitting in lampshades/lightfittings people want to
use or already have.

One can add a number of additional things to this:

- People don't like being dictated to by the government that they should have
a particular kind of lighting in their house. They shot themselves in the
foot by it being a different fitting.

- Quality of the light

- People are not that sensitive to the costs of running tungsten lightbulbs.

- People are sensitive to paying a great deal more for other bulbs where they
don't see the benefit.





That will only make a difference if the selling price reflects the
cost of production rather than being based on an assessment of what
the market will bear,

Not helped by the EU slapping import duty on them, so price has
stayed artificially high in the EU for some time (not sure if
this is still the case, as I've seen cheaper ones recently).



66.1%. This is an anti-dumping duty in respect of PRC.

On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 09:05:45 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:

Number one reason given for not using them was not fitting in
lampshades/lightfittings people want to use or already have.

Aye, it's not so bad now, CFL's are becoming available that are the same
size as GLS bulbs. Excess length was the normal problem.

They shot themselves in the foot by it being a different fitting.

Are we talking about the trails(?) previoulsy mentioned? That is fing
daft people will swap the fittings if they don't like 'em.

- Quality of the light

Again much improved in recent years.

- People are not that sensitive to the costs of running tungsten
lightbulbs.

Agreed, unless you do the maths you don't notice. I think most people
expect the big heating loads, kettle, cooker, hob etc contribute most to
the huge power bills. But 500W for 18hrs a day uses a lot of power...
ISTR that capital payback for 6 x 9W CFLs @ £8+ each was 6 months or so
in our lounge that was lit by 6 x 40W tungsten.

- People are sensitive to paying a great deal more for other bulbs
where they don't see the benefit.

Some very cheap ones are appearing, 99p BOGOF in Morrisons branded
Phillips as well not own brand or no brand.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

Andy Hall wrote:
On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 00:13:10 +0100, Andrew Gabriel wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Tony Bryer writes:
You can't make people reduce their electricity usage: "Up to 3 low
energy lamp fittings had been specified in the original proposals for
the dwellings in the sample. The fittings had generally been installed
in hallways, landings and some bedrooms, but few remained in the
completed and occupied dwellings. Most had been removed by the
occupants, and occupants expressed their intention to replace soon
those few that remained." BRE Survey 2004
I found an EU survey on adoption a year or so back, which
broadly agreed. Number one reason given for not using them
was not fitting in lampshades/lightfittings people want to
use or already have.

One can add a number of additional things to this:

- People don't like being dictated to by the government that they should have
a particular kind of lighting in their house. They shot themselves in the
foot by it being a different fitting.

- Quality of the light

- People are not that sensitive to the costs of running tungsten lightbulbs.

- People are sensitive to paying a great deal more for other bulbs where they
don't see the benefit.




The benefit of CFL's appears in about tow years when you realise they
actually do have the sort of life claimed for them.

Irrespective of electricity costs.

Wjat IO find more amusing is that cry that yo will save megawatts by
boiling half a kettle. Or reepalcing bulbs.

In fact, all that happens is you burn more oil/gas to heat the
house..the stray heat from lights and cookers is a significant
contributor to house heating.

Although its true that oil burn in a boiler nets you about 60%
efficiency, so does oil burnt in a power station, and 25% of electricity
comes from nuclear...the only thing one can say about CFL lghts is they
will save you money. Oil is cheaper than electricity...Their impact on
the actual carbon figures at first glance would appear to be absolutely
zero.



That will only make a difference if the selling price reflects the
cost of production rather than being based on an assessment of what
the market will bear,
Not helped by the EU slapping import duty on them, so price has
stayed artificially high in the EU for some time (not sure if
this is still the case, as I've seen cheaper ones recently).



66.1%. This is an anti-dumping duty in respect of PRC.

On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 11:18:05 +0100, Dave Liquorice wrote
(in article om):

On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 09:05:45 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:

Number one reason given for not using them was not fitting in
lampshades/lightfittings people want to use or already have.

Aye, it's not so bad now, CFL's are becoming available that are the same
size as GLS bulbs. Excess length was the normal problem.

They shot themselves in the foot by it being a different fitting.

Are we talking about the trails(?) previoulsy mentioned? That is fing
daft people will swap the fittings if they don't like 'em.

- Quality of the light

Again much improved in recent years.

- People are not that sensitive to the costs of running tungsten
lightbulbs.

Agreed, unless you do the maths you don't notice. I think most people
expect the big heating loads, kettle, cooker, hob etc contribute most to
the huge power bills. But 500W for 18hrs a day uses a lot of power...
ISTR that capital payback for 6 x 9W CFLs @ £8+ each was 6 months or so
in our lounge that was lit by 6 x 40W tungsten.

- People are sensitive to paying a great deal more for other bulbs
where they don't see the benefit.


The other aspect of all of this, apart from the lack of attractiveness
aesthetically and economically is that this has been introduced as a
mandatory thing in the Building Regulations for new houses.

I strongly object to that.

I have no problem with energy saving aspects such as cavity wall insulation
and reasonable amounts (up to 250mm) of loft insulation and also condensing
boilers.

These all have a demonstrable benefit in terms of energy saving, have an
effective lifetime of 15 years up to the final life of the house and do not
interfere with people's personal choices.

The whole thing with CFL lighting is a political nonsense.

- In comparison with the other methods of energy reduction, the amount
involved is significantly less

- Mandating X number of fittings that won't take other bulbs smacks of big
brother.

- The light quality is poor

- Customers are not given an incentive to use these things, but rather an
inconvenience.

If this were a serious activity as opposed to a window dressing exercise, a
complete set of these bulbs for a house, that would fit in standard fittings
would be supplied, with government subsidy.

The reality is that it is not, and the whole thing is in exactly the same
category as Part P. Legislation for the sake of it and political window
dressing.

I am fortunate not to have any of these lamps, but were I to purchase a new
house, one of the first tasks would be to consign them to the skip where they
belong and to replace them with lighting of my choice and not that of the
government.

On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 15:50:26 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote
(in article ):

Andy Hall wrote:
On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 00:13:10 +0100, Andrew Gabriel wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Tony Bryer writes:
You can't make people reduce their electricity usage: "Up to 3 low
energy lamp fittings had been specified in the original proposals for
the dwellings in the sample. The fittings had generally been installed
in hallways, landings and some bedrooms, but few remained in the
completed and occupied dwellings. Most had been removed by the
occupants, and occupants expressed their intention to replace soon
those few that remained." BRE Survey 2004
I found an EU survey on adoption a year or so back, which
broadly agreed. Number one reason given for not using them
was not fitting in lampshades/lightfittings people want to
use or already have.

One can add a number of additional things to this:

- People don't like being dictated to by the government that they should
have
a particular kind of lighting in their house. They shot themselves in the
foot by it being a different fitting.

- Quality of the light

- People are not that sensitive to the costs of running tungsten lightbulbs.

- People are sensitive to paying a great deal more for other bulbs where
they
don't see the benefit.




The benefit of CFL's appears in about tow years when you realise they
actually do have the sort of life claimed for them.

Irrespective of electricity costs.

Wjat IO find more amusing is that cry that yo will save megawatts by
boiling half a kettle. Or reepalcing bulbs.

In fact, all that happens is you burn more oil/gas to heat the
house..the stray heat from lights and cookers is a significant
contributor to house heating.

Although its true that oil burn in a boiler nets you about 60%
efficiency, so does oil burnt in a power station, and 25% of electricity
comes from nuclear...the only thing one can say about CFL lghts is they
will save you money. Oil is cheaper than electricity...Their impact on
the actual carbon figures at first glance would appear to be absolutely
zero.



Right.

Of course the impact is asymptotic to zero.

So the obvious solution to the problem is to invest in nuclear power
generation and then the issue doesn't matter.

The message
from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:

The benefit of CFL's appears in about tow years when you realise they
actually do have the sort of life claimed for them.

Mostly. Except for a while Ikea sold CFLs that died after about a year.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

In article ,
David Hansen writes:
On 02 Jul 2006 23:13:10 GMT someone who may be
(Andrew Gabriel) wrote this:-

I found an EU survey on adoption a year or so back, which
broadly agreed. Number one reason given for not using them
was not fitting in lampshades/lightfittings people want to
use or already have.

Lamps like the following are much the same size as GLS lamps
http://www.lightbulbs-direct.com/pro....asp?ProdID=75

Unfortunately not. All those are longer than an old GLS bulb,
the 20W one (nearest to 100W equivalent output) is an inch
longer (and there would be even more size difference between
the newer smaller size GLS bulbs now being used).

There are also candle bulbs and spotlights
http://www.lightbulbs-direct.com/pro...asp?ProdID=105
http://www.lightbulbs-direct.com/var...l.asp?var=3680

In the past energy saving lamps would not fit in some fittings, but
I doubt if there are many such fittings now. I recently helped a
member of the family fit them in bulkhead lights which wouldn't take
any styles of compact fluorescent bulbs before.

I tried going round my parent's house, but a significant number
of the fittings won't take equivalent light output CFLs, only
much lower output ones.

--
Andrew Gabriel

The message
from Broadback contains these words:

I had to smile at the "scientific" figures given on energy savings by a
well know presenter at the end of his recent series. It was like:
If you do this you will save 30%, if you do that you will save 20% and
so on. What was obvious was that each % given was the saving on your
original energy consumption, as soon as you moved to 2nd option the
saving would be lower as you would no longer be using as much energy.
Of course they also took off the biggest first. You will note that when
retailers give 2 discounts, say 20% then 10% the 10% is off the reduced
not original price.

It doesn't matter which discount you take off first.

100 100
-20 -10
80 90
-8 -18
72 72

However it doesn't necessary follow that with heating savings the 2nd
saving will operate on the reduced amount. If you get a saving of 10% by
fitting double glazing and 20% by cavity wall insulation you will have
an overall saving of 30%, not 28%. OTOH the saving claimed for turning
the thermostat down (3% per degree?) does operate at the current
insulation level and can't come anywhere in the calculation but last.

--
Roger Chapman

In article ,
Andy Hall writes:
On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 00:13:10 +0100, Andrew Gabriel wrote
(in article ):
I found an EU survey on adoption a year or so back, which
broadly agreed. Number one reason given for not using them
was not fitting in lampshades/lightfittings people want to
use or already have.

One can add a number of additional things to this:

- People don't like being dictated to by the government that they should have
a particular kind of lighting in their house. They shot themselves in the
foot by it being a different fitting.

If there was actually a good range of home fittings which took
remote ballasted compact fluorescents, it might have worked.
However, there are none. (The EU survey was specifically looking
at retrofit integral ballasted CFLs though, without changing
light fittings.)

- Quality of the light

The low initial output and run-up time is always very high on
the list of complaints about compact fluorescents. Light output
being below the claimed tungsten equivalent also comes moderately
high up the list, and is often given as a reason for someone
having tried one once, and decided not to use them. (This is
why I always say ignore the claimed equivalent power on the box,
and just multiply by 4 to get tungsten equivalent.)

People not liking the colour in the way you describe is not
something I've ever seen any complaints about in consumer
feedback. There are a small number of complaints that much higher
CCT lamps are not easily available (which would emphasise the
features you dislike).

- People are not that sensitive to the costs of running tungsten lightbulbs.

Indeed, and they are completely horrified when you point out how
much it costs to run a room full of halogen downlighters.

- People are sensitive to paying a great deal more for other bulbs where they
don't see the benefit.

There are some good quality ones available for 50p now, so this
really shouldn't be an issue.

--
Andrew Gabriel

The message
from Roger contains these words:

It doesn't matter which discount you take off first.

100 100
-20 -10
80 90
-8 -18
72 72

8% of 80 isn't 8 so the answer isn't 72. 18% of 90 isn't 18 - so the
answer isn't 72 in the left column either.

If you're going to demonstrate it properly you need to choose two
percentages - like 20% and 8% and apply them properly.

Start with 100.

20% of 100 = 20, leaving 80. 8% of 80 = 6.4%, leaving 73.6

8% of 100 - 8, leaving 92. 8% of 92 = 7.36, leaving 84.64

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

The message
from Guy King contains these words:

If you're going to demonstrate it properly you need to choose two
percentages - like 20% and 8% and apply them properly.

Ooops, after I'd read the rest of the post I decided not to post that -
but it's still slipped out!

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 19:49:24 +0100, Andrew Gabriel wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Andy Hall writes:
On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 00:13:10 +0100, Andrew Gabriel wrote
(in article ):
I found an EU survey on adoption a year or so back, which
broadly agreed. Number one reason given for not using them
was not fitting in lampshades/lightfittings people want to
use or already have.

One can add a number of additional things to this:

- People don't like being dictated to by the government that they should
have
a particular kind of lighting in their house. They shot themselves in the
foot by it being a different fitting.

If there was actually a good range of home fittings which took
remote ballasted compact fluorescents, it might have worked.

That would have been more reasonable in that the ballasts could be located in
equivalent positions to those used for SMPS supplies for tungsten halogen.
However, I wonder about the RFI in a scenario like that.


However, there are none. (The EU survey was specifically looking
at retrofit integral ballasted CFLs though, without changing
light fittings.)

- Quality of the light

The low initial output and run-up time is always very high on
the list of complaints about compact fluorescents. Light output
being below the claimed tungsten equivalent also comes moderately
high up the list, and is often given as a reason for someone
having tried one once, and decided not to use them. (This is
why I always say ignore the claimed equivalent power on the box,
and just multiply by 4 to get tungsten equivalent.)

the trouble is that it takes a very long time to get over poor first
impressions, especially when the promoters try to pretend that functionality
and aesthetics are the same. If there had been more honesty it might have
been a different story.




People not liking the colour in the way you describe is not
something I've ever seen any complaints about in consumer
feedback. There are a small number of complaints that much higher
CCT lamps are not easily available (which would emphasise the
features you dislike).

- People are not that sensitive to the costs of running tungsten lightbulbs.

Indeed, and they are completely horrified when you point out how
much it costs to run a room full of halogen downlighters.

That depends on how they are used and they are dimmable.



- People are sensitive to paying a great deal more for other bulbs where
they
don't see the benefit.

There are some good quality ones available for 50p now, so this
really shouldn't be an issue.



Too late. Now buying habits will need to change and it will take a lot of
time for that to happen.

On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 18:12:18 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:

I am fortunate not to have any of these lamps, but were I to purchase a
new house, one of the first tasks would be to consign them to the skip
where they belong and to replace them with lighting of my choice and
not that of the government.

You and me both. What a fing stupid way to go about things. Mind you if I
was to buy a new house it would be built to my spec and with my choice of
fittings. Or do I take it that unless you use specific fittings (instead
of "normal" ones with CFLs) you won't get past building inspection?

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 20:52:37 +0100, Owain wrote
(in article ):

Andy Hall wrote:
I am fortunate not to have any of these lamps, but were I to purchase a new
house, one of the first tasks would be to consign them to the skip where
they
belong

Please freecycle them in my direction :-)

Ah but would you want all the glass and mercury?


I have a much better recycling story. I decided that I wanted to have
some water storage for plant watering. I didn't want one of these plastic
tolies, so found a supplier of "second user" oak barrels. What a find.
There was still a good 2-3 litres of an attractive smelling amber liquid in
the bottom. I poured it out and filtered it, saving it for future
investigation.


and to replace them with lighting of my choice and not that of the
government.

I have CFLs in practically everything, because the appalling design of
this place means I have scarcely any natural light and have to use
electric 16 hours a day even in midsummer. :-(


I did suggest not leaving gogledd Cymru........

At least the natives are friendly....

On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 22:09:02 +0100, Dave Liquorice wrote
(in article om):

On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 18:12:18 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:

I am fortunate not to have any of these lamps, but were I to purchase a
new house, one of the first tasks would be to consign them to the skip
where they belong and to replace them with lighting of my choice and
not that of the government.

You and me both. What a fing stupid way to go about things. Mind you if I
was to buy a new house it would be built to my spec and with my choice of
fittings. Or do I take it that unless you use specific fittings (instead
of "normal" ones with CFLs) you won't get past building inspection?



I think that you wouldn't. The solution, however, is to simply rip them out
after completion.

This strikes me as a very similar game to one concerning food storage a few
decades ago. My parents bought a house in the days when building society
managers sat on the right hand of God and customers inhabited the primordial
ooze.

Not having anything of moment to criticise in the valuation survey, the
lender insisted that the house be equipped with a ventilated meat safe. We
had had a fridge for over ten years at that point but it didn't make any
difference. We bought an old cupboard for five shiilings from a
government surplus place and drilled some holes in it. Some galvanised
mesh was duly fixed inside.

A letter was written to the building society confirming the safe. A
further survey was made although they didn't have the balls to charge for it.

Two days after completion, the cupboard went into the shed where it was used
to store paint etc.

However, justice has been done. Said building society has since been
acquired by a foreign bank who have gone through it with a hatchet (or
perhaps a machete).

There is a limit to how much those in power for one reason or another should
interfere in people's lives. Both examples were overstepping the mark so
hopefully what goes around will come around....

The message
from Guy King contains these words:

It doesn't matter which discount you take off first.

100 100
-20 -10
80 90
-8 -18
72 72

8% of 80 isn't 8 so the answer isn't 72. 18% of 90 isn't 18 - so the
answer isn't 72 in the left column either.

It is (or was) a convention on Usnet to selectively snip and leave in
the relevant part of the previous post which, in this case, was that the
two percentages were 20% and 10%. 10% of 80 is indeed 8 and 20% 0f 90 is
18.

If you're going to demonstrate it properly you need to choose two
percentages - like 20% and 8% and apply them properly.

QED.

--
Roger Chapman

Andy Hall wrote:
On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 15:50:26 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote
(in article ):

Andy Hall wrote:
On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 00:13:10 +0100, Andrew Gabriel wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Tony Bryer writes:
You can't make people reduce their electricity usage: "Up to 3 low
energy lamp fittings had been specified in the original proposals for
the dwellings in the sample. The fittings had generally been installed
in hallways, landings and some bedrooms, but few remained in the
completed and occupied dwellings. Most had been removed by the
occupants, and occupants expressed their intention to replace soon
those few that remained." BRE Survey 2004
I found an EU survey on adoption a year or so back, which
broadly agreed. Number one reason given for not using them
was not fitting in lampshades/lightfittings people want to
use or already have.
One can add a number of additional things to this:

- People don't like being dictated to by the government that they should
have
a particular kind of lighting in their house. They shot themselves in the
foot by it being a different fitting.

- Quality of the light

- People are not that sensitive to the costs of running tungsten lightbulbs.

- People are sensitive to paying a great deal more for other bulbs where
they
don't see the benefit.



The benefit of CFL's appears in about tow years when you realise they
actually do have the sort of life claimed for them.

Irrespective of electricity costs.

Wjat IO find more amusing is that cry that yo will save megawatts by
boiling half a kettle. Or reepalcing bulbs.

In fact, all that happens is you burn more oil/gas to heat the
house..the stray heat from lights and cookers is a significant
contributor to house heating.

Although its true that oil burn in a boiler nets you about 60%
efficiency, so does oil burnt in a power station, and 25% of electricity
comes from nuclear...the only thing one can say about CFL lghts is they
will save you money. Oil is cheaper than electricity...Their impact on
the actual carbon figures at first glance would appear to be absolutely
zero.



Right.

Of course the impact is asymptotic to zero.

So the obvious solution to the problem is to invest in nuclear power
generation and then the issue doesn't matter.



Well, that is in fact one possible solution, yes.

You then have a pollution that takes only 65000 years to go away rather
than the 5 million it has taken to reduce atmospheric CO2 down to the
levels it was last century, from the level it will be at shortly..and
whose actual toxicity in terms of lives lost is far far lower than the
drilling and mining industry, and whose global effects at best are
confined even in the worst case scenario.

However expecting that people will actually work out that Nuclear is far
far less polluting than a nice friendly gas fire is actually too much to
hope for.

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
David Hansen writes:
On 02 Jul 2006 23:13:10 GMT someone who may be
(Andrew Gabriel) wrote this:-

I found an EU survey on adoption a year or so back, which
broadly agreed. Number one reason given for not using them
was not fitting in lampshades/lightfittings people want to
use or already have.
Lamps like the following are much the same size as GLS lamps
http://www.lightbulbs-direct.com/pro....asp?ProdID=75

Unfortunately not. All those are longer than an old GLS bulb,
the 20W one (nearest to 100W equivalent output) is an inch
longer (and there would be even more size difference between
the newer smaller size GLS bulbs now being used).

There are also candle bulbs and spotlights
http://www.lightbulbs-direct.com/pro...asp?ProdID=105
http://www.lightbulbs-direct.com/var...l.asp?var=3680

In the past energy saving lamps would not fit in some fittings, but
I doubt if there are many such fittings now. I recently helped a
member of the family fit them in bulkhead lights which wouldn't take
any styles of compact fluorescent bulbs before.

I tried going round my parent's house, but a significant number
of the fittings won't take equivalent light output CFLs, only
much lower output ones.

Why?

I can get 100W equvalent CFLS in the same size as a 100W light bulb..?

On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 22:37:12 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:

I think that you wouldn't. The solution, however, is to simply rip
them out after completion.

Aye, and there by wasting all the energy consumed in their manufacture,
transport etc. Like I said a "fing stupid way to go about things".

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail