Brits "panic buying" light bulbs

Comments

• How have you reached the conclusion that there is "panic buying" of 100W bulbs? Of course stocks are low - retailers have not re-stocked on these for about a year now.
  Also worth noting is that Britain *proposed* phasing out these bulbs, after consultation with retailers, and that's why it's now part of the EU agreement. This isn't being imposed by the EU on Britain, it was Britain's idea in the first place! Posted by Alistair, UK
• I reckon that it's about time they all went the old incandescent bulbs!! If panic buying is getting rid of them then all the better! They only last about a couple of years anyway and then people will HAVE to buy the newer energy friendly bulbs.
  I've got them throughout my own home saving me a whole lot of energy and money! Posted by Art€, Hungary
• Energy Savings Light bulbs only save energy when used OUTDOORS!
  If I have 10x 100W bulbs on INSIDE my house they contribute to the heating - saving 1000W (rate) of central heating.
  
  The challenge to save ENERGY (especially IN the home) is efficient (effective) insulation!
  
  NOT NEW FANGLED LEDs that give off less light!! - There is the fundamental need to SEE Posted by Steve Somers, cold UK
• "If I have 10x 100W bulbs on INSIDE my house they contribute to the heating - saving 1000W (rate) of central heating"
  
  I have never heard so much rubbish in my life! Heating your house with light bulbs will not give you the equivalent of a 1kw heater or 1kw of electric used as the energy is used primarily for light not heat! Who heats their house with light bulbs and in any case what about during summer you fool! Posted by Bob Suruncal, UK
• They DONT save money! They COST £8 each... where as the 'traditional' ones cost a few pence each! It would take YEARS to get the savings back. Another thing is that they take SOOO long to warm up you have to leave them on longer to get full brightness whereas if you had proper light you wouldn't need to leave 'traditional' bulbs on for so long to start with! Posted by Jonathan Jones, WALES UK
• £8 each where are you shopping Harrods? they are £1 each at tesco http://direct.tesco.com/q/R.203-1063.aspx with a 10year life. Why do people come on here talking so much crap? Posted by Bob Suruncal, UK
• Well said Bob, I couldnt have put it better myself Posted by Jon, UK
• Panic buying? I didn't even know about this change in regulations. Hardly a "panic". I don't see the problem just use the others. If it helps the evironment big or small it's a good thing isn't it? Posted by james, england
• "They DONT save money! They COST £8 each"
  
  Rubbish ... you can get 3 for £1 at Robert Dyas.
  
  "Another thing is that they take SOOO long to warm up you have to leave them on longer to get full brightness "
  
  More rubbish ... they may take a few seconds to get to full brightness but why on earth would you leave them on any longer than a traditional bulb. Surely you switch the light on when you want to light up a room and off again when it is no longer required.
  
  Instead of complaining about their price and functionality make the effort to find out what they actually cost and start saving yourself some money.
  
  Posted by Paul Thomas, UK
• We have had 3 eco-lights go bang spraying wonderful mercury into the room. Or is it a new type of eco-mercury? Mercury has a carbon footprint the size of a football pitch - incandescent bulbs the size of a postage stamp. But then it's only the do-gooder tree-huggers that invented the carbon footprint so they could have something new to believe in. Posted by Timz, UK
• These energy saving bulbs are not saving any energy, in fact it costs more energy with these bulbs then traditional bulbs, as my friend told me, his wife's sisters' friend's friends' told them, these bulbs are manufactured on on Mars by aliens, which increases production cost, the only problem is, we don't have the materials, which are only found on Mars to manufacture these bulbs, and moreover we don't need to pay-aliens as much as we pay-humans, and aliens can work longer hours, due to them having superior genetics.
  
  Posted by Muhammad , Pakistan
• We have had them for several years now and the price has tumbled to a pound or so each, also in all this time we have never had to replace a single bulb, that in my opinion is were the real saving is. Posted by Brian Nicholls, England
• Bob Suruncal clearly isn't a physicist - I am. Incandescent light bulbs turn electrical energy into 99.99% heat and a little energy as light. Try powering anything on light (be careful - not radiated heat) power.
  
  How does the general population get correct facts and figures on anything?
  While ship is consuming 3,000,000watts and half of it is going straight out of the funnel (50% efficient) what difference will make by unplugging our TV off standby (milliwatts)?
  And "everybody are fools and talk crapexcept me" BOB - I point out that the lighting, my kettle, my TV, my toaster, my hifi, my plural PC (left on 24/7) all CONTRIBUTE to heating my house - My gas bill is 10% lower than without them.
  When I get up in the morning the PC's have kept my house SLIGHTLY warmer - therfore my heating has to do SLIGHTLY less work to catch up.
  If I am in a wellinsulated house there's less lost overnight - if my old house is draughty and thin walled it lost to the atmophere sky and space.
  Good insulation = lower bills (eco friendly)
  BTW BoB - Google chicken farms - you'll find that the lightbulb is used as A HEATER. - Gas discharge, phosphors and LEDs won't keep chicks warm. Posted by Steve Somers , cold UK
• I Bought a energy saving light bulb for kitchen a year ago. If I just want to get something out of the fridge at the other end of the room I can’t use it because it takes too long to become bright enough to see the way. I have to use my standard spot lights instead. They say the newer energy saving light bulbs come on quicker but if I replace the bulb in the kitchen now then where has my money been saved over the last year for quick visits to the kitchen? It is still a nightmare to buy energy saving light bulbs that work with my dimmer switches. I have had lots of energy saving light bulbs that don’t fit in the seating of standard candescent light bulbs as their base is larger. They do cause migraines if you are prone to migraines. Energy saving light bulbs are a great idea and will work but its too soon to stop selling candescent light bulbs. Posted by Gareth Smith, uk
• What about easy bake ovens! lol
  
  Seriously though this points mute because there changing no matter how much you dislike it. They work, they give out light thus doing it's job you bought it to do. Now shut up and find something useful to vent your pointless dribble towards.
  
  Posted by James, England
• We have dimmer switches, they won't work with energy saver lightbulbs. what the solution when they get phased in, us turning up the lights and using more energy and not being able to sleep properly. Posted by Oliver Stieber, England
• Johnathan has a point - Bob misses it! The energy saving lightbulbs might be cheap - but the dimmer ones are around £8-£10 EACH!!!
  
  Well, I care for the environment - I have a Greenpeace sticker on my 4x4! Posted by Elenar, UK
• Steve any heat give off by lightbulbs is wasted during summer when the temp is "warm enough" thus contributing to global warming (as well as 40-60 additonal watts of power used). I guess you can see in the dark and dont use them in the summer or maybe you go and sit in your air conditioned car if its too hot with your lightbulbs on in the house. Posted by Stori Teller, UK
• "Steve any heat give off by lightbulbs is wasted during summer when the temp is "warm enough" thus contributing to global warming..." Looks to me like Britain can use al the global warming it can get right now, Stori! Or is this an inconvenient truth? Posted by G Tryon, Canada
• to Stori Teller...but in the summer its light early in the morning and till late at night so the need to use the light bulbs is reduced to pretty much nothing anyway. I heat my lounge in the winter while using my projector to watch films as it really does churn out tremendous heat, so much so that i can turn off the radiators while its on! Posted by MixedupJim, UK
• Why do people feel the need to use 100W bulbs anyway. I find 60W do me well. Posted by Andrew, UK
• Interesting that Steve Somers thinks of himself as a physist while also suggesting that 10 100W bulbs save 1000W of heating. The average 100W bulb is not 0.01% efficient ... it's more like 15%. So you're really only getting 850W of heating.
  
  Great, but there's a reason why we don't tend to have radiators attached to the ceiling ... and that's because heat rises (from what I can remember of GCSE physics). Unless your house is amazingly well insulated, all those bulbs will be generating heat to warm up the roof, not your room. Posted by Albert, UK
• Steve is correct, most of the power consumed by a conventional lightbulb is converted into heat, which helps warming your house, just as efficiently as other electrically powered heaters. It's true that this may be a waste on hot days, but there are precious few of those in the UK.
  
  Lighting really is really small potatoes; far bigger energy-saving gains can be made from insulating homes. Oh, and how about really big ticket energy guzzlers, like reduction of commuting (the government has done nothing to encourage homeworking)? preservation of existing housing stock (current VAT rates encourage demolition and rebuilding of houses rather than renovation)? dedicated smoking rooms in pubs (rather that patio heaters kicking out tens of thousands of watts to heat up the outside)? No, better to interfere with other people's lives because you know better, that's the British way. Posted by Fred Sticks, UK
• "Light Bulbs" (incandescent Lamps to those with a brain) ARE an inefficient way to light a room as our learned friend quite correctly pointed out. They primarily produce heat and substantially contribute to the heating of your home. If you want to save energy then swap your incandescent lamps for compact fluorescents for those times you feel the need to have the lighing on inside of your home during the daytime on hot sunny days. You will save energy by running your air-conditioning less.
  Ignoring the obvious ecological nightmare caused by Fluorescent Lighting, for all other instances you will find that incandescent is the way to go with saving the planet.
  
  Knowing what you are talking about and not being afraid to speak some truth to a largely ignorant public doesn't win votes though. Posted by Energy Consultant, UK
• It ain't dark in the summer??
  I miss your point.
  ------------
  We can all SEE light pollution - it becomes a tangible (and emotive) subject
  
  http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/statistics/globatmos/gakf07.htm
  
  How much is changing light bulb technology going to lower domestic power consumption? HEATING uses 50 times more power than lighting - and we're aiming to partly reduce that 2% lighting bill!?
  INSULATION is the only issue - do what you like inside the warm walls (+ thermostat) let it escape - it's EXPENSIVE.
  [ I don't hug trees - I don't have a well insulated house - but I don't go round turning 60W light bulbs off - and yes I have got multi kW Aircon units for summer time]
  My carbon footprint is an acre wide - Energy saving bulbs are an insignificant and trivial gesture - because politicians want to do something VISIBLE.
  
  ONE large volcano eruption will dessimate all Carbon emissions targets.
  Posted by Steve Somers, Temperate UK
• What on earth have we been doing with central heating and energy saving bulbs all these years. Clearly the whole world is wrong and these people are right. Im switching the central heating off and installing more lights - Im also going to sue british gas and eon for ripping me off for the past xx years. Posted by Jim Bowen, UK
• Apparently, from what I learned from my teacher, the energy saving light bulbs come on slower because that is one of the ways it is more efficient (although I could be wrong.)
  It is definitely true that one of the best ways to save energy is insulation, especially draught proofing.
  I think using 100W light bulbs is a bit extreme and doesn't do much for you as hot air travels upwards (as someone previously mentioned) which is why radiators have to be on the floor. Using 60W light bulbs is likely to better for you as you won't waste as much energy.
  Other electrical equipment may help to increase the eating up your hose because of the huge releases of heat energy (e.g. computers) but light bulbs, unless in lamps, probably won't contribute much.
  But, hey, I don't know everything and some of these things may no longer be true, but I am just trying to remember what I learnt in GSCE Physics. Although the heat from the light bulbs could help as it may make convection currents (similar to heaters and what happens in kettles.) Which could help to heat up your house. I can' be certain. Posted by Vaneet Mehta, United Kingdom
• i bought myself a set of night vision goggles off of ebay,ex soviet special forces,i just wear them around the house now instead of turning the lights on.i'm saving a fortune in electricty and replacement lightbulbs. Posted by kev, uk essex
• There is a difference between lamp efficienct and efficacy
  The politicians don't understand the difference - but they are 'in charge'
  
  If you're interested :-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_light_bulb#Luminous_efficacy_and_efficiency
  para 6
  
  Albert - I'll meet you half way :-)
  Basically a lamp is a bright HEATER
  
  A tumble dryer uses the same a 50 light bulbs (200 flourescent lamps)
  Each heating device in a room is using up to 50 light bulbs
  
  A central heating is consuming the same as 500 lightbulbs (2,000 flourescent lamps)
  But you can't see heating - so the politicians don't have a bandwagon
  
  We are being conned into swapping 60W for 100W bulbs -
  7W flourescents instead of 15W
  
  and all the time we're 'happy' to direct debit £1000's on heating
  
  
  New topic - what's the profit on low energy lamps - and if they are "75% off" why was there 75% on in the first place.
  
  Don't be a mushroom - SS Posted by Steve Somers, UK in winter
• Steve S :- The point is that you are right, and that Incandescents are much more than a source of light. Try reading the post without thinking I am one of the idoits that is bashing you, and you will realise just how sarcastic it is !
  
  Jim B (et al) :- Get yourselves a book on Physics. Try reading the chapter that deals with the laws of conservation of energy.
  
  Albert :- Remember... Conduction, Convection and RADIATION
  
  Timz :- Very little of the HG will escape into the room unless the lamp gets damaged, but boy are you on the button when describing how environmentally friendly it is !. How many reading this realise that just 2 fluorescent tubes in a standard size skip contain enough mercury to designate the entire load as hazardous (special) waste ? Mercury = Nasty !
  
  To all those finding the theory in insulation a bit of a challenge, think of it like this:
  
  If your building is insulated well enough that only 100 watts of energy per hour, you only need to put in 100 watts of energy (that pesky lightbulb again!) to maintain temperature, much like if you have a swimming pool leaks 100 gallons of water per hour you only neeed to put in 100 gallons per hour to keep the fill level constant. If you can understand this then you can understand the thinking behind the latest high effeciency building designs and heating control systems.
  
  The final line for those that have difficuly understanding means a politician gains far more by saying "I am environmentally friendly, and you can save the planet by spending a few quid on CLF lamps", than he would by saying "CFL lamps may cost a little less to run if it is only light you are after, But if you are happy to live with the health effects rumoured to be caused by these, and you believe Mercury is a nice health friendly substance then these are the things for you."
  
  It is strange that not many politicians say "what you need to do is insulate your homes better because we really hate taking all this tax from fuel off you." Posted by Energy Consultant, UK
• Sorry for the typo. it should read :
  
  If your building is insulated well enough that only 100 watts of energy per hour is lost
  
  Posted by Energy Consultant, uk
• Polite Acknowledgement to EC Posted by Steve Somers, UK - in the Gulf Stream
• interesting substitutes kev, UK essex Posted by Vaneet Mehta, United Kingdom
• EC you are missing one vital piece of maths. At one change a year in 10 rooms for 10 years this is 100 light bulb changes. Even at a conservative estimate of just 5 minutes per change (assumes spare bulb handy, ladders available, light in room, no blown fuse or trip switch) you are looking at 500 minutes work for someone which is 41 hours. Even at a paltry £5 an hour you are looking at £2000 worth of work! Who wants that or the hassle. Energy savers all the way!!!!!!!!! Posted by Ted Bundee, UK
• LOL Says a lot for my maths try 8 hours! Still not worth it buddies. Posted by Ted Bundee, UK
• I wonder what my carbon footprint is when I fly a 737 from Manchester to Heathrow??!
  
  
  "But then it's only the do-gooder tree-huggers that invented the carbon footprint so they could have something new to believe in."
  
  Posted by Timz, UK
  
  TOTALLY AGREE WITH TIMZ, UK Posted by Jonathan Jones, WALES UK
• I am sick and tired of the UK Government treating us all like morons. Why should they be able to tell us what sort of bulb to use at home? Can our Government please stop pulling their trousers down in front of the EU and start making good decisions for the UK people? This light bulb story is just simply sickening and anti-constitutional. Posted by Surboy, UK
• I measured the light output from a 15w energy saving bulb and a 100w incandescant bulb, the light output (lumens) from the 100w bulb was almost exactly four times the output of the energy saver, in order to match the output of the conventional bulb, I needed. (Doubling the the number of bulbs always produces a light output increase of times1.5) eight 15w energy savers, which equals a total power consumption of 120watts. I think we are being misled! Posted by jon s, uk