The future's bright?

By Dr Matthew Lockwood

 Have your say      Read comments

Ask anyone in the climate change business these days, and they'll tell you straight away that it's not the sexy new renewable energy products like solar panels and wind turbines that we should be thinking about first.   Dr Matthew Lockwood with a CFL bulb Instead, the experts tell us, we should be using energy much more efficiently, getting the same heat, light, refrigeration, washed clothes and so on, but using less juice in the process. When it comes to heating our homes, efficiency means more boring old insulation. But what about keeping our homes bright and cheery without ruining the planet? Almost a quarter of the electricity we use in our homes goes to keeping the lights on, and the trend is towards more and brighter lighting. Multiple downlighters in kitchens and bathrooms are now de rigeur. The new growth area is now lighting outside, with the likes of Matt James urging us to make our gardens look like Oxford Street at Christmas. Light pollution aside, the question is whether we can do all of this using less electricity. The standard solution is the compact fluorescent light (CFL), aka the low energy light bulb, which has been around for over 10 years. These use 4-5 times less energy than traditional incandescent light bulbs, and their costs have come right down. advertisement Tesco is now selling CFLs for as little as £1.37, and there are many specialist on-line retailers. While still a little more expensive than the incandescent bulb, they last a lot longer, and manufacturers claim lifetime savings on electricity bills of £30 or more. When they first appeared, CFLs looked just like little fluorescent light strips - ugly little sticks. Now they come in all shapes and sizes from candles and globes to spirals, and also cope with screw and bayonet fittings. Modern CFLs no longer flicker when coming on, although they still take time to warm up. CFLs are also now available as replacements for halogen downlighters, those spotlights recessed into the ceilings of our kitchens and bathrooms that seem to have become ubiquitous. Crucially, you can now even buy CFL downlighters that work with a dimmer switch (look out for the Megaman products). Unfortunately, the boffins haven't totally cracked it. The 11 watt low energy replacement for the most widely used 50 watt downlighter is unfortunately just a little too long to fit into the standard fitting. The one I bought recently is currently protruding about a quarter of an inch from the ceiling above the sink (although I have to say it gives a nice strong light).   You can now even buy CFL downlighters that work with a dimmer switch Despite falling prices and more flexibility, it seems that most of us still don't like the energy saving light bulb. Fewer than 3 in every 100 bulbs sold is a CFL. Some people still complain about the quality of the light from CFLs, despite the much bigger range of tones now available, saying that it just doesn't seem to be as warm and bright as the glow of a filament. CFLs also contain mercury, and so need to be disposed of carefully. The US firm, General Electric, is fighting back, saying that it will be developing a high efficiency incandescent bulb that will ultimately be as efficient as CFLs. Unfortunately, this may not be ready until 2010, by which time the EU (along with Canada) will have followed Australia in banning incandescent bulbs. The real future of lighting may lie elsewhere, with light-emitting diodes (LEDs). LEDs are solid state lighting, involving no fragile filaments or tubes. So far they have mainly been used as the "on" lights for stereos, TVs and DVDs, but in the last couple of years LED products for lighting have started to appear. There are lots of specialist firms on-line. Again, you can buy a replacement for the 50 watt halogen downlighter - the main LED version uses only 3 watts, a staggering 94 per cent saving in energy. The bad news is that these LED lights give out a watery and weak light, and even the "warm" whites seem quite cold. You'll currently need more fittings to get the same amount of light as you did from halogens. However, the drive to discover more energy efficient solutions is now stronger than ever. Through their Osram lighting division, Siemens have announced a new "Ostar" LED light that will give more brightness than the 50 watt downlighter (indeed as much as a standard 60 watt light bulb) using only around 14 watts. Whether the Ostar really is a low energy solution that we actually like will only be clear when it comes on the market this summer. But the trend towards more energy efficient lighting will surely continue. The incandescent bulb was originally invented by Edison almost 140 years ago. It is surely overdue for an upgrade. Dr Matthew Lockwood is Senior Research Fellow at the Climate Change Team, Institute for Public Policy Research

 Have your say    

What happens to halogen bulbs, we have spotlighting through holes in the ceiling only just big enough for the right size, I hope the gov. don't expect us to put those stupid great things in the roof,or are halogens ok? Anyone know
Posted by Chris on December 4, 2007 4:39 PM
Report this comment

Just put three of these in in the past week. Didn't know about the Mercury concern. Tomorrow they are coming out and going back to the store for disposal and we are going back to the old bulbs. I am not saving the planet at the expense of introducing an unnecessary health hazard to our home. Breakages happen so the CFL's will go.

Environmentalists have their own agenda and others jump on the bandwagon. I am not convinced about global warming but will help reduce possible contributing factors when it is safe.


Posted by Hilary on November 21, 2007 1:28 AM
Report this comment

I think Dr Matthew Lockwood may have misunderstood the problem of switching CFLs with a timer. Almost all the popular replacement light timeswitches(those that look like a normal light switch but have a built-in timer) use electronic switches which tend to have a minimum load requirement of at least 20W if not 40W. Therefore, switching a 11W or 15W CFL rated is not possible. I understand there are electronic switches with lower minimum load specifications but they are (very) hard to find.
Posted by Mick Clark on November 13, 2007 8:46 PM
Report this comment

We run a website: www.planetpatrol.info to educate other kids about the environment and we're very concerned about the amount of mercury in these bulbs. There are no instructions of how to dispose of them safely printed on the box. We have just handed a letter asking for legislation for this to be passed to our Minister for the Environment, Mr Turnbull - so far we haven't had a reply (no surprises there!). Please tell as many kids as you can about our website, we'd love to hear from them and publish their stories. We've got a good story on CFL bulbs too for even the adults to read. Alastair (www.planetpatrol.info)
Posted by Alastair Wadlow on October 26, 2007 10:33 PM
Report this comment

Paul Butler makes several accusations about energy efficient bulbs that are not strictly true.

Safety on stairs, he claims is compromised by the bulbs not coming on instantaneously. Has he checked that for himself? I have checked all 26 lights in my house all come on instantaneously.

He similarly claims that dimmers do not work on CFL's, no longer true such lamps are available, admittedly at an increased cost. His claim that timers do not work with CFL's is puzzling, mine do & I cannot understand why a timer switch can make a difference.

His claims of threatening e-mails, government conspiracies to suppress the truth sound like the ramblings of a conspiracy theorist. Are we to believe that the present US Government, who have resisted the Climate Change Theory for years and are clearly heavily influenced by the Oil/Gas/Coal industry are suppressing information that would be to those industries benefit?

Can we have a few citations from peer review from reputable climate scientists that refute CO2's effect on climate?

Another poster claimed that there was a poor quality of light from CFL's, Older ones did have a slight greenish tinge, however the newer ones are much better and I can find three different spectrum's at my local hardware store varying from quite intense white for work spaces through a warm soft light for more intimate settings.
Posted by Al Hamilton on October 14, 2007 7:22 PM
Report this comment

This dictat by the EU is another example of how the Green lobby is getting away with mindless, ignorant, unfounded dogma and then imposing clueless conditions on the rest of us.There will be huge problems if only long-life bulbs are "permitted" to be sold.

Climate change has always happened, and it must surely be the effect of the Sun, more than Man, which brought about much warmer conditions in England so that vineyards were all over the country pre 12th Century, in Roman times and earlier.

Many scientists absolutely disagree with the global warming alarmists. The Telegraph - March 07- reported:"Scientists who questioned mankind's impact on climate change have received death threats and claim to have been shunned by the scientific community.

They say the debate on global warming has been "hijacked" by a powerful alliance of politicians, scientists and environmentalists who have stifled all questioning about the true environmental impact of carbon dioxide emissions.

Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five deaths threats by email since raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate change.

One of the emails warned that, if he continued to speak out, he would not live to see further global warming.

"Western governments have pumped billions of dollars into careers and institutes and they feel threatened," said the professor.

"I can tolerate being called a sceptic because all scientists should be sceptics, but then they started calling us deniers, with all the connotations of the Holocaust. That is an obscenity. It has got really nasty and personal."

Last week, Professor Ball appeared in The Great Global Warming Swindle, a Channel 4 documentary in which several scientists claimed the theory of man-made global warming had become a "religion", forcing alternative explanations to be ignored.

Richard Lindzen, the professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology - who also appeared on the documentary - recently claimed: "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labelled as industry stooges.

"Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science."

Dr Myles Allen, from Oxford University, agreed. He said: "The Green movement has hijacked the issue of climate change. It is ludicrous to suggest the only way to deal with the problem is to start micro managing everyone, which is what environmentalists seem to want to do."Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said: "Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system."

The EU energy police are going to cause huge problems if this ban on tungsten actually comes into force. It has clearly not been thought through and reflects the typical bureaucratic mindset that "we know best", which, as usual, they most certainly do not.

To mention only a few problems: fittings in many cases will not hold energy-saving bulbs, so an awful lot of people, the elderly especially, will find themselves spending on new holders and fittings.

Safety will be compromised, especially on household stairways where lighting will not be instant.

External household security lighting will have to be redone, and electronic timers and dimmers will have to be updated/ renewed as few support energy saving bulbs.
Posted by Paul Butler on October 9, 2007 3:29 PM
Report this comment

Continued from my first post

Clearly, the CFL lamp is a much more dangerous beast than the incandescent. But what of this matter of energy consumption?

Well, if we assume that the theory of global warming is correct, and that CO2 contributes and so needs to be reduced, the question is, will changing to CFLs make such a significant difference that new energy sources will not have to be found? The answer is no. Whatever we do regarding lighting, we need to move to one kind or another of CO2 neutral energy generation. Plus, the fact is that being clean costs energy. Even if it just means recycling - expenditure of energy allows us to pollute less. So it seems valid to me to concentrate on creating a clean form of energy (which has to be nuclear for now really), and reduce our environmental pollution (which I regard as a much more serious problem than CO2 pollution, even if CO2 does cause global warming).

The real breakthrough in lighting is still a few years away. It is the sulphur bulb, which is more efficient than CFL or incandescent, but creates a better spectrum than either. But its currently only available in very large sizes (18kW) and miniaturization is still some time away.

In the meantime, personally I believe we should stick to generating cleaner energy, rather than pollute our environment with substances that will take many years to leave the biosphere. Sorting out our energy generation problem will do two things - it will halt the dumping of CO2 into the environment, which will appease those who believe this CO2 is causing climate change. Theres no harm in doing this anyway, and if it satisfies the large segment of government and population who believe CO2 is a problem, it can't be bad. Secondly, it will halt the dumping of more significant environmental pollutants from burning oil and coal into the environment. Thirdly it will enable us to use energy to create cleaner industry, and to use 'lossy' technologies like incandescent lamps, to reduce environmental pollution.
Posted by Pete on September 28, 2007 11:49 AM
Report this comment

Al Hamilton, you certainly seem to be convinced of the benefits of switching to CFLs. Personally, I am the opposite - CFLs are just fluorescents,which have been around for years, and although the phosphors are improving, they are a totally different beast to incandescents.

Florescent lighting has its place, but the main use for them is where you can control their disposal, breakage, etc, and where the characteristics suit the application. Business use - office lighting and such - yes. Regulations can ensure recycling, capture of mercury, luminaries which prevent mercury vapor escaping in the case of a breakage, etc. If the lumpy distorted spectral output of the lamp, with its strong (inescapable) mid green line (spike) and poor red rendering is not disturbing to the users, or is only there for a limited part of the day, there is little reason not to use them.

But in ones home, one expects a more relaxing and comfortable environment. The spectral output of an incandescent is whats called black body radiation - the curve is what some might call 'natural'. This might be why most users agree that incandescents create a more comfortable light.

Now on the one hand we have a (CFL) lamp with toxic substances in it, which will inevitably end up in land fill, with certainly the mercury being sequestered by organic processes and becoming biologically available - this ends up in our water. Not just the mercury either - some phosphors are also toxic, containing heavy metals, or other substances who's emissions by industry are strictly controlled.

On the other hand we have incandescents, which are totally non toxic. They contain glass, which comprises of sand, and washing soda, and lime (ie limescale) all non toxic substances. Also they contain tungsten, which is a heavy metal, but presents virtually nil health risk to humans, plants, animals etc... because of its solubility profile and other characteristics. You could grind up and eat an incandesant buld with no ill health effect.

Posted by Pete on September 28, 2007 11:48 AM
Report this comment

I'm sure he knows how to spell nonsense, though.
Posted by Martin Frog on September 20, 2007 5:08 AM
Report this comment

This article certainly has covered the issues of CFL and LED lighting and how they can easily reduce your electricity bills by 10 - 20%. It is a shame that more people are not converting to these methods of lighting, why pay ten times more for something, would you pay £1m for a £100k house, why do this for lighting.

CFLs can be easily recycled, and the mercury reused, they are covered under the WEEE directive. Recycling facilities are available around the UK, including at ikea stores. If you need to find a local recycle location call your local council.

For Damon Hart-Davis on June 6, 2007 8:07 PM, this article was proven to be incorrect. For information on how to clean up a broken CFL follow the link on my name.
Posted by Energy Saver on September 3, 2007 12:10 AM
Report this comment

Compact fluorescent lamps are not all they are cracked up to be. They are supposed to have long life, maybe they do if left turned on continuously. If they are switched on ,& off frequently they have a much shorter life than an incandescent lamp.There are many restrictions on where they can be used, ie with a dimmer, in a totally enclosed fixture, or in cold temperatures. Anyway lighting is a small part of energy use. In the average home heating & cooking uses much more energy than lighting.
Posted by jJim Brennand on August 10, 2007 7:58 AM
Report this comment

These bulbs don't last nearly as long as it tells you on the box!
They also contain mercury making them a problem to dispose of - why is the EU banning mercury use in barometers and then mandating CFLs which contian collectively about a hu ndred times more mercury than used in the barometer industry (soon to be defunct!!)
Posted by GM Lindsay on June 21, 2007 2:36 PM
Report this comment

I have changed all my bulbs at home at a cost of £28 to CFL's ( 25 bulbs bought on the internet at a £1.12 each ) and I reckon that I have saved £87.50 compared to last years electricity bill even with increasing electricity prices. I changed all the bulbs in my design showroom for £168 and I saved £950 in the last year over the year before's bill - and that is not including the saving made as a result of increasing electricity prices. Yes they take a moment to warm up, and no they don't work with dimmers - but that's a small price to pay. If the government scrapped the Energy Savings Trust funded to the tune of £80m a year and bulk purchased and sent every person 2 bulbs they would do more good.
Posted by William Lack on June 14, 2007 3:36 PM
Report this comment

B.P.Russell on June 12, 2007

I agree on price, once again I ask, why is the UK consumer being ripped off. These bulbs cost under a pound each in other countries.

Could it be the usually gutless British subservient attitude? Buy a product that does not live up to your expectations, so what do you do? Whine to a newspaper! Why did you not return the obviously defective items as soon as you found they did not provide the advertised light? Why did you not return them when they failed to live up to the advertised life expectancy?

On the matter of disposal what do you do with old batteries, etc?

Pester your council for an annual hazmat pickup. Stop whining and act.

Typical UK in the last 10 years, expect some one else to solve you problems.

Posted by Al Hamilton on June 14, 2007 1:46 AM
Report this comment

I bought the 100W equivalent bulbs. Our village shop doesn't have them, so I had to send off by mail order. They cost me £30. I can buy a pack of ten 100W bulbs for £1 in Poundland, so 30X dearer. The first thing I noticed was I couldn't read using them, and had to buy a reading lamp. More expense. After about 5 months use the white light starts to go yellow. When they go they often make a loud bang, emit a puff of white smoke, and throw the trip switch. It was quite frightening the first few times it happened. It sounded like a gunshot. It is not funny being plunged into darkness when the trip switch can only be reached by using kitchen steps. I have a balance problem, and I'm a widowed pensioner, so I risk a fall every time it happens. I have replaced the living room, and dining room bulbs with "daylight" bulbs, and can read again. They were totally useless in the kitchen so I have put a 3 light halogen fitting in there. As the others go I will put standard bulbs back in.... I have stockpiled them ready for the ban on selling them. I don't find the eco bulbs last anything like as long as claimed, and being 30 X dearer, I haven't noticed any significant savings overall.
They aren't exactly environmentally friendly either, needing special disposal. Why are we allowing Europe to dictate to us in this way? I can only assume that France or Germany is the main manufacturer of these bulbs, so enforced use will increase their profit margins. Quite honestly there is nothing that this small, insignificant island can do, or not do, that will affect global warming at all. If global warming was man made, why didn't it occur after the start of the Industrial Revolution? How did the Ice Age start without Man to destroy the Ozone Layer or upset the ecological balance of Nature? We are like fleas on a dog's back. A minor inconvenience to the Earth. At best we are parasites. Earth shrugs her shoulders, and we have earthquakes, Tsunamis, and erupting volcanos. Thousands of humans die. Drought leads to famine, or the opposite happens and floods wash crops, humans and human habitation away. The desert spreads without any means to stop it. Faced with this might, who really believes we can influence anything? The only thing which might make a difference would be to preserve the Rainforest, and plant more trees everywhere. It's not going to happen.
Posted by B.P.Russell on June 12, 2007 10:22 AM
Report this comment

Where have all the REAL SCIENTISTS gone?

Presumably they're all now in hiding, the science agenda having now been stolen by 'policy advocates' like Lockwood, and historians like Lynas.

You'll notice these slippery suckers avoid specific reference to an scientific phenomenon, prefering to deploy generalisations, like 'climate change' - the climate of planet Earth has been changing ever since it had an atmosphere - and global warming, and well, that's been either warming or cooling on a regular basis too.

The problem we're really facing is the good science - the science of rigour and skepticism - has been sided-lined out by a left wing agenda that is anti-capital, anti-globalization, and anti-technology - but very PRO compulsion and legislation.

The sooner we can re-focus on the REAL issue - our future energy security - the sooner we will start embracing the need CFL other technology for the right reasons.

Posted by Dom in Oxford on June 9, 2007 11:49 AM
Report this comment

tony judge on June 7, 2007 12:58 PM

<>


How is mercury "sealed" in a barometer? A mercury barometer must have an opening to atmosphere to work. If not kept upright then mercury may/can escape. Mercury has a very nasty habit of combining with other substances to form quite hazardous substances.

Certainly no new mercury barometers should be made except for strictly controlled use as calibration of totally safe anaroid barometers.

Agreed that CFL's mercury is a problem, certainly hazardous waste collection needs improvement.


Posted by Al Hamilton on June 8, 2007 7:00 PM
Report this comment

Bad to have a mecury sealed in a robust barometer in the house. Good to have mercury in fragile glass casing.....wierdoes!

And, let's say it again, CO2 is not a pollutant....you know how it goes
Posted by tony judge on June 7, 2007 12:58 PM
Report this comment

Hi Robin Davies,

I'm conducting a little pilot scheme to see if what you say is practical, see:

link

Rgds

Damon
Posted by Damon Hart-Davis on June 6, 2007 8:07 PM
Report this comment

A woman, while changing a burned-out CFL Bulb, dropped and broke it. Being a concerned environmentalist, she called to find out what to do. Once government got through with her; the Hazard Materials folks required cleaning her house, the bill for a broken light bulb....$3,000.00.

Are we absolutely sure we are doing the right thing forcing everybody to use Compact Fluorescent Bulbs?

Especially since the movement seems to preclude other technologies, shouldn't we "Follow The Money" and find out why the extremely urgent push toward one technology, CFL bulbs?
Posted by Michael Shatto on June 3, 2007 9:12 PM
Report this comment

Posted by Nigel on June 1, 2007 2:29 PM
<>

For ceiling fixtures it heats a couple of inches of air at the ceiling and the ceiling itself. Hardly an efficient way to heat the room. Thats why radiators & airducts, etc. are mounted near the floor.

As for mecury, I agree it is a problem. Certainly hazardous waste disposal/recycling has to be improved. At least in USA car batteries & tires have surcharges for disposal & vendors have to accept old batteries/tires. Perhaps giving worthwhile discounts for returned CFL's would be a worthwhile carrot.
Posted by Al Hamilton on June 1, 2007 9:20 PM
Report this comment

I recently saw solar powered street lights in an Adelaide square (Australia ). The solar collector was a reflector on the underside and the light was a LED cluster shining on it.
Posted by Roger Senior on June 1, 2007 2:42 PM
Report this comment

Congratulations to Matthew Lockwood for admitting the mercury problem. My experience of long-life bulbs is that whilst they are excellent when on for long periods in light fittings which accept their large size, they do not like being turned on and off, and are too large for many fancy light fittings. We run 3×5W on our stairs where they can stay on all evening, but I have to question the environmental case for putting mercury bulbs in the WC.

Global warming is accepted by most scientists, whereas the problems of mercury in the environment is, I understand, undisputed.

Al Hamilton — where does the 75% of energy used by an incandescent bulb go?
Posted by Nigel on June 1, 2007 2:29 PM
Report this comment

Colin Osborne on May 30, 2007 7:35 PM

You need a qualified electrition to change a light bulb?

3 years 365 days a year 24 hours per day = about 25,000 hours, not bad for a product rated for 10,000. Next time change them at 1.5x rated life & you should be all right. Better switch to LEDs.
Posted by Al Hamilton on May 31, 2007 9:00 PM
Report this comment

I have been using CFLs for over ten years, from the time when they were expensive and hard to find. The old Phillips jar jar ones were quite slow to come on and unfortunately put some people off. The newer CFL bulbs are very good and a fraction of what they used to cost.
Recently, I moved to a house which has halogen light fittings throughout (a big mistake by the builder). I have tracked down Phillips Masterline ES which use a third less electricity than standard wasteful halogen bulbs. Better still, I have recently used some LED bulbs which use about 3 watts yet give out a slightly dimmer light than conventional bulbs. I would recommend them for areas where very bright lights are not needed.
Posted by Simon Tompsett on May 31, 2007 8:19 AM
Report this comment

I hate to say this because I try to be responsible and save energy, but CFL bulbs are cr*p, as someone who needs assistance to see, the light they give off is pathetic. I go for LED lighting, but it's a matter of personal taste, as the light they give off is ferociously white, and for the moment expensive. But they last about 1,000 years!
Posted by Rob Bain on May 30, 2007 8:27 PM
Report this comment

My partner is the House Manager for a block of retirement appartments. Low energy CFL bulbs were fitted 3 years ago for all passageways throughout the building. They run 24x7. They are now starting to fail. As they do so the bases get so hot they melt the plastic holders so that the lamps cannot be removed and the complete lightfittings have had to be replaced. The housing committee agreed that all the bulbs should therefore be replaced before they fail. This requires the visit of a registered electrician (who has to provide method statements, risk assessments, and safety gear)The cost has wacked the energy savings to 35% of that predicted.
Posted by Colin Osborne on May 30, 2007 7:35 PM
Report this comment

In responce to T Bryant on May 30, 2007 11:15 AM

All but two bulbs in my house are CFL. The two exceptions are one incandescent in a small desk light and an LED, for safety, over a lathe. None of the CFL's have any delay on turning on. All have good colour, none (except the LED) cost more than a pound.

The claim that power saved in lighting is ofset by extra heating is a canard. Central heating is efficient at heating, light bulbs are not, so any extra heating needed will be done using much less energy.

If you were correct why has my gas heating bill not increased at all when my electric bill has decreased by 25%?
Posted by Al Hamilton on May 30, 2007 6:56 PM
Report this comment

Are they worth having?

Slow to start, light quality declines with age, those that have a light temperature closer to daylight are expensive.
When they are mostly on ie. in the winter at the same time as central heating, if the temperature is thermostatically controlled, the saving in energy from the use of these bulbs will be replaced by heat from the heating system. This means that the pay-back period must be much longer than that generally quoted.
Draw your own conclusions.
Q.E.D.


Posted by T Bryant on May 30, 2007 11:15 AM
Report this comment

CF L's save money and reduce our footprint. I use them on our outside lighting as well as indoors
Posted by John Duffield on May 30, 2007 10:36 AM
Report this comment

CFLs are now widely available in the US. We recently replaced all of the incandescent bulbs in our house with them, as did our next-door neighbor. The intensity and tone of the light are both more than acceptable (once we figured out how to choose the wattage and type of bulb), and we noticed an immediate 25% drop in our electric bill. This piece of the future is clearly already here.

Disclaimer: I'm Matthew Lockwood's uncle. But he's still right on target...
Posted by Frank Davidoff on May 25, 2007 5:55 PM
Report this comment

We bought some 10W megaman spot light bulbs. At first the light did take a bit of getting used to as it was very different to the halogen light but now I find it normal. At the same time we also bought one of their dimmable bulbs. This has not been quite so successful, it is not as bright as other low energy bulbs so we usually end up turning another light on too! It was about £10 so not cheap but no doubt there are improvements being made as I type.
Posted by Juliet on May 25, 2007 2:06 PM
Report this comment

I have often thought that it must be possible to have a 12volt lighting system, powered by a wind turbine and/or solar panel to leisure batteries. When the LED bulbs actually reach a realistic light output, if they remain at only a few watts consumption, this idea would be great. Independant lighting, not affected by powercuts. Safer as only 12v, as green as possible.................so please tell me why there seems no interest in such a system?.
Posted by Robin Davies on May 24, 2007 10:30 PM
Report this comment

Like Jetinder, we've used low-e bulbs for about 12 years. They cut our electricity use by about 10%, so we must had a 'free' year by now.
Posted by Peter Whitehead on May 24, 2007 2:58 PM
Report this comment

We've been using energy saving bulbs for 12 years. To cut a long story short they do out last normal light builbs, they use less power than normal ones so are better on the wallet.

Over the last year or so the price of energy saving bulbs has come down to around £2 per bulb and almost every one sells them which is great news.

Posted by Jetinder on May 24, 2007 1:34 AM
Report this comment

What is Dr Matthew Lockwood's doctorate in? Apparently not a science subject or he would not write such enumerate nonsence as:-

"These use 4-5 times less energy than traditional incandescent light bulbs"

One cannot use 4-5 times less of anything, period.

From first hand knowledge of the subject it is clear that he means "These use a fourth to a fifth of the energy".
Posted by Al Hamilon on May 23, 2007 12:06 AM
Report this comment

Please remember that the submission of any material to telegraph.co.uk is governed by our Terms and Conditions (clause 5 in particular) and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Your name: *

Your email address: * (We won't publish this.)

Your site's URL: (If you have one.)

Please click the post button only once - your comment will not be published immediately.

* = Required information

BUSINESS Busy Brum Little evidence of belt-tightening in Bullring Selfridges.

TRAVEL Room service Paddy Burt visits a Yorkshire hotel with an equine heritage.

FEATURES So two years ago Buying the right Christmas present is a serious business.

PROPERTY Award winners Homebuilding and Renovating Awards 2007: the winners.