I note that it's been announced today that incandescent lightbulbs are
to be phased out over the next couple of years:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7016020.stm

I'm not unduly perturbed (as most of my home is fitted with CFLs anyway)
except that the kitchen and bathroom are fitted with low voltage halogen
downlighters.

Presumably these will go the same way as conventional lightbulbs, won't
they? If so, is there an alternative 'bulb' I'll be able to use, or
will I need to replace the fittings? (and therefore my ceilings :-( )

David

On 2007-09-27 21:47:01 +0100, Lobster said:

I note that it's been announced today that incandescent lightbulbs are
to be phased out over the next couple of years:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7016020.stm

I'm not unduly perturbed (as most of my home is fitted with CFLs
anyway) except that the kitchen and bathroom are fitted with low
voltage halogen downlighters.

Presumably these will go the same way as conventional lightbulbs, won't
they? If so, is there an alternative 'bulb' I'll be able to use, or
will I need to replace the fittings? (and therefore my ceilings :-( )

David

Better to fix the source of thew problem, not the outcome.

On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 20:47:01 GMT, Lobster
wrote:

I note that it's been announced today that incandescent lightbulbs are
to be phased out over the next couple of years:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7016020.stm

I'm not unduly perturbed (as most of my home is fitted with CFLs anyway)
except that the kitchen and bathroom are fitted with low voltage halogen
downlighters.

Presumably these will go the same way as conventional lightbulbs, won't
they? If so, is there an alternative 'bulb' I'll be able to use, or
will I need to replace the fittings? (and therefore my ceilings :-( )

David

I noticed the Brussels Idiots had pulled this out of the hat some time
ago and wondered how long it would take to work through.

I think it's specifically aimed at tungsten filament lamps. They are
only supposed to be 5% efficient for light, so it is probably a valid
decision.

These are now ***BAD***, everything else is ***GOOD***

Just time to stock up on 150watt bulbs for decorating and the odd
standard lamp.

I note that it's been announced today that incandescent lightbulbs are
to be phased out over the next couple of years:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7016020.stm

I'll be acquiring a _large_ stock of standard lamps and halogens well
prior to this badly thought out idea coming into force.

In article , Lobster
writes
I note that it's been announced today that incandescent lightbulbs are
to be phased out over the next couple of years:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7016020.stm

I'm not unduly perturbed (as most of my home is fitted with CFLs anyway)
except that the kitchen and bathroom are fitted with low voltage halogen
downlighters.

Presumably these will go the same way as conventional lightbulbs, won't
they? If so, is there an alternative 'bulb' I'll be able to use, or
will I need to replace the fittings? (and therefore my ceilings :-( )

David
And how much energy will be wasted in replacing light fittings which
cannot take CFLs (manufacture, installation and disposal)? Will we
suddenly find that some of us want to have more light fittings than
before due to the reduced light output (how much energy will that cost)?
CFLs are great for work place lighting (with enough of them), utility
areas, halls, stairs, etc. but they are not good for task lighting, mood
lighting (except they are pre-dimmed) and feature lighting (e.g. over
the pictures in our front room).

Me thinks a bulk order to Screwfix will be in order!
--
John Alexander,

Remove NOSPAM if replying by e-mail

Lobster wrote:

I note that it's been announced today that incandescent lightbulbs are
to be phased out over the next couple of years:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7016020.stm

Isnt it nice to have our actions dictated by people with a less than
full understanding of the subject.


NT

On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:49:39 -0700, wrote:

Lobster wrote:

I note that it's been announced today that incandescent lightbulbs are
to be phased out over the next couple of years:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7016020.stm

Isnt it nice to have our actions dictated by people with a less than
full understanding of the subject.


The English language is not sufficient to express my shear undiluted
loathing and total and absolute lack of respect for the individual
concerned.

DG

On 27 Sep, 23:14, Derek Geldard wrote:
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:49:39 -0700, wrote:
Lobster wrote:

I note that it's been announced today that incandescent lightbulbs are
to be phased out over the next couple of years:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7016020.stm

Isnt it nice to have our actions dictated by people with a less than
full understanding of the subject.

The English language is not sufficient to express my shear undiluted
loathing and total and absolute lack of respect for the individual
concerned.

Well, it's less than optimal, that's for sure. If CFLs were actually
better than incandescent lamps, consumers would already have
switched. The fact that they haven't indicates that despite the
propaganda, the shortcomings of CFLs are well known.

I make extensive use of CFLs in my own home, and have yet to find a
truly adequate replacement for incandescents. The CRIs are too low,
the switch-on time for spot-lamp replacements is too long, dimmable
versions are expensive and don't dim to the orange cast of colour that
I prefer in the late evening (I don't want daylight equivalent at
11pm).

It's gesture politics of the worst kind.

Sid

wrote:
On 27 Sep, 23:14, Derek Geldard wrote:
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:49:39 -0700, wrote:
Lobster wrote:

I note that it's been announced today that incandescent lightbulbs
are to be phased out over the next couple of years:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7016020.stm

Isnt it nice to have our actions dictated by people with a less than
full understanding of the subject.

The English language is not sufficient to express my shear undiluted
loathing and total and absolute lack of respect for the individual
concerned.

Well, it's less than optimal, that's for sure. If CFLs were actually
better than incandescent lamps, consumers would already have
switched. The fact that they haven't indicates that despite the
propaganda, the shortcomings of CFLs are well known.

I make extensive use of CFLs in my own home, and have yet to find a
truly adequate replacement for incandescents. The CRIs are too low,
the switch-on time for spot-lamp replacements is too long, dimmable
versions are expensive and don't dim to the orange cast of colour that
I prefer in the late evening (I don't want daylight equivalent at
11pm).

It's gesture politics of the worst kind.

Hmm, I stand accused of sitting on the fence here. I have had CFLs in my
homes (one house at a time,not several) since the early 80's and have
genuinely been satisfied with the reduction of my footprint on the
planet, (and financial savings which have been real). I have just one
filament bulb in the house (which is there purely as the best place for
it to reside until it expires). Interestingly, I can't recall when it
was purchased - it will be decades ago.

Derek Geldard wrote:
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:49:39 -0700, wrote:

Lobster wrote:

I note that it's been announced today that incandescent lightbulbs are
to be phased out over the next couple of years:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7016020.stm
Isnt it nice to have our actions dictated by people with a less than
full understanding of the subject.


The English language is not sufficient to express my shear undiluted
loathing and total and absolute lack of respect for the individual
concerned.

Gordon had better call an election quickly before the prat tars the
whole party with the same brush.

First part P.
Then HIPS.
Now ban the Bulb.

DG

I too have some halogen lights in bedrooms and kitchen. They don't appear
to be the type talked about in the news so I'm assuming (hoping) that
they'll live on. If anybody has any news to the contrary, post it on here
and I'll start stocking up!

I also have an outside lantern which turns on dimly when it's dark outside
and achieves full brightness when you walk up to it. It's not suitable for
low energy lighting (

My lounge has a special switch which turns one set of lights on when it gets
dark and stays on for a chosen number of hours (useful when at work in the
winter) which again is not suitable for low energy lighting.

Finally, my dining room has a dimmer switch which, according to the
instructions, is not suitable for low energy lighting.

Have I really got to replace all of these?

Kroma

PS It would appear that golfball shaped lights may survive from what I've
read as there is currently no low energy equivalent so my lounge may
survive!

On 27 Sep, 21:47, Lobster wrote:
I note that it's been announced today that incandescent lightbulbs are
to be phased out over the next couple of years:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7016020.stm

I'm not unduly perturbed (as most of my home is fitted with CFLs anyway)
except that the kitchen and bathroom are fitted with low voltage halogen
downlighters.

Presumably these will go the same way as conventional lightbulbs, won't
they? If so, is there an alternative 'bulb' I'll be able to use, or
will I need to replace the fittings? (and therefore my ceilings :-( )

David

Something has to be done, unless you do not believe in climate change,
or that the tons of particulates and gases we pour into the
environment have no effect on health. Australia has already banned old
style light bulbs.

For me, the change to CFLs is not an inconvenience at all compared to
that of people in pourer countries who are experiencing drought and or
flooding which is destroying there food sources and starving them. Are
people really saying they would rather be able to dim a light than
help stabalise the climate and possibly save some lives?

As for having outside lights on at night, why?. Answer, because they
are cheap and available. Turn them off and check out the stars.

"nafuk" wrote in message
oups.com...

As for having outside lights on at night, why?. Answer, because they
are cheap and available. Turn them off and check out the stars.

No, because it is pitch black outside and I can't see to walk without it. I
can't even see to open the door. But I do try to help the environment... I
have it dimmed to around 10% so it uses only 10W most of the time. Apart
from my bulbs on timed switches (which are there for security reasons),
halogens (which were in place when I bought the property) and dimmers I do
have several low energy bulbs.

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 08:36:54 +0100, "Kroma"
wrote:

I also have an outside lantern which turns on dimly when it's dark outside
and achieves full brightness when you walk up to it. It's not suitable for
low energy lighting (

My lounge has a special switch which turns one set of lights on when it gets
dark and stays on for a chosen number of hours (useful when at work in the
winter) which again is not suitable for low energy lighting.

Finally, my dining room has a dimmer switch which, according to the
instructions, is not suitable for low energy lighting.

Have I really got to replace all of these?

Yes indeed, and in many cases you can't do it yourself according to
Part P so it is not surprising that the lighting industry and
electricians associations are enthusiastically supporting this crass
bit of stealth taxation.

As LED lighting will probably be the same order of magnitude more
efficient than CFL's as CFL's now are than incandescent some time in
the next year you can look forward to repeating the whole process
again in about 5 years.


--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

On 28 Sep, 00:48, "clot" wrote:
wrote:
On 27 Sep, 23:14, Derek Geldard wrote:
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:49:39 -0700, wrote:
Lobster wrote:

I note that it's been announced today that incandescent lightbulbs
are to be phased out over the next couple of years:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7016020.stm

Isnt it nice to have our actions dictated by people with a less than
full understanding of the subject.

The English language is not sufficient to express my shear undiluted
loathing and total and absolute lack of respect for the individual
concerned.

Well, it's less than optimal, that's for sure. If CFLs were actually
better than incandescent lamps, consumers would already have
switched. The fact that they haven't indicates that despite the
propaganda, the shortcomings of CFLs are well known.

I make extensive use of CFLs in my own home, and have yet to find a
truly adequate replacement for incandescents. The CRIs are too low,
the switch-on time for spot-lamp replacements is too long, dimmable
versions are expensive and don't dim to the orange cast of colour that
I prefer in the late evening (I don't want daylight equivalent at
11pm).

It's gesture politics of the worst kind.

Hmm, I stand accused of sitting on the fence here. I have had CFLs in my
homes (one house at a time,not several) since the early 80's and have
genuinely been satisfied with the reduction of my footprint on the
planet, (and financial savings which have been real). I have just one
filament bulb in the house (which is there purely as the best place for
it to reside until it expires). Interestingly, I can't recall when it
was purchased - it will be decades ago

You mean you have carried this bulb from house to house since the
80's??

Did you install it in a battery powered torch and have a sprinter
carry it between houses?

Kroma wrote:

I too have some halogen lights in bedrooms and kitchen. They don't appear
to be the type talked about in the news so I'm assuming (hoping) that
they'll live on. If anybody has any news to the contrary, post it on here
and I'll start stocking up!

Remember that policy decisions like this must always follow the law of
unintended consequences. So if you can't get a 100W bulb, but you can
get a set of 4 50W downlighters, then guess what people will use....

What else will they ban? Car headlamp bulbs, capsule lamps, oven lamps?
How many of those can be imaginatively reused?

I also have an outside lantern which turns on dimly when it's dark outside
and achieves full brightness when you walk up to it. It's not suitable for
low energy lighting (

There is a whole bunch of control gear and home automation stuff that
would stop working.

My lounge has a special switch which turns one set of lights on when it gets
dark and stays on for a chosen number of hours (useful when at work in the
winter) which again is not suitable for low energy lighting.

yup that would be another...

Finally, my dining room has a dimmer switch which, according to the
instructions, is not suitable for low energy lighting.

Have I really got to replace all of these?

or order lightbulbs online from countries with less dim legislation.



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 28 Sep, 08:36, "Kroma" wrote:
I too have some halogen lights in bedrooms and kitchen. They don't appear
to be the type talked about in the news so I'm assuming (hoping) that
they'll live on. If anybody has any news to the contrary, post it on here
and I'll start stocking up!

I also have an outside lantern which turns on dimly when it's dark outside
and achieves full brightness when you walk up to it. It's not suitable for
low energy lighting (

My lounge has a special switch which turns one set of lights on when it gets
dark and stays on for a chosen number of hours (useful when at work in the
winter) which again is not suitable for low energy lighting.

Finally, my dining room has a dimmer switch which, according to the
instructions, is not suitable for low energy lighting.

Have I really got to replace all of these?

Kroma

PS It would appear that golfball shaped lights may survive from what I've
read as there is currently no low energy equivalent so my lounge may
survive!

Golfball CFLs do exist - you can get them at IKEA - they're called
'SPARSAM'

E14: URL:http://www.ikea.com/gb/en/catalog/products/60060604
E27: URL:http://www.ikea.com/gb/en/catalog/products/10060611

....so you are not safe.

Sid

On 28 Sep, 10:14, Huge wrote:
On 2007-09-28, John Rumm wrote:

Kroma wrote:

I too have some halogen lights in bedrooms and kitchen. They don't appear
to be the type talked about in the news so I'm assuming (hoping) that
they'll live on. If anybody has any news to the contrary, post it on here
and I'll start stocking up!

Remember that policy decisions like this must always follow the law of
unintended consequences. So if you can't get a 100W bulb, but you can
get a set of 4 50W downlighters, then guess what people will use....

What else will they ban? Car headlamp bulbs, capsule lamps, oven lamps?
How many of those can be imaginatively reused?

Plus, if there's demand for "banned" filament bulbs, and there will be, someone
will start to satisfy it. Well, not "someone". The Chinese.

or order lightbulbs online from countries with less dim legislation.

Quite.

Perhaps HMG should switch off the floodlighting of the HoC and turn their
attention to all the office buildings lit throughout the night?

We could have new civil servants (job creation) along the lines of ARP
wardens going round saying "Put that light out".

Sid :-)

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 00:58:12 -0700, nafuk
wrote:

Something has to be done,

Ah, the rallying cry of the Iron Age Restoration Society. If all the
passengers on the Titanic had been issued with teaspoons and told to
use them to bale after it hit the iceberg "something would have been
done". It would of course have had no effect whatsoever on the final
outcome nor would it have delayed it by any measurable amount.

Changing light bulbs has the same order of magnitude of impact as
issuing teaspoons on the Titanic would have. If the population of
the UK was entirely eliminated next Wednesday it would have no
measurable effect on the progress or otherwise of climate change. You
don't solve a problem by ignoring its causes and instead playing
around with stealth taxes in the margins with pious mutterings of
"every bit helps" or "everyone must do their bit" to rally the
ignorati.

If "something has to be done" then that something must involve
massive population reduction worldwide and I don't see any of the
greenygroups being brave enough to campaign for that. There is
nothing more hypocritical than green evangelists with children.
--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 00:58:12 -0700, nafuk
wrote:


For me, the change to CFLs is not an inconvenience at all compared to
that of people in pourer countries who are experiencing drought and or
flooding which is destroying there food sources and starving them. Are
people really saying they would rather be able to dim a light than
help stabalise the climate and possibly save some lives?


PML.

As for having outside lights on at night, why?. Answer, because

We have been burgled 4 times in the last 5 years.

they are cheap and available. Turn them off and check out the stars.

I leave them for the people in pourer countries who are experiencing
drought and or flooding which is destroying there food sources and
starving them.

DG

nafuk wrote:

Something has to be done

And this is something.

Are you a politician?

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 09:04:54 +0100, Kroma wrote:

As for having outside lights on at night, why?. Answer, because they
are cheap and available. Turn them off and check out the stars.

No, because it is pitch black outside and I can't see to walk without
it. I can't even see to open the door.

Why do you need lights on outside unless you are living out there?

Is it really so difficult to switch a light on when you go out and off
when you come in? Thats what I do, sometimes, more often than not there is
enough spill from the interior lights or from the stars/moon. The nearest
street lights are 1.5 miles away and we live in an area with probably the
darkest skies in England, so no sky glow.

Apart from my bulbs on timed switches (which are there for security
reasons),

False sense of security IMHO. If you are remote there is no point in
lighting the place as there will be no one passing to see the tea leaf.
The light, even low level, creates very dark shadows and reduces your
abilty to see outside the lit area, great for tea leafs to hide in...

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 00:58:12 -0700, nafuk
wrote:

Something has to be done,

Ah, the rallying cry of the Iron Age Restoration Society. If all the
passengers on the Titanic had been issued with teaspoons and told to
use them to bale after it hit the iceberg "something would have been
done". It would of course have had no effect whatsoever on the final
outcome nor would it have delayed it by any measurable amount.

Changing light bulbs has the same order of magnitude of impact as
issuing teaspoons on the Titanic would have. If the population of
the UK was entirely eliminated next Wednesday it would have no
measurable effect on the progress or otherwise of climate change. You
don't solve a problem by ignoring its causes and instead playing
around with stealth taxes in the margins with pious mutterings of
"every bit helps" or "everyone must do their bit" to rally the
ignorati.

If "something has to be done" then that something must involve
massive population reduction worldwide and I don't see any of the
greenygroups being brave enough to campaign for that. There is
nothing more hypocritical than green evangelists with children.

You reactionary old fart! Hooray! There is only one "solution" to the effect
we are having on the ecosystem. As you say, that is for 50% of the world's
population to die (at random). The developed countries' demand for fossil
fuel will collapse and food shortages in the underdeveloped areas will
cease. Anything less is tinkering really. How anyone can imagine that
banning our incandescent lights is going to have any effect alongside the
industrialisation of China and India is bonkers!


--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 12:35:40 +0100
wrote:

On 28 Sep,
Huge wrote:

Perhaps HMG should switch off the floodlighting of the HoC and turn their
attention to all the office buildings lit throughout the night?

That's the best suggestion I've sen so far, but I can't see any avian
porkers.

Perhaps they're all on so that the Flying Pigs don't run into them in
the dark?

R.

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 09:04:54 +0100
"Kroma" wrote:


"nafuk" wrote in message
oups.com...

As for having outside lights on at night, why?. Answer, because they
are cheap and available. Turn them off and check out the stars.

No, because it is pitch black outside and I can't see to walk without it. I
can't even see to open the door. But I do try to help the environment... I
have it dimmed to around 10% so it uses only 10W most of the time. Apart
from my bulbs on timed switches (which are there for security reasons),
halogens (which were in place when I bought the property) and dimmers I do
have several low energy bulbs.



I too, have an outside light to illuminate the path to the front door.
It's a 1 watt LED run from a sun-charged battery.

R.

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 00:58:12 -0700
nafuk wrote:

Something has to be done,


Save the world, Eat Chinese!
R

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 12:40:45 +0100, wrote:

From my experiance in north Northumberland, you should get some sky glow
(admittedly low level) from the conurbations around Newcastle and
Carlisle.

If you know where to look and the conditions are right you can detect the
tiny sky glow from Carlisle. Curiously not Newcastle. Teeside on the other
hand produces at most an orange glow about 30 degrees wide and 30 high to
the SE.

If it's a clear moonless night the stars are just an amazing sight. The
milky way is just there, a band of light arching across the sky. You don't
need artifical light starlight is enough.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

TheOldFellow wrote:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 00:58:12 -0700
nafuk wrote:

Something has to be done,

IMO something has to be done about the recent reduction in underpass
lighting. Drive into one on a sunny day and you can see bugger all for a
few seconds until your eyes adjust.

Huge wrote:

On 2007-09-28, Dave Liquorice wrote:


If it's a clear moonless night the stars are just an amazing sight. The
milky way is just there, a band of light arching across the sky.


Troo.


You don't
need artifical light starlight is enough.


Until you drop your keys into the flower bed, that is.


That's why I always carry a small torch.

wouldnt it better
for the government to put a big tax on normal lightbulbs
(as they do on petrol)
so it would becheaper to buy low energy bulbs
but people with dimmer lights installed
can save on rewiring (which ses up resources)
and continue to buy the bulbs they want?

george

"Lobster" wrote in message
...
I note that it's been announced today that incandescent lightbulbs are to
be phased out over the next couple of years:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7016020.stm

I'm not unduly perturbed (as most of my home is fitted with CFLs anyway)
except that the kitchen and bathroom are fitted with low voltage halogen
downlighters.

Presumably these will go the same way as conventional lightbulbs, won't
they? If so, is there an alternative 'bulb' I'll be able to use, or will
I need to replace the fittings? (and therefore my ceilings :-( )

David

Never mind the lamps dangling from the ceiling ..... What about the filament
bulbs in my;-
fridge; grill; oven; hob-fan; and .... tumble dryer? Not to mention the
headlights (dual filament); stop lamps; reversing lamps; brake lamps;
indicators ..... . ?

--

Brian

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 09:04:54 +0100 someone who may be "Kroma"
wrote this:-

But I do try to help the environment... I
have it dimmed to around 10% so it uses only 10W most of the time.

You appear to be assuming a linear relationship between light output
and input power. This is far from the case with GLS lamps.

Apart
from my bulbs on timed switches (which are there for security reasons),

Time switches generally work fine with low energy lamps. The
exceptions generally involve some electronic time switches which can
suffer a variety of failures (including a track on the PCB burning
out due to being too thin, believe it or not).

halogens (which were in place when I bought the property) and dimmers I do
have several low energy bulbs.

Variable light levels can be achieved with a variety of fittings
which are switched on as necessary. There are also now dimmable
energy saving lamps, though the best known model only has four
steps.

It is possible to make dimmable fluorescent lamps by separating the
control gear from the tubes. One can see this with larger fittings,
but this has been difficult to reproduce with a small lamp that has
the control gear and tube integrated in one unit.



--
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 2007-09-28 08:58:12 +0100, nafuk said:

On 27 Sep, 21:47, Lobster wrote:
I note that it's been announced today that incandescent lightbulbs are
to be phased out over the next couple of
years:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7016020.stm

I'm not unduly perturbed (as most of my home is fitted with CFLs anyway)
except that the kitchen and bathroom are fitted with low voltage halogen
downlighters.

Presumably these will go the same way as conventional lightbulbs, won't
they? If so, is there an alternative 'bulb' I'll be able to use, or
will I need to replace the fittings? (and therefore my ceilings :-( )

David

Something has to be done, unless you do not believe in climate change,
or that the tons of particulates and gases we pour into the
environment have no effect on health. Australia has already banned old
style light bulbs.

This is certainly not "the thing"

There is no need to save energy anyway. Heat energy from light
bulbs is distributed into the building, not wasted.

The energy supply issue can be dealt with via nuclear generation.



For me, the change to CFLs is not an inconvenience at all compared to
that of people in pourer countries who are experiencing drought and or
flooding which is destroying there food sources and starving them.

It is an inconvenience for me because CFLs are not fit for the
advertised purpose and I won't use them in the house.

If climate change is going to happen, it is going to happen as it has
many times before. The solution is to deal with the consequences
rather than playing King Knut.

Are
people really saying they would rather be able to dim a light than
help stabalise the climate and possibly save some lives?

Absolutely, because your premise is emotional bull****.



As for having outside lights on at night, why?. Answer, because they
are cheap and available.

Answer, because I want them.


Turn them off and check out the stars.

Pointless unless I go to the southern hemisphere.

On 2007-09-28 16:13:17 +0100, said:

wouldnt it better
for the government to put a big tax on normal lightbulbs
(as they do on petrol)
so it would becheaper to buy low energy bulbs
but people with dimmer lights installed
can save on rewiring (which ses up resources)
and continue to buy the bulbs they want?

george

Don't invite the government to impose taxes.

That is the one area where they have competence.

On 2007-09-28 11:05:41 +0100, Peter Parry said:

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 00:58:12 -0700, nafuk
wrote:

Something has to be done,

Ah, the rallying cry of the Iron Age Restoration Society. If all the
passengers on the Titanic had been issued with teaspoons and told to
use them to bale after it hit the iceberg "something would have been
done". It would of course have had no effect whatsoever on the final
outcome nor would it have delayed it by any measurable amount.

Changing light bulbs has the same order of magnitude of impact as
issuing teaspoons on the Titanic would have. If the population of
the UK was entirely eliminated next Wednesday it would have no
measurable effect on the progress or otherwise of climate change. You
don't solve a problem by ignoring its causes and instead playing
around with stealth taxes in the margins with pious mutterings of
"every bit helps" or "everyone must do their bit" to rally the
ignorati.

If "something has to be done" then that something must involve
massive population reduction worldwide and I don't see any of the
greenygroups being brave enough to campaign for that. There is
nothing more hypocritical than green evangelists with children.

Another masterpiece for the archive.

In uk.d-i-y, Andy Hall wrote:
Don't invite the government to impose taxes.

That is the one area where they have competence.

Enthusiasm, yes. Competence? I'm not so sure.

--
Mike Barnes

On 28 Sep, 16:44, David Hansen
wrote:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 09:04:54 +0100 someone who may be "Kroma"
wrote this:-

Variable light levels can be achieved with a variety of fittings
which are switched on as necessary. There are also now dimmable
energy saving lamps, though the best known model only has four
steps.


Apparently a variable dimmable CFL exists:

The "new 20W T3 spiral Dimmable EnergySaver+ can be dimmed using a
standard dimmer switch from 2% to 100% brightness ... during its 16000
hour lifetime"

From URL:http://www.varilight.co.uk/Pages/page%20digiflux.htm

I can't comment on how good it is, as I don't have one.

Sid

Bob Mannix wrote:

cease. Anything less is tinkering really. How anyone can imagine that
banning our incandescent lights is going to have any effect alongside the
industrialisation of China and India is bonkers!

Well the Official Government Line is that we have to lead by example, as
in how can the West pontificate about the need for the Far East to
desist from belching carbon into the atmosphere if we aren't trying to
do so ourselves. Like it'll make any difference.

David

wrote:
On 28 Sep, 00:48, "clot" wrote:
wrote:
On 27 Sep, 23:14, Derek Geldard wrote:
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:49:39 -0700, wrote:
Lobster wrote:

I note that it's been announced today that incandescent
lightbulbs are to be phased out over the next couple of years:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7016020.stm

Isnt it nice to have our actions dictated by people with a less
than full understanding of the subject.

The English language is not sufficient to express my shear
undiluted loathing and total and absolute lack of respect for the
individual concerned.

Well, it's less than optimal, that's for sure. If CFLs were
actually better than incandescent lamps, consumers would already
have switched. The fact that they haven't indicates that despite
the propaganda, the shortcomings of CFLs are well known.

I make extensive use of CFLs in my own home, and have yet to find a
truly adequate replacement for incandescents. The CRIs are too low,
the switch-on time for spot-lamp replacements is too long, dimmable
versions are expensive and don't dim to the orange cast of colour
that I prefer in the late evening (I don't want daylight equivalent
at 11pm).

It's gesture politics of the worst kind.

Hmm, I stand accused of sitting on the fence here. I have had CFLs
in my homes (one house at a time,not several) since the early 80's
and have genuinely been satisfied with the reduction of my footprint
on the planet, (and financial savings which have been real). I have
just one filament bulb in the house (which is there purely as the
best place for it to reside until it expires). Interestingly, I
can't recall when it was purchased - it will be decades ago

You mean you have carried this bulb from house to house since the
80's??


No - we have lived in our present house for almost 25 years.

On 2007-09-28 18:10:04 +0100, Mike Barnes said:

In uk.d-i-y, Andy Hall wrote:
Don't invite the government to impose taxes.

That is the one area where they have competence.

Enthusiasm, yes. Competence? I'm not so sure.

Well, if the required outcome is to increase tax take, then they are
very competent at achieving that objective. One can argue as to
whether it's the most efficient way. OTOH, one can look for
legitimate ways not to pay it.