Nothing Is Unbelievable Anymore.
News0 min ago
Traditional light bulbs
36 Answers
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-110729 0/Revolt-Robbed-right-buy-traditional-light-bu lbs-millions-clearing-shelves-supplies.html
Why get rid of the standard light bulb until they have at least designed one that a clip on type light shade will fit?
I have few of these enegy saving light bulbs fitted around my home, and have little trouble with them except they tend to come on a couple of seconds later than the conventional ones, yet on the other hand I recently fitted one to an outside lantern and it takes quite a long time to reach it's maximun brightness.
Why get rid of the standard light bulb until they have at least designed one that a clip on type light shade will fit?
I have few of these enegy saving light bulbs fitted around my home, and have little trouble with them except they tend to come on a couple of seconds later than the conventional ones, yet on the other hand I recently fitted one to an outside lantern and it takes quite a long time to reach it's maximun brightness.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I am slowly going back to the old style lightbulbs. If I need a light to see when I go into a room to find something I really don't want to wait until the dull glow changes to to a reasonable light! Same at night when I go outside, I need a good light to see by.
Also I am a migraine sufferer and there is evidence that they affect people with migraine and epilepsy.
I am all for saving the planet, but I also want to be able to see properly.
Hello AOG. Yes I know it's one of your threads!!!!
Happy New Year 2009!! ;o)
Also I am a migraine sufferer and there is evidence that they affect people with migraine and epilepsy.
I am all for saving the planet, but I also want to be able to see properly.
Hello AOG. Yes I know it's one of your threads!!!!
Happy New Year 2009!! ;o)
The best way to save energy is to do what the Queen does (no - not by opening Parliament in a tiara, hanging about with Black Rod)...by going around the house switching off unnecessary lights.
If the kids are in their bedrooms, make them come into the living room and you'll also benefit by spending time as a family.
Of course that will be hideously offset by the huge amount of energy used by the latest flat screen LCD tellies.
There was a report about this in the Independent a couple of weeks back. The use something like 150 times the energy of old style 'tube' TVs. It puts the bulbs into perspective...
If the kids are in their bedrooms, make them come into the living room and you'll also benefit by spending time as a family.
Of course that will be hideously offset by the huge amount of energy used by the latest flat screen LCD tellies.
There was a report about this in the Independent a couple of weeks back. The use something like 150 times the energy of old style 'tube' TVs. It puts the bulbs into perspective...
And like most Colnel Blimp reactionaries Youngmafbog offers us no facts or numbers but suppositions and invites us to be cynical.
If a 13 W CFL is equivilent to a 60 W conventional it is saving 47 W that means in only 21hours of use it has saved 1 KW hour
That's the energy to run a 3 bar electric fire for 20 minutes!
I'm having trouble too finding out how much more extra energy is required to make a CFL but I'll bet it doesn't take much more than a few days of use to break even!
But then for some here it's simply a case that they associate the left with the environment therefore all green issues must by definition be wrong and flawed!
David Cameron would tell you off!
If a 13 W CFL is equivilent to a 60 W conventional it is saving 47 W that means in only 21hours of use it has saved 1 KW hour
That's the energy to run a 3 bar electric fire for 20 minutes!
I'm having trouble too finding out how much more extra energy is required to make a CFL but I'll bet it doesn't take much more than a few days of use to break even!
But then for some here it's simply a case that they associate the left with the environment therefore all green issues must by definition be wrong and flawed!
David Cameron would tell you off!
Yes, �climate change� is the latest incarnation of �Global Warming�. It was introduced a while ago when scientists announced that, er, the earth was not warming up quite so quickly as previously forecast (because, as usual, they had extrapolated short term variations to determine long term changes). They decided that Global Warming had been postponed for about ten years and would not resume until about 2016. No matter, the scam must go on, so the term �Climate Change� was born.
The effect the forced use of these ridiculous devices will have upon climate change (real or imagined) is debatable. The assumptions made for their effect on the reduction in �carbon emissions� are somewhat simplistic. The calculations assume that because consumers reduce their demand on the power stations by using the new bulbs those stations will somehow be able to run at reduced output. This is patently absurd. Power stations run at a fairly constant output regardless of the load and the coal/gas/oil consumption does not reduce simply because somebody turns a light off in their home, ot changes a traditional bulb for a new one.
Of course, if it is being claimed that in the long term fewer power stations will be needed because we all switch to the new devices, that is a different matter. But as I understand it, that is not what is being claimed.
The effect the forced use of these ridiculous devices will have upon climate change (real or imagined) is debatable. The assumptions made for their effect on the reduction in �carbon emissions� are somewhat simplistic. The calculations assume that because consumers reduce their demand on the power stations by using the new bulbs those stations will somehow be able to run at reduced output. This is patently absurd. Power stations run at a fairly constant output regardless of the load and the coal/gas/oil consumption does not reduce simply because somebody turns a light off in their home, ot changes a traditional bulb for a new one.
Of course, if it is being claimed that in the long term fewer power stations will be needed because we all switch to the new devices, that is a different matter. But as I understand it, that is not what is being claimed.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Never mind the facts, birdie.
We Luddites will never convince those who are willing to embrace the White Hot Technological Revolution (whatever drivel accompanies some of the �developments�) that we are right to be cautious.
These devices are more expensive to make, do not do the job properly, will cost many people hundreds of pounds to adapt their less straightforward light fittings to accommodate them, make some people ill, and are hazardous to dispose of. The claimed energy savings are not properly quantified and even if they are correct will lead to scarcely any reductions in power station output. Don�t worry about any of that. The EU has decreed they will go. This gullible government simply signs on the dotted line to show solidarity and another measure is passed without this country�s MPs being consulted.
Where I live, twelve wheeled fifteen ton lorries have been making their stately way from the Olympic site to dump spoil in my locality (about fifteen miles each way). They travel at five minute intervals, six days a week and have been doing so for the last fifteen months. I estimate they have covered more than a million miles between them. All the shops in my locality insist on leaving their doors wide open (even in the recent sub-zero temperatures) and heat the street. Government and local government establishments leave most of their lights on 24/7. But I cannot use a tungsten filament light bulb because �they destroy the planet�.
Repeat after me, children: �What�s new is good and saves the planet, what�s old is bad and must go because it costs millions of lives.�
We Luddites will never convince those who are willing to embrace the White Hot Technological Revolution (whatever drivel accompanies some of the �developments�) that we are right to be cautious.
These devices are more expensive to make, do not do the job properly, will cost many people hundreds of pounds to adapt their less straightforward light fittings to accommodate them, make some people ill, and are hazardous to dispose of. The claimed energy savings are not properly quantified and even if they are correct will lead to scarcely any reductions in power station output. Don�t worry about any of that. The EU has decreed they will go. This gullible government simply signs on the dotted line to show solidarity and another measure is passed without this country�s MPs being consulted.
Where I live, twelve wheeled fifteen ton lorries have been making their stately way from the Olympic site to dump spoil in my locality (about fifteen miles each way). They travel at five minute intervals, six days a week and have been doing so for the last fifteen months. I estimate they have covered more than a million miles between them. All the shops in my locality insist on leaving their doors wide open (even in the recent sub-zero temperatures) and heat the street. Government and local government establishments leave most of their lights on 24/7. But I cannot use a tungsten filament light bulb because �they destroy the planet�.
Repeat after me, children: �What�s new is good and saves the planet, what�s old is bad and must go because it costs millions of lives.�
