News1 min ago
Low voltage downlighters
11 Answers
Can you buy such a thing as a low voltage bulb that is also energy saving? Every light in our house is a downlighter and I'm not sure whether this is the cause of our hefty electricity bills.
Answers
1 to 11 of 11
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by HappyFace. 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.
Yes they're LED based but they're not cheap a box of 50 will cost you �500
http://www.commercial-lamps.co.uk/acatalog/L_E_D__lighting.html
LED technology still develops - the trouble is they still can't be made to be very bright. Apart from LEDs the answer I believe is NO, because these 'energy saving' bulbs are actually little fluorescent tubes.
How about installing dimmers on some of the mainly used circuits - or experiment by switching some of the 50W bulbs to 20W?
Thanks for that link jake-the-peg. I'm in the middle of rebuiliding my office, and I think I'll give these lamps a try (for accent lighting - it seems each lamp is only equivalent to about 10 Watts - but bearing in mind the energy savings, and the average lifetime of 11 years, I think it's worth giving it a go)
Hefty electricity bills won't be caused by lights, (unless your house is lit up like Vegas). The greatset power consumption comes from stuff like the tumble drier, the washing machine(hot washes), electric oven? dishwasher etc. ps. leaving everything on standby will use up power too. Your tv uses at least 25% of normal power on standby. Some things probably need to be on standby eg alarms, others don't.
As I understand it LED lamps are only cheap to run because they don't give out much light. A low energy lamp of 11 watts will give the light equivalent of a 60 watt tungsten lamp, not so with LED.
You could change your lights for recessed fittings with low energy lamps, assuming your existing lights are halogen.
If you're trying to cut bills, then changing your light bulbs won't help much. Here are some figures I compiled for a couple of other questions here on AB:
A kilowatt-hour of electricity costs (on most tariffs) about 8p. This means that you can run a 1000W appliance for one hour for 8p. Based on this, we get the following approximate figures for one hour's use of each appliance (all rounded to nearest penny):
One-bar electric fire (or fan heater on 'low'): 8p
Two-bar electric fire (or fan heater on 'high'): 16p
100W light bulb : 1p
Tumble drier (Most use about 3000W): 24p
Washing machine (Power consumption varies during cycle. Usually a maximum of 3000W but lower at some times): 20p
Electric Cooker (oven and two rings in use): 20p
Microwave oven: 7p
Fridge-Freezer: Under 1p (Typically about 8p per day)
Portable TV: 1p
Larger TV's (especially LCD & Plasma): 2p
A kilowatt-hour of electricity costs (on most tariffs) about 8p. This means that you can run a 1000W appliance for one hour for 8p. Based on this, we get the following approximate figures for one hour's use of each appliance (all rounded to nearest penny):
One-bar electric fire (or fan heater on 'low'): 8p
Two-bar electric fire (or fan heater on 'high'): 16p
100W light bulb : 1p
Tumble drier (Most use about 3000W): 24p
Washing machine (Power consumption varies during cycle. Usually a maximum of 3000W but lower at some times): 20p
Electric Cooker (oven and two rings in use): 20p
Microwave oven: 7p
Fridge-Freezer: Under 1p (Typically about 8p per day)
Portable TV: 1p
Larger TV's (especially LCD & Plasma): 2p
Continued:
Immersion heaters can also be expensive to run. While it's actually heating the water, it'll cost 24p per hour. If it's left on all day and, say, just one bath is taken, then (with a well-lagged tank) it might only be actually heating the water for around a couple of hours. (So about 50p per day). If, however, it's left on all day (with a poorly-lagged tank) and hot water is frequently drawn off for baths, washing-up, etc, then the immersion heater might be heating water for between 4 and 6 hours per day. (i.e. roughly between �1 and �1.50 per day).
Change your light-bulbs by all means but don't expect massive savings. Look elsewhere if you really want to cut those bills. (Lag the hot water tank Insulate the loft. Use draught-proofing measures. Set any central heating thermostats no higher than 22C. If there's a thermostat on an immersion heater, set it no higher than 50C. Wash clothes at lower temperatures. Only heat rooms which you're actually using. Never leave appliances, such as TVs on 'standby' - always turn them off).
Hoping this helps,
Chris
Immersion heaters can also be expensive to run. While it's actually heating the water, it'll cost 24p per hour. If it's left on all day and, say, just one bath is taken, then (with a well-lagged tank) it might only be actually heating the water for around a couple of hours. (So about 50p per day). If, however, it's left on all day (with a poorly-lagged tank) and hot water is frequently drawn off for baths, washing-up, etc, then the immersion heater might be heating water for between 4 and 6 hours per day. (i.e. roughly between �1 and �1.50 per day).
Change your light-bulbs by all means but don't expect massive savings. Look elsewhere if you really want to cut those bills. (Lag the hot water tank Insulate the loft. Use draught-proofing measures. Set any central heating thermostats no higher than 22C. If there's a thermostat on an immersion heater, set it no higher than 50C. Wash clothes at lower temperatures. Only heat rooms which you're actually using. Never leave appliances, such as TVs on 'standby' - always turn them off).
Hoping this helps,
Chris
I have to disagree with Chris regarding lamps. My lounge has three table lamps with three 11 watt low energy lamps which is more than enough. Total 33 watts. The equivalent tungsten lamps would total 180 watts.
Without boring you with the maths this means that my annual lighting bill for the house with tungsten lamps would be �125 and with low energy lamps only �23. If everyone did this, think of the savings to the environment. Low energy lamps don't burn fittings and last a hell of a long time too.
Stanleyman obviously leaves his lights on day and night for 365 days of the year!
180W will cost about 0.18 x 8p = 1.44p per hour. To get a bill of �125 you'd need to have the lights on for just under 24 hours per day, every day of the year. Unless Stanleyman has a large family (and therefore may need lights on in several rooms at once), a more reasonable tungsten lighting bill for the year would be around �30 - �40 per year. I accept that a large part of these costs could be saved by using low energy lamps but this is still under �10 per quarter in savings. (I assumed that HappyFace is seeking far greater savings).
I fully accept that low-energy lamps are good for the environment but people who think that they'll make massive savings by using them may well find that they don't notice much of a reduction in their bills.
Most of the tungsten light-bulbs in my house are the same ones that the previous owner of the house left here 16 years ago. (I've not had to replace any bulb more than twice - at a cost of 25p each time - since I moved in). I've been sitting at my desk all evening, working by the light of a single 40W desk lamp which has cost me less than 3p. I really don't think that I'll save very much by switching to low-energy bulbs!
Chris
180W will cost about 0.18 x 8p = 1.44p per hour. To get a bill of �125 you'd need to have the lights on for just under 24 hours per day, every day of the year. Unless Stanleyman has a large family (and therefore may need lights on in several rooms at once), a more reasonable tungsten lighting bill for the year would be around �30 - �40 per year. I accept that a large part of these costs could be saved by using low energy lamps but this is still under �10 per quarter in savings. (I assumed that HappyFace is seeking far greater savings).
I fully accept that low-energy lamps are good for the environment but people who think that they'll make massive savings by using them may well find that they don't notice much of a reduction in their bills.
Most of the tungsten light-bulbs in my house are the same ones that the previous owner of the house left here 16 years ago. (I've not had to replace any bulb more than twice - at a cost of 25p each time - since I moved in). I've been sitting at my desk all evening, working by the light of a single 40W desk lamp which has cost me less than 3p. I really don't think that I'll save very much by switching to low-energy bulbs!
Chris
If you've still got good sixteen year old tungsten lamps then you must live in the dark Chris. I can just imagine you sitting there counting your pennies and warming you hands over your 40 watt bulb (7 watt LE but no warmth).
Your lighting figures are for some lonely old skinflint who has used up his last candle, not a normal family with teenagers who find it easier to switch a light on than pull back the curtains.
I stated what is used normally in the lounge only. The whole house with normal use would draw 750 watts with tungsten lamps and only 138 watts with low energy lamps, less than we would have used just in the lounge, we can afford to light our house properly every day mostly during the evenings for only �23 per year.
Tungsten lamps can also cause fire and damage wiring and fittings. I have considerable experience and training in these things so I do know what I'm talking about.
The one hundred pounds saving a year means we can take all the kids to Butlins for a fortnight and still have change left for fish and chips on the way home. Can you beat that?
1 to 11 of 11
Latest Posts
News4 mins ago
Good Morning Late Wednesday Birds.
ChatterBank14 mins ago
Crosswords14 mins ago
Anybody Watching The New Matlock
Film, Media & TV20 mins ago
ChatterBank21 mins ago