Selfsufficientish.com

British Gas have just sent us some energy-saving lightbulbs for free, since we switched to 'paperless billing'.

I actually prefer LED bulbs over flourescents. LED bulbs contain fewer toxins than either flourescents or incandescents, they last 60,000 hours, work with dimmers, are available to fit any sized incandescent fixture (try finding a flourescent bulb for your nightlight). Plus, where an incandescent bulb might use 100 watts and a flourescent would use 25W (for the same lumens output) , an LED bulb would use less than 1 watt!

http://www.ccrane.com/lights/led-light-bulbs/index.aspx


I'm even considering becoming a local distributor for these bulbs. Everyone I describe them to wants to buy them, so I might as well get paid for it, right?

-Ellendra

I've tested several different sorts of LED lights - they have their uses, but as a general replacement for ordinary light bulbs - forget it!
It's a horribly directional beam that is also usually very "blue" - give them a year or two more.......
I would also remark that the prices in the spam link are ludicrously high.......knowing that the items leave the chinese factories for pence..........

As far as I understand it the main reason 'old' light bulbs are inefficient is that they create quite a bit of heat at the same time as light.

If this is the case, in an insulated house, using space heating controlled by a thermostat, the 'waste' heat from the light bulbs simply means the heating switches off earlier. So the net effect is zero!

As 'energy saving' light bulbs are more complex and energy intensive to produce, the overall effect of installing and using them could be a greater consumption of energy!

Can anyone prove or disprove this?

I read in the news that they are making improvements to led lightbulbs that should make them emit more light by putting tiny holes into the glass.

Just found the article

The energy saving bulbs do last much longer than the incandescents don't they?

godfreyrob wrote:As far as I understand it the main reason 'old' light bulbs are inefficient is that they create quite a bit of heat at the same time as light.

If this is the case, in an insulated house, using space heating controlled by a thermostat, the 'waste' heat from the light bulbs simply means the heating switches off earlier. So the net effect is zero!

As 'energy saving' light bulbs are more complex and energy intensive to produce, the overall effect of installing and using them could be a greater consumption of energy!

Can anyone prove or disprove this?

I had heard this too! I have read that total lifecycle costs and energy -wise, the old glass and metal filament bulbs are a more eco friendly option but I cant find the article I read it in.

It does worry me that we are always sold the instantaneous benefit of something new and green, but the lifecycle costs and energy consumption are rarely taken into consideration. I would have a Jeep Wrangler over a Prius any day for just that reason!! Mind you that might have been taken from an American study, in which case I would swap Jeep for Landy to save on transportation miles

hamster wrote:British Gas have just sent us some energy-saving lightbulbs for free, since we switched to 'paperless billing'.

I don't trust BG's paperless billing for the simple fact that if they can't ever get our direct debits right or realise we've moved (yes we do tell them in writing) then I don't trust them enough not to look at my bills and scrutinise them really carefully.

Just read this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7172662.stm

Be careful how you dispose of your energy saving light bulbs!

i dont like energy saving bulbs i have found that they dont last as long as normal plus they also contain mercury .

Read on the bbc http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7170246.stm

The switch to energy-saving light bulbs may put thousands at risk of painful skin reactions, health charities warn.

Shirlz wrote:The energy saving bulbs do last much longer than the incandescents don't they?

They're supposed to, although some of the flourescents made in China tend to fail within 1,000 hours of usage, even though they're rated for 10,000 hours.

-Ellendra

Well, I replaced the energy saving light bulb in our hall with an 'old fashioned' one (fed up of going up and down the stairs in semi-darkness) and the difference is amazing! It does have some peculiar characteristics though:

Comes on instantaneously
Does not contain mercury
Available in attractive shapes, colours, sizes, etc
Simple to manufacture
Dirt cheap to buy

So clearly I must be daft to go back to such an obsolete technology...

'Many thousands of people with light-sensitive conditions' (the article says around 100,000) is still not that many out of a population of 60 million, though. The overwhelming majority of people in the country will be able to switch to low energy lightbulbs without a problem.

The overwhelming majority of people also need to do a lot to cut their energy consumption.

I fully agree that it seems utterly crazy that someone with migraines or a skin condition who doesn't own a car, never flies, has insulated their loft and only eats local, seasonal organic food risks being banned from using the type of lightbulb they need, whereas someone who takes 4 foreign holidays a year and regularly drives 400 yards down the road can just switch to CFLs, sit back and feel smug and not have any other ungreen aspect of their life regulated against.

I wish the government would do more to combat climate change, instead of expanding Heathrow. They could start by encouraging us to use fewer lightbulbs and to turn them off when not in use, forcing offices to turn off lights and electrical equipment at night, and stopping people from having ridiculous lighting displays and enormous Santas outside their houses at Christmas, rather than just telling us to buy something else.

But this is exactly the kind of 'news' story which is going to make an awful lot of sceptics think that it isn't worth doing anything to reduce their carbon footprint. I can't help feeling that a far more appropriate response would be, 'Well, we need to make sure that it is still possible for people who need old-style lightbulbs to get them at home and at work, while encouraging everyone else to switch to the low-energy option, and make sure the bulbs are disposed of properly,' rather than a knee-jerk backlash against CFLs, which most people will be able to use without a problem.

There really seems to be a low energy lighting backlash in the press at the moment a small sample of headline in the past week include:

Low-energy bulbs 'could cause skin cancer'
Eczema Nightmare As Brits Move To Low-Energy Bulbs
Low-energy bulbs 'cause migraine'
Low-energy bulb disposal warning

Personally, I think that it is part of a green backlash spurred on by the mixed messages sent out by governments (build new runways but introduce green taxes). From a self-sufficient perspective, low energy bulbs save typically 80% energy and last considerably longer than incandescents, so using them will save you money. We've got a variety of different CFL bulbs around the house so that they provide the right lighting for the right room/purpose etc. I think that we've got it right in all rooms bar one, where contadino bought a CFL because of its shape but it emits a horrid blue glare. It's been relegated to the spare room that does not see a lot of use. So, it really pays to do a bit of homework when deciding what lights you need where to get it right.

Many of the complaints about CFLs is that they take too long to reach full brightness. I think that this is really dependent on what makes you buy - the latest Philips and Osram bulbs, for example, only take 2 - 3 seconds to reach full brightness. For areas, such as stair landings, that you will only use for as long as it takes to go up or down them, why not use your old incandescents as replacements?