Discussion:
Heritage incandescence alert
(too old to reply)
D7666
2007-09-27 19:34:49 UTC
Permalink
Ref the recent thread about flashing LED and incandescent lamps:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7016020.stm


''... Plans to phase out the traditional lightbulb by 2011 have been
announced by Environment Secretary Hilary Benn.
Mr Benn told the Labour conference he wanted to see an end to the sale
of 150-watt bulbs from next January.

Less powerful traditional bulbs would be taken off the shelves in
stages under the voluntary energy-saving scheme by 2011.

Greenpeace said the move was "long overdue" and would help the UK
reduce its CO2 emissions.

etc

And so our aim is for traditional 150-watt lightbulbs to be phased out
by January next year, 100-watt bulbs the year after, 40-watt bulbs the
year after that and all high-energy lightbulbs by 2011."

Mr Benn estimated that the move would save five million tonnes of CO2
a year

etc
etc



NR undetaking a massive relamping of signals by 2011 ?


--
Nick
Paul Scott
2007-09-27 20:15:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by D7666
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7016020.stm
''... Plans to phase out the traditional lightbulb by 2011 have been
announced by Environment Secretary Hilary Benn.
Mr Benn told the Labour conference he wanted to see an end to the sale
of 150-watt bulbs from next January.
Less powerful traditional bulbs would be taken off the shelves in
stages under the voluntary energy-saving scheme by 2011.
Greenpeace said the move was "long overdue" and would help the UK
reduce its CO2 emissions.
etc
And so our aim is for traditional 150-watt lightbulbs to be phased out
by January next year, 100-watt bulbs the year after, 40-watt bulbs the
year after that and all high-energy lightbulbs by 2011."
Mr Benn estimated that the move would save five million tonnes of CO2
a year
NR undetaking a massive relamping of signals by 2011 ?
OT - but there'll need to be a lot of expenditure on domestic dimmer switch
replacements, and I bet they won't have thought of internal lamps in such as
ovens, fridges, microwaves etc...

Paul
The Real Doctor
2007-09-27 20:32:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Scott
OT - but there'll need to be a lot of expenditure on domestic dimmer switch
replacements, and I bet they won't have thought of internal lamps in such as
ovens, fridges, microwaves etc...
And spotlights and tubular incandescents and ...

It's a stupid political decision. The usage energy / carbon savings
are trivial compared to the manufacturing emissions: compact
fluorescents are vastly more complicated and are very hard to recycle.
They also contain - en masse - a LOT of mercury which is going to go
into landfill.

Ian
Roland Perry
2007-09-27 20:55:38 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, at
13:32:14 on Thu, 27 Sep 2007, The Real Doctor
The usage energy / carbon savings are trivial compared to the
Is that really true (it would make a good debating point though). It's
claimed these bulbs typically save £100 of electricity over their
lifetime, and if they only cost £2 retail, how can they possibly have
that much energy manufactured into them?
compact fluorescents are vastly more complicated and are very hard to
recycle. They also contain - en masse - a LOT of mercury which is going
to go into landfill.
That's a much more sustainable (sic) observation.
--
Roland Perry
Clive D. W. Feather
2007-09-28 19:16:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
The usage energy / carbon savings are trivial compared to the
Is that really true (it would make a good debating point though). It's
claimed these bulbs typically save £100 of electricity over their
lifetime, and if they only cost £2 retail, how can they possibly have
that much energy manufactured into them?
Those numbers don't sound right to me.

Assume electricity is 8p per kWh (I can't be bothered to dig out my
bills to check).

A 1000 hour 100W incandescent bulb uses 100kWh in its lifetime, for a
cost of £8. A 2000 hour bulb will use £16 worth. The cost of the bulb
(40p-50p) can be ignored.

The equivalent replacement fluorescent is 20W. In the same 1000 hours it
uses £1.60 worth. The bulb costs about £3, so that's £4.60 instead of
£8. Of course, the fluorescent really lasts 5000 to 8000 hours, so let's
normalise all this to 8000 hours:

1000h incandescent: £64 + £4 = £68
2000h incandescent: £64 + £2 = £66
5000h fluorescent: £12.80 + £4.80 = £17.60
8000h fluorescent: £12.80 + £3.00 = £15.80

As for the manufacturing emissions, let's assume that the *entire* cost
of a bulb is the electricity used to make it, at a quarter of the
domestic price. Then for that same 8000 hours:

1000h incandescent: 800kWh + 200kWh = 1000kWh
2000h incandescent: 800kWh + 100kWh = 900kWh
5000h fluorescent: 160kWh + 240kWh = 400kWh
8000h fluorescent: 160kWh + 150kWh = 310kWh


The only problem I've got is some light fittings where the standard BC
bulb only just fits and the fluorescent is just a little too tall.
--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home: <***@davros.org>
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: <http://www.davros.org>
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: <***@demon.net>
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: <***@davros.org>
Roland Perry
2007-09-29 07:02:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clive D. W. Feather
Post by Roland Perry
Is that really true (it would make a good debating point though). It's
claimed these bulbs typically save £100 of electricity over their
lifetime, and if they only cost £2 retail, how can they possibly have
that much energy manufactured into them?
Those numbers don't sound right to me.
[snip]
Post by Clive D. W. Feather
1000h incandescent: £64 + £4 = £68
So someone is rounding up to £100, and also using a x12 not x 8
multiplier; ah yes, the Times:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article2543056.ece

"Around 80 per cent of bulbs sold in UK stores are high-energy
bulbs, even though fluorescent bulbs use 75 per cent less energy
and last up to 12 times longer. Retailers said that they can
reduce electricity bills by £9 per year per bulb, or £100 over
the bulb's lifetime."
--
Roland Perry
Dave
2007-09-29 11:31:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
So someone is rounding up to £100, and also using a x12 not x 8
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article2543056.ece
"Around 80 per cent of bulbs sold in UK stores are high-energy
bulbs, even though fluorescent bulbs use 75 per cent less energy
and last up to 12 times longer. Retailers said that they can
reduce electricity bills by £9 per year per bulb, or £100 over
the bulb's lifetime."
There's at least one manufacturer for whom you should be using a x15
multiplier, see my other post down thread.

D
Terry Harper
2007-09-28 21:47:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
13:32:14 on Thu, 27 Sep 2007, The Real Doctor
The usage energy / carbon savings are trivial compared to the
Is that really true (it would make a good debating point though). It's
claimed these bulbs typically save £100 of electricity over their
lifetime, and if they only cost £2 retail, how can they possibly have
that much energy manufactured into them?
Both tubes and bulbs are manufactured in similar glass melting
furnaces. Because of the throughput of a ribbon machine, a bulb
furnace is something like 250 tonnes/day throughput, whereas tubing
furnaces run in the 50-100 tonnes/day range. However, the ribbon
machine produces about 50% cullet, which is recycled in the process,
whereas the Danner or Vello tubing machines produce very little by
comparison.

My feeling is that the fluorescent lamps have more weight of glass in
them than a normal incandescent bulb, which has very thin glass. The
specific energy consumption is of the order of 4MJ/tonne of glass
melted, which is 8MJ/tonne in the case of bulbs produced. If someone
would like to weigh comparable lamps, you may be able to estimate the
energy used in manufacture. The 100W incandescent lamp has about 1,000
hours useful life, so consumes 100,000kWh, whereas the 20W fluorescent
will last perhaps 5,000 hours, also consuming 100,000kWh, or 360GJ.

If the fluorescent has twice the weight of glass, compared with the
bulb, let's say 100g compared with 50g, then the energy used in
manufacture is effectively the same, at about 0.4kJ. Somewhat trivial
compared with the energy saving of 1.44TJ, as far as I can see.
--
Terry Harper
Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org
Clive D. W. Feather
2007-09-28 22:09:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Harper
100W incandescent lamp has about 1,000
hours useful life, so consumes 100,000kWh,
100,000Wh, or 100kWh.
Post by Terry Harper
If the fluorescent has twice the weight of glass, compared with the
bulb, let's say 100g compared with 50g, then the energy used in
manufacture is effectively the same, at about 0.4kJ. Somewhat trivial
compared with the energy saving of 1.44TJ, as far as I can see.
100kWh is 360MJ.
--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home: <***@davros.org>
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: <http://www.davros.org>
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: <***@demon.net>
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: <***@davros.org>
Terry Harper
2007-09-29 18:50:24 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 23:09:49 +0100, "Clive D. W. Feather"
Post by Clive D. W. Feather
Post by Terry Harper
100W incandescent lamp has about 1,000
hours useful life, so consumes 100,000kWh,
100,000Wh, or 100kWh.
Post by Terry Harper
If the fluorescent has twice the weight of glass, compared with the
bulb, let's say 100g compared with 50g, then the energy used in
manufacture is effectively the same, at about 0.4kJ. Somewhat trivial
compared with the energy saving of 1.44TJ, as far as I can see.
100kWh is 360MJ.
Thank you Clive. I'm glad you noticed that (pace Capt. Mainwaring:-)
--
Terry Harper
Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org
Graham Murray
2007-09-27 21:31:20 UTC
Permalink
compact fluorescents are vastly more complicated and are very hard to
recycle. They also contain - en masse - a LOT of mercury which is
going to go into landfill.
Are they not covered by the WEEE directive and therefore they are not
allowed to be disposed of with the 'normal' refuse but the
supplier/manufacturer/council must provide proper recycling or disposal
facilities which would not include putting them in landfill.
Tom Burton
2007-09-27 21:36:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graham Murray
compact fluorescents are vastly more complicated and are very hard to
recycle. They also contain - en masse - a LOT of mercury which is
going to go into landfill.
Are they not covered by the WEEE directive and therefore they are not
allowed to be disposed of with the 'normal' refuse but the
supplier/manufacturer/council must provide proper recycling or disposal
facilities which would not include putting them in landfill.
That doesn't help when Mr Joe Bloggs just lobs it in the wheely bin
though....


Tom
The Good Doctor
2007-09-27 23:19:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graham Murray
compact fluorescents are vastly more complicated and are very hard to
recycle. They also contain - en masse - a LOT of mercury which is
going to go into landfill.
Are they not covered by the WEEE directive and therefore they are not
allowed to be disposed of with the 'normal' refuse but the
supplier/manufacturer/council must provide proper recycling or disposal
facilities which would not include putting them in landfill.
What a pity no-one chose to inform Joe Public, and that there is no
sign of any such advice being given at the point of sale.
Ben
2007-09-28 00:05:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Good Doctor
Post by Graham Murray
compact fluorescents are vastly more complicated and are very hard to
recycle. They also contain - en masse - a LOT of mercury which is
going to go into landfill.
Are they not covered by the WEEE directive and therefore they are not
allowed to be disposed of with the 'normal' refuse but the
supplier/manufacturer/council must provide proper recycling or disposal
facilities which would not include putting them in landfill.
What a pity no-one chose to inform Joe Public, and that there is no
sign of any such advice being given at the point of sale.
There's a picture of a wheelie bin crossed out on the packaging, so its
pretty obvious you're not meant to put them in the bin, but the
information ends there. I've no doubt the vast majority of people have
no idea where they can safely dispose of them and just end up putting
them in the bin anyway.

Of course, coal is a big source of nasties like mercury and cadmium, and
burning it in coal fired power stations releases huge amounts of mercury
into the atmosphere. It has been said that the mercury CFLs save by
using less electricity more than makes up for the mercury contained in
them, although that's comparing mercury in the air versus mercury in the
ground, so I'm not sure if its a fair comparison.
The Good Doctor
2007-09-28 12:49:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben
Post by The Good Doctor
Post by Graham Murray
compact fluorescents are vastly more complicated and are very hard to
recycle. They also contain - en masse - a LOT of mercury which is
going to go into landfill.
Are they not covered by the WEEE directive and therefore they are not
allowed to be disposed of with the 'normal' refuse but the
supplier/manufacturer/council must provide proper recycling or disposal
facilities which would not include putting them in landfill.
What a pity no-one chose to inform Joe Public, and that there is no
sign of any such advice being given at the point of sale.
There's a picture of a wheelie bin crossed out on the packaging, so its
pretty obvious you're not meant to put them in the bin, but the
information ends there. I've no doubt the vast majority of people have
no idea where they can safely dispose of them and just end up putting
them in the bin anyway.
My local council is apparently one of the best in the country in terms
of the percentage of refuse that gets recycled. One reason for that
is that we are issued with recycling bins for paper, plastics and
glass which are emptied fortnightly.

I must admit that I would have no idea which of these to put blown
light bulbs in, whatever their type. Next time I go to the tip, where
there is a very wide range of recycling options, I will ask if there
is any special provision for them.
Post by Ben
Of course, coal is a big source of nasties like mercury and cadmium, and
burning it in coal fired power stations releases huge amounts of mercury
into the atmosphere. It has been said that the mercury CFLs save by
using less electricity more than makes up for the mercury contained in
them, although that's comparing mercury in the air versus mercury in the
ground, so I'm not sure if its a fair comparison.
It does strike me as odd that mercury emissions into the air are
relatively uncontrolled. II have several old cameras that were
designed for use with mercury batteries. They had the advantage of a
very long life with extremely consistent voltage right up until the
point they stop working.

Now that they are outlawed, I have to use silver or lithium cells
which have environmental problems of their own, but are freely
available and carry no special instructions regarding their disposal.
They last nowhere near as long as the mercury cells, so I guesstimate
that I am using 3 to 5 times more batteries. Is the environmental
impact of that lower or higher? I have no idea.

Incidentally, I dispose of all used batteries via a recycling scheme
offered by a local shop. The owner is keen on green issues and
provides the service free of charge. He gets a very small amount of
money from the recycling firm he uses because they extract various
chemicals from the exhausted batteries and sell them to industry.
Pyromancer
2007-09-29 03:11:21 UTC
Permalink
Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Ben
<***@nospam.com> gently breathed:

[ Low Energy Lamps ]
Post by Ben
There's a picture of a wheelie bin crossed out on the packaging, so its
pretty obvious you're not meant to put them in the bin, but the
information ends there. I've no doubt the vast majority of people have
no idea where they can safely dispose of them and just end up putting
them in the bin anyway.
I always thought that meant you couldn't put them in the recycling bin.

I wonder if they really mean to phase out all incandescent lamps, or
just "basic" ones? There are no low-energy equivalents to candle bulbs,
spot-lamps, etc.

Personally, I find the light from low-energy bulbs harsh and unpleasant.
If I can no longer light my living room with tungsten bulbs, I'll simply
switch to candles, which produce a very pleasant ambience, albeit at a
higher cost and vastly more carbon emissions.

I suppose I'll have to head to B&Q and stock up on a few hundred
traditional bulbs while I still can though.

LED lamps look like a good bet in the long term, but the ones I've seen
so far (we have quite a few in The Subculture in Leeds, including one
that constantly changes colour, which is cool) aren't really bright
enough for full-room illumination yet.
Post by Ben
Of course, coal is a big source of nasties like mercury and cadmium,
and burning it in coal fired power stations releases huge amounts of
mercury into the atmosphere. It has been said that the mercury CFLs
save by using less electricity more than makes up for the mercury
contained in them, although that's comparing mercury in the air versus
mercury in the ground, so I'm not sure if its a fair comparison.
Solar panels, mini wind turbines, lots of batteries in the basement, and
LED lamps is presumably the best way to light a house.
--
- DJ Pyromancer, Black Sheep, Leeds. <http://www.sheepish.net>
Hard Rock, Leeds <http://www.hard-rock.org.uk>
Broadband, Dialup, Domains = <http://www.wytches.net> = The UK's Pagan ISP!
<http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk> <http://www.revival.stormshadow.com>
Dave
2007-09-29 10:32:45 UTC
Permalink
I wonder if they really mean to phase out all incandescent lamps, or just
"basic" ones? There are no low-energy equivalents to candle bulbs,
spot-lamps, etc.
That's not true - I have a couple of Megaman CFLs under test at the moment
as a replacement for the many GU10 spots I have and I'm very pleased with
them. Their claim to be slightly brighter than other CFLs at the same
wattage also holds up. I can't say whether their claim to last 15000 hours
is also true yet, but I'll let you know in 2020.

http://www.megamanuk.com/
Personally, I find the light from low-energy bulbs harsh and unpleasant.
If I can no longer light my living room with tungsten bulbs, I'll simply
switch to candles, which produce a very pleasant ambience, albeit at a
higher cost and vastly more carbon emissions.
That's a matter of taste, but I have seen CFLs that get close to matching
the colour temperature of incandescents.

D
Mortimer
2007-09-29 11:24:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave
Post by Pyromancer
Personally, I find the light from low-energy bulbs harsh and unpleasant.
If I can no longer light my living room with tungsten bulbs, I'll simply
switch to candles, which produce a very pleasant ambience, albeit at a
higher cost and vastly more carbon emissions.
That's a matter of taste, but I have seen CFLs that get close to matching
the colour temperature of incandescents.
I have a desk lamp (which I use as a bedside light for reading in bed) and
several table lamps in my living room. All these produce a light which is
very similar in colour to tungsten. With my digital camera on its tungsten
setting, results are very similar to real tungsten light. Film reproduces
the PL11 striplight in the desk lamp as being slightly magenta - I know
because I used it to provide light for a photo I once took.

My parents have a desk lamp which also uses a PL11 bulb but that is much
bluer (it's even bluer than daylight) and that is not such a pleasing light
to read by.
Ben
2007-09-27 22:50:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Real Doctor
Post by Paul Scott
OT - but there'll need to be a lot of expenditure on domestic dimmer switch
replacements, and I bet they won't have thought of internal lamps in such as
ovens, fridges, microwaves etc...
And spotlights and tubular incandescents and ...
Spotlights are fairly well catered for. I've got some fluorescent GU10s
and E27s.
Stephen Furley
2007-09-28 09:31:23 UTC
Permalink
Roger R
2007-09-28 10:33:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben
Spotlights are fairly well catered for. I've got some fluorescent GU10s
* There are a wide range of LED ones available, for mains Voltage, 12V
* constant Voltage LED transformer and 12V retrofit for use with
* existing halogen transformers. I have not been impressed with any of
* the ones that I have seen so far, but things are developing rapidly
* with LEDs, so maybe in a few years.

The problem with LED type lamps is the light is at just one specific
wavelength. The result is that though the lamps are very bright to look
at, they don't illuminate the scene at all well.

B&Q brought out some 'white' GU10 replacements, at around 18 pounds for two,
but they went back because the 'white' turned out to be a ghostly pale blue,
no comparison to the warm tone of the tungsten.
(At the time of writing the word tungsten doesn't appear anywhere in this
thread-most odd)

We replaced a single tungsten bulb fitting (on the landing) with one of
those curved arm type with five tungsten GU10' type lamps fitted along its
length. So a single 60 W was replaced with 5 x 50 W = 250 W. Judging by
the sales of these stylish fittings many other people were doing the same,
so how is that helping carbon emissions by increasing electric consumption
fourfold?

Roger R
Dave
2007-09-29 10:35:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger R
We replaced a single tungsten bulb fitting (on the landing) with one of
those curved arm type with five tungsten GU10' type lamps fitted along its
length. So a single 60 W was replaced with 5 x 50 W = 250 W. Judging by
the sales of these stylish fittings many other people were doing the same,
so how is that helping carbon emissions by increasing electric consumption
fourfold?
Roger R
Exactly. Try finding new flats at the moment that aren't riddled with the
things.

D
The Good Doctor
2007-09-28 12:59:35 UTC
Permalink
There is also a compact ceramic metal halide replacement, available in
ratings as low as 20W. Nice lamp, but they cost about £30 each, and
something like £150-200 for the control gear. Good for things like
display cases in shops, but probably not going to be used at home.
Like most new technology, they will get considerably cheaper.

I remember buying a halogen fitment for a shop window display some
years ago which cost me £175. Something very similar can now be
purchased for £15.
John Shelley
2007-09-28 09:22:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Real Doctor
Post by Paul Scott
OT - but there'll need to be a lot of expenditure on domestic dimmer
switch replacements, and I bet they won't have thought of internal
lamps in such as ovens, fridges, microwaves etc...
And spotlights and tubular incandescents and ...
It's a stupid political decision. The usage energy / carbon savings
are trivial compared to the manufacturing emissions: compact
fluorescents are vastly more complicated and are very hard to recycle.
They also contain - en masse - a LOT of mercury which is going to go
into landfill.
A lot of the energy that goes into these "inefficient" incandescent bulbs
comes out as heat, rather than light which is why they are labled as
inefficient. However this emitted heat helps to keep the temperature up in
the home. So in your average home that heat will have to be sourced from
somewhere else, such as an electric fire.
--
Cheers for now,

John from Harrow, Middx

remove spamnocars to reply
Ken Ward
2007-09-28 09:49:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Shelley
Post by The Real Doctor
Post by Paul Scott
OT - but there'll need to be a lot of expenditure on domestic dimmer
switch replacements, and I bet they won't have thought of internal
lamps in such as ovens, fridges, microwaves etc...
And spotlights and tubular incandescents and ...
It's a stupid political decision. The usage energy / carbon savings
are trivial compared to the manufacturing emissions: compact
fluorescents are vastly more complicated and are very hard to recycle.
They also contain - en masse - a LOT of mercury which is going to go
into landfill.
A lot of the energy that goes into these "inefficient" incandescent bulbs
comes out as heat, rather than light which is why they are labled as
inefficient. However this emitted heat helps to keep the temperature up in
the home. So in your average home that heat will have to be sourced from
somewhere else, such as an electric fire.
I heard about this "Conference Speech" yesterday on my new DAB Radio, it
takes, I'm told, 3 times the energy of my old Tranny Radio. I do use the new
lighting though except for the kitchen which has a 5 foot Flourecent tube,
should I change that for the new bulbs?

BTW. I knew someone years ago, who had all his light fitting changed to the
Edison Screw type. Can't remember where he sourced his replacement bulbs
though. :-)) He did travel by train a lot.

KW
Neil Williams
2007-09-28 18:37:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Ward
I heard about this "Conference Speech" yesterday on my new DAB Radio, it
takes, I'm told, 3 times the energy of my old Tranny Radio. I do use the new
lighting though except for the kitchen which has a 5 foot Flourecent tube,
should I change that for the new bulbs?
I'd say not, as that's just a non-coiled version of the same thing.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.
MB
2007-09-28 18:51:10 UTC
Permalink
Some useful information here

http://www.sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm

MB
Terry Harper
2007-09-28 21:51:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Ward
BTW. I knew someone years ago, who had all his light fitting changed to the
Edison Screw type. Can't remember where he sourced his replacement bulbs
though. :-)) He did travel by train a lot.
If he wanted standard voltage ES lamps, Wilkinson's can provide them.
I picked up some by mistake a couple of years ago.
--
Terry Harper
Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org
t***@beeb.net
2007-09-29 23:05:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Ward
Post by John Shelley
Post by The Real Doctor
Post by Paul Scott
OT - but there'll need to be a lot of expenditure on domestic dimmer
switch replacements, and I bet they won't have thought of internal
lamps in such as ovens, fridges, microwaves etc...
And spotlights and tubular incandescents and ...
It's a stupid political decision. The usage energy / carbon savings
are trivial compared to the manufacturing emissions: compact
fluorescents are vastly more complicated and are very hard to recycle.
They also contain - en masse - a LOT of mercury which is going to go
into landfill.
A lot of the energy that goes into these "inefficient" incandescent bulbs
comes out as heat, rather than light which is why they are labled as
inefficient. However this emitted heat helps to keep the temperature up in
the home. So in your average home that heat will have to be sourced from
somewhere else, such as an electric fire.
I heard about this "Conference Speech" yesterday on my new DAB Radio, it
takes, I'm told, 3 times the energy of my old Tranny Radio. I do use the new
lighting though except for the kitchen which has a 5 foot Flourecent tube,
should I change that for the new bulbs?
BTW. I knew someone years ago, who had all his light fitting changed to the
Edison Screw type. Can't remember where he sourced his replacement bulbs
though. :-)) He did travel by train a lot.
And the same legislation will phase out inefficient, energy hungry
TVs... er, aren't plasma screens massively inefficient? (as well as
CRTs) - that's going to be bad news for everyone with a plasma screen
that needs replacing!

Tony
The Good Doctor
2007-09-29 23:44:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@beeb.net
And the same legislation will phase out inefficient, energy hungry
TVs... er, aren't plasma screens massively inefficient? (as well as
CRTs) - that's going to be bad news for everyone with a plasma screen
that needs replacing!
Size for size, CRT uses least, LCD just a little more, plasma about
three times more.
t***@beeb.net
2007-09-30 08:34:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Good Doctor
Post by t***@beeb.net
And the same legislation will phase out inefficient, energy hungry
TVs... er, aren't plasma screens massively inefficient? (as well as
CRTs) - that's going to be bad news for everyone with a plasma screen
that needs replacing!
Size for size, CRT uses least, LCD just a little more, plasma about
three times more.
I had a feeling that was right - but posting late in the day I wasn't
up to googling to check - I think I meant to put a "?" after the CRT
bit.

So - is Gordon Brown going to be bold enough to outlaw plasma screens?

Let me guess......

TM
The Good Doctor
2007-09-30 11:24:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@beeb.net
Post by The Good Doctor
Post by t***@beeb.net
And the same legislation will phase out inefficient, energy hungry
TVs... er, aren't plasma screens massively inefficient? (as well as
CRTs) - that's going to be bad news for everyone with a plasma screen
that needs replacing!
Size for size, CRT uses least, LCD just a little more, plasma about
three times more.
I had a feeling that was right - but posting late in the day I wasn't
up to googling to check - I think I meant to put a "?" after the CRT
bit.
So - is Gordon Brown going to be bold enough to outlaw plasma screens?
Let me guess......
He he!

But David Cameron's lot will probably be daft enough to outlaw them.
R.C. Payne
2007-10-01 10:24:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Good Doctor
Post by t***@beeb.net
And the same legislation will phase out inefficient, energy hungry
TVs... er, aren't plasma screens massively inefficient? (as well as
CRTs) - that's going to be bad news for everyone with a plasma screen
that needs replacing!
Size for size, CRT uses least, LCD just a little more, plasma about
three times more.
Can you point me in the direction of some figures for this? It has been
my perception that for things like computer monitors and TVs, LCDs were
a fair bit lower power than CRTs. Certainly when I replaced my CRT with
a TFT, my student room was noticably chillier without the monitor to
heat it. I can immagine for things like railway station distination
displays things are different because of the needs of brightness (see, I
can get on topic).

On a related note, a friend of mine actually measured some of his
household devices to test these claims of power lost in TVs on standby
and phone chargers left plugged in. He found that his (CRT) TV left on
standby drew something like 1 or 2W, and his phone charger drew no
measurable current when the phone was not plugged in.

Robin
Roland Perry
2007-10-01 11:13:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by R.C. Payne
On a related note, a friend of mine actually measured some of his
household devices to test these claims of power lost in TVs on standby
and phone chargers left plugged in. He found that his (CRT) TV left on
standby drew something like 1 or 2W, and his phone charger drew no
measurable current when the phone was not plugged in.
Here's some figures I measured earlier this year:

<nil> means that as far as I can tell from examining its vital signs,
the device consumes no power at all when off.

Operating Idle Standby Off

LCD computer screen 21W 32VA 5W 10VA[1] 2W 2VA 2W 2VA
Desktop PC 85W 105VA n/a 1W 6VA 1W 6VA [2]
Laptop PC charger 55W 116VA 0 n/a n/a
Laptop PC (fully charged) 17W 32VA n/a 0 0
Old mobile charger [3] 5W 6VA 0 n/a n/a
Modern mobile charger [4] 3W 6VA 0 n/a n/a
Tumble drier 1380W 1380VA <nil> n/a <nil>
Washing machine 200W 1000VA[5] 1W 2VA n/a 1W 2VA [6]
VideoCassRec 10W 18VA 10W 18VA 2W 2VA n/a
DVR 31W 47VA n/a 3W 6VA n/a
Large CRT TV 160W 200VA[7] n/a 5W 10VA <nil>

So taking the TV as the biggest offender, it's costing me £4 a year to
keep it on standby, as opposed to the £40 switched on for the estimated
6 hours a day it's in use.

I'm a bit surprised at the washing machine, because I have to admit to
consciously turning it "off" rather than leaving it in "idle" (where
there's a small red light on). But this doesn't seem to be helping.
Annual cost about 0.08[p/kwh]*5[washes a week]*52*0.48[KWH] = £9.98 (+
£1 for the idle).

[1] When the PC is off. Reverts to auto-standby a few seconds later.
[2] Although you could be forgiven for thinking this was "off". Most
desktop PCs whose "off switch" is a button on the front panel are
actually going into a form of standby.
[3] Is warm to the touch when no phone attached, may include transformer
[4] A switching mode design. Cold to touch when no phone attached
[5] Varies a lot according to whether motor is in use. This is the
"normal" slow churn consumption. Having measured the KWH, it
rates at 0.48KWh per wash (40 degrees, cold fill).
[6] I was surprised by this, obviously the same sort of "active" on/off
switch as on most PCs.
[7] Power consumption fluctuated by 20% up and down depending on the
brightness of the picture.
--
Roland Perry
t***@beeb.net
2007-10-01 12:50:38 UTC
Permalink
The Good Doctor
2007-10-01 13:12:49 UTC
Permalink
Power consumption compared
Average plasma: 328 watts
Average rear-projection: 208 watts
Average LCD: 193 watts
Average CRT: 146 watts
That's quite close to the figures I quoted, which came from a long
discussion among people who know a lot about TVs.

Quoting from that discussion, a big problem with LCD TVs is that a 28
inch LCD uses roughly the same power as a 28 inch CRT, but people with
28 inch CRTs tend to replace them with much larger LCDs which use
proportionately more power.

The only issue that almost everyone agreed on was that plasma TVs are
very power hungry indeed. The only person who disagreed, claiming
that they used no more power than CRTs, was a TV salesman whose
employer sold only plasma screens. ;-)
R.C. Payne
2007-10-01 13:30:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Good Doctor
Power consumption compared
Average plasma: 328 watts
Average rear-projection: 208 watts
Average LCD: 193 watts
Average CRT: 146 watts
That's quite close to the figures I quoted, which came from a long
discussion among people who know a lot about TVs.
Quoting from that discussion, a big problem with LCD TVs is that a 28
inch LCD uses roughly the same power as a 28 inch CRT, but people with
28 inch CRTs tend to replace them with much larger LCDs which use
proportionately more power.
The only issue that almost everyone agreed on was that plasma TVs are
very power hungry indeed. The only person who disagreed, claiming
that they used no more power than CRTs, was a TV salesman whose
employer sold only plasma screens. ;-)
I don't entirely understand the LCD TV figures, compared with LCD
computer monitors. I have a 15" TFT monitor, and the data printed on it
tells me it draws something like 35W on, 5W standby. Roland gave
similar figures for a LCD comptuer screed (21W/5W), which I presume he
has measured (I'm assuming his figures are gained from going round his
house measuring stuff). Why does a LCD TV need 193W? Is it because LCD
power scales badly with size (so that a 25" is lots more power hungry
than a 15"), or is there something else I'm missing here? Sorry for the
off topic posting, normal service(?) will resume shortly.

Robin
The Good Doctor
2007-10-01 13:48:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by R.C. Payne
Post by The Good Doctor
Power consumption compared
Average plasma: 328 watts
Average rear-projection: 208 watts
Average LCD: 193 watts
Average CRT: 146 watts
That's quite close to the figures I quoted, which came from a long
discussion among people who know a lot about TVs.
Quoting from that discussion, a big problem with LCD TVs is that a 28
inch LCD uses roughly the same power as a 28 inch CRT, but people with
28 inch CRTs tend to replace them with much larger LCDs which use
proportionately more power.
The only issue that almost everyone agreed on was that plasma TVs are
very power hungry indeed. The only person who disagreed, claiming
that they used no more power than CRTs, was a TV salesman whose
employer sold only plasma screens. ;-)
I don't entirely understand the LCD TV figures, compared with LCD
computer monitors. I have a 15" TFT monitor, and the data printed on it
tells me it draws something like 35W on, 5W standby. Roland gave
similar figures for a LCD comptuer screed (21W/5W), which I presume he
has measured (I'm assuming his figures are gained from going round his
house measuring stuff). Why does a LCD TV need 193W? Is it because LCD
power scales badly with size (so that a 25" is lots more power hungry
than a 15"), or is there something else I'm missing here? Sorry for the
off topic posting, normal service(?) will resume shortly.
No, I don't understand either. The TV experts couldn't tell me,
except that they pointed out the TV LCDs differ from computer monitors
in being brighter and reponding more quickly to input.

The guy who sold plasma TVs correctly pointed out that LCD TVs need to
be backlit, and those backlights are on all the time the set is
switched on, whereas the plasma elements generate their own
illumination and are only on when needed. Within those statements
there may be something that explains why LCD TVs are more power hungry
than computer monitors, size for size, but I am not inquisitive enough
to get to the bottom of it.

.
Charles Ellson
2007-10-01 13:48:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by R.C. Payne
Post by The Good Doctor
Power consumption compared
Average plasma: 328 watts
Average rear-projection: 208 watts
Average LCD: 193 watts
Average CRT: 146 watts
That's quite close to the figures I quoted, which came from a long
discussion among people who know a lot about TVs.
Quoting from that discussion, a big problem with LCD TVs is that a 28
inch LCD uses roughly the same power as a 28 inch CRT, but people with
28 inch CRTs tend to replace them with much larger LCDs which use
proportionately more power.
The only issue that almost everyone agreed on was that plasma TVs are
very power hungry indeed. The only person who disagreed, claiming
that they used no more power than CRTs, was a TV salesman whose
employer sold only plasma screens. ;-)
I don't entirely understand the LCD TV figures, compared with LCD
computer monitors. I have a 15" TFT monitor, and the data printed on it
tells me it draws something like 35W on, 5W standby. Roland gave
similar figures for a LCD comptuer screed (21W/5W), which I presume he
has measured (I'm assuming his figures are gained from going round his
house measuring stuff). Why does a LCD TV need 193W? Is it because LCD
power scales badly with size (so that a 25" is lots more power hungry
than a 15"), or is there something else I'm missing here? Sorry for the
off topic posting, normal service(?) will resume shortly.
ITYF the backlight accounts for the extra watts with LCD. With the
above TFT monitor you've got roughly the equivalent of 4x8w tubes (or
8x4w cold cathode?) behind the screen so you're increasing by a
function of the diagonal (x2 or x root2 ?).
Roland Perry
2007-10-01 15:16:25 UTC
Permalink
Roland gave similar figures for a LCD comptuer screed (21W/5W), which I
presume he has measured (I'm assuming his figures are gained from going
round his house measuring stuff).
Yes, with a power meter that displays both wattage and VA. On sale till
tomorrow, it seems:

<http://www.maplin.co.uk/Module.aspx?ModuleNo=38343&doy=1m10&C=SO&U=stra
t15>

ObRail: I wonder what the power factor of a typical electric train is?
Need a rather bigger meter to measure it :)
--
Roland Perry
Mortimer
2007-10-01 11:48:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by R.C. Payne
On a related note, a friend of mine actually measured some of his
household devices to test these claims of power lost in TVs on standby and
phone chargers left plugged in. He found that his (CRT) TV left on
standby drew something like 1 or 2W, and his phone charger drew no
measurable current when the phone was not plugged in.
Fascinating results. It shows that you need to turn appliances off at the
wall. I can understand TVs and VCRs consuming power when they are "off"
because the TV needs to keep monitoring the IR sensor for the "wake-up"
signal and the VCR needs to power its clock so it can power-up to record
timed events. I knew that a PC maintained a standby signal to the
motherboard so it can sense when the front-panel power switch is turned on.

What is surprising is the washing machine. I can't see any reason why it
would be designed with a PC-type power supply, unless there's some safety
thing about not wanting the front-panel power switch to handle mains
voltages given that you may have wet hands when you press it.

I wonder why TVs use so much more power than any other when in standby?
Could it be that the IR sensor and associated circuitry use a lot of power?

What surprised me about my laptop was that the DC input from the charger
consumed far more power (20W) to trickle-charge a fully-charged battery than
to power the laptop itself (3W) with no battery fitted. I'd expected it to
be the other way round: that the backlight, the HDD and the motherboard/CPU
would consume the majority of the power and the consumption by a
fully-charged battery which was being trickle-charged would be negligible.
This suggests that the circuitry within the laptop for detecting when the
battery is charged is not very good and continues to supply power even after
the battery has reached the threshold voltage at which charging should cease
altogether.
Roland Perry
2007-10-01 14:25:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mortimer
Fascinating results. It shows that you need to turn appliances off at the
wall. I can understand TVs and VCRs consuming power when they are "off"
because the TV needs to keep monitoring the IR sensor for the "wake-up"
signal and the VCR needs to power its clock so it can power-up to record
timed events. I knew that a PC maintained a standby signal to the
motherboard so it can sense when the front-panel power switch is turned on.
Although the washing machine is only £1 a year, and for half the year
the waste heat is useful to warm that room up.
--
Roland Perry
John B
2007-09-28 10:40:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Shelley
A lot of the energy that goes into these "inefficient" incandescent bulbs
comes out as heat, rather than light which is why they are labled as
inefficient. However this emitted heat helps to keep the temperature up in
the home. So in your average home that heat will have to be sourced from
somewhere else, such as an electric fire.
There are two problems with this:
1) most of the time, most people's houses don't have thermostatically
controlled heating switched on.
2) even when they do, it's much more CO2-friendly to heat a house with
gas or coal or oil than with electricity [at least until the fabled
new build of nukes comes online], because for entropy-tastic reasons
around half the energy in the gas/coal/oil that makes up the vast
majority of electricity generation is used in converting it to an
ordered energy state (whereas just burning it for heat releases 100%
of the energy).

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org
Chris Tolley
2007-09-28 10:47:01 UTC
Permalink
whereas just burning it for heat releases 100% of the energy
I foresee the need for a Strategic Coal Limitation Treaty.
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683796.html
(153 305 at Shrewsbury, 30 Jun 1999)
John B
2007-09-28 12:32:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Tolley
whereas just burning it for heat releases 100% of the energy
I foresee the need for a Strategic Coal Limitation Treaty.
100% of the energy released by the oxidisation. You pendant. ;-)

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org
The Good Doctor
2007-09-28 13:04:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by John B
Post by John Shelley
A lot of the energy that goes into these "inefficient" incandescent bulbs
comes out as heat, rather than light which is why they are labled as
inefficient. However this emitted heat helps to keep the temperature up in
the home. So in your average home that heat will have to be sourced from
somewhere else, such as an electric fire.
1) most of the time, most people's houses don't have thermostatically
controlled heating switched on.
2) even when they do, it's much more CO2-friendly to heat a house with
gas or coal or oil than with electricity [at least until the fabled
new build of nukes comes online], because for entropy-tastic reasons
around half the energy in the gas/coal/oil that makes up the vast
majority of electricity generation is used in converting it to an
ordered energy state (whereas just burning it for heat releases 100%
of the energy).
Two points:

One, the cost of nuclear-generated power from the new build stations
will cost rather more than that from existing nuclear stations, which
is already about three times the cost of power generated from coal or
gas-fired stations;

Two, you are assuming that gas-, coal- or oil-fired central heating is
100% efficient, when in practice a significant proportion of the heat
generated by burning fuel goes to heat up the sky via the flue.
John B
2007-09-28 15:42:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Good Doctor
One, the cost of nuclear-generated power from the new build stations
will cost rather more than that from existing nuclear stations, which
is already about three times the cost of power generated from coal or
gas-fired stations;
Do you mean that the amortised lifetime cost per megawatt-hour [i.e.
original cost of building plus cost of dismantling plus all operating
costs divided by lifetime energy output] will be higher for new build
than for existing build?

That seems like a bizarre assertion, given that there's been 30 years
of technology development since the most recent existing plants were
designed, and we can now simply build off-the-shelf plant designs from
France.

If you're merely claiming that new build will be expensive than
existing build because we'll have to pay to build it, that's true but
not very relevant (given that the only way you can class existing
nuclear plants as more expensive than coal or gas is by taking the
amortised lifetime cost measure).
Post by The Good Doctor
Two, you are assuming that gas-, coal- or oil-fired central heating is
100% efficient, when in practice a significant proportion of the heat
generated by burning fuel goes to heat up the sky via the flue.
True, although surprisingly little with modern boilers AIUI.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org
The Good Doctor
2007-09-28 19:25:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by John B
Post by The Good Doctor
One, the cost of nuclear-generated power from the new build stations
will cost rather more than that from existing nuclear stations, which
is already about three times the cost of power generated from coal or
gas-fired stations;
Do you mean that the amortised lifetime cost per megawatt-hour [i.e.
original cost of building plus cost of dismantling plus all operating
costs divided by lifetime energy output] will be higher for new build
than for existing build?
Absolutely, because up till now, those costs have never been paid in
full by people buying nuclear-generated electricity.

Currently, no-one pays a penny towards the debt on the original
construction costs, and we pay only a small contribution towards the
liabilities for future reprocessing and decommissioning. The
decommissioning costs have more than quadrupled since the notional
contribution was decided on.
Post by John B
That seems like a bizarre assertion, given that there's been 30 years
of technology development since the most recent existing plants were
designed,
The cheapest and most reliable generators of nuclear electricity are
the Magnox stations, which were constructed from the 1950s into the
60s. For many years, the most efficient nuclear station in the world
was the Magnox station at Wylfa, on Anglesey.

The Advanced Gas Cooled (AGR) reactors are less economic and the
Pressurised Water Reactor at Sizewell B doesn't even come close to
Magnox stations for efficiency. And Sizewell has to be paid for,
unlike the Magnox and AGR stations whose costs were written off.

The Magnox and AGR stations had another purpose, the manufacture of
weapons grade plutonium, which meant the defence budget could be said
to have contributed to their costs. The UK now has over 100 tonnes of
weapons grade plutonium in (in)secure storage at Sellafield, enough
for thousands of nuclear warheads, so the MoD is no longer interested
in contributing towards the costs of nuclear stations.
Post by John B
and we can now simply build off-the-shelf plant designs from France.
As the French had no oil or gas, and not much coal, they decided to
subsidise nuclear power very heavily in order to give them a security
of electricity supply that fossil fuels, having to be imported, could
never offer. The economics of nuclear power in France would merit a
book, rather than a Usenet posting, but suffice it to say that
Électricité de France (EdF) has ended up with the biggest debt of any
corporate body in the world.

Indeed, the two main reasons for the French economy being in its
current appalling state are EdF and SNCF (thanks to the cost of the
TGV projects). It has taken a long time, but 'les poulets' have
finally come home to roost, and France is well and truly bankrupt,
with EdF and SNCF about equally to blame.

Those on here who would like to see similar sums of money spent on
giving Britain more high speed railway lines, plus nuclear power
stations to power them, would do well to take note!
R.C. Payne
2007-10-01 10:51:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Good Doctor
Post by John B
Post by The Good Doctor
One, the cost of nuclear-generated power from the new build stations
will cost rather more than that from existing nuclear stations, which
is already about three times the cost of power generated from coal or
gas-fired stations;
Do you mean that the amortised lifetime cost per megawatt-hour [i.e.
original cost of building plus cost of dismantling plus all operating
costs divided by lifetime energy output] will be higher for new build
than for existing build?
Absolutely, because up till now, those costs have never been paid in
full by people buying nuclear-generated electricity.
Currently, no-one pays a penny towards the debt on the original
construction costs, and we pay only a small contribution towards the
liabilities for future reprocessing and decommissioning. The
decommissioning costs have more than quadrupled since the notional
contribution was decided on.
Currently, no-one has to pay any penalty for the ammount of CO2 a power
station emmits into the atmoshpere, but this is unlikely to remain the
case in the future. All thermal power stations have big problems with
them, but the question of how to tackle climate change remains. And the
power stations continue to get older and the gas runs lower and lower.
At some point we are going to have to decide which factors are going to
be ignored/subsidised/swept under the carpet, and which will be
economically considered. The figures I have seen make me favour nuclear.

Robin
The Good Doctor
2007-10-01 12:08:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by R.C. Payne
Currently, no-one has to pay any penalty for the ammount of CO2 a power
station emmits into the atmoshpere, but this is unlikely to remain the
case in the future. All thermal power stations have big problems with
them, but the question of how to tackle climate change remains. And the
power stations continue to get older and the gas runs lower and lower.
At some point we are going to have to decide which factors are going to
be ignored/subsidised/swept under the carpet, and which will be
economically considered.
You must be wilfully blind.

The CO2 advantages of nuclear power are already "economically
considered" in the non-fossil fuel levy, a tax on all electricity
generated by burning coal, oil and gas, which is then given to the
nuclear and wind generating sectors in the form of a very substantial
subsidy per kWh produced.

Approximately two thirds of the cost of nuclear-generated electricity
is subsidised by this method. The electricity consumer pays only one
third of the cost.

And I restate, even this very high cost of nuclear-generated
electricity still does not include a full contribution to the colossal
costs of building and decommissioning nuclear power stations and
reprocessing the waste they produce.
Post by R.C. Payne
The figures I have seen make me favour nuclear.
As I said, you must be wilfully blind.
R.C. Payne
2007-10-01 13:38:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Good Doctor
Post by R.C. Payne
Currently, no-one has to pay any penalty for the ammount of CO2 a power
station emmits into the atmoshpere, but this is unlikely to remain the
case in the future. All thermal power stations have big problems with
them, but the question of how to tackle climate change remains. And the
power stations continue to get older and the gas runs lower and lower.
At some point we are going to have to decide which factors are going to
be ignored/subsidised/swept under the carpet, and which will be
economically considered.
You must be wilfully blind.
The CO2 advantages of nuclear power are already "economically
considered" in the non-fossil fuel levy, a tax on all electricity
generated by burning coal, oil and gas, which is then given to the
nuclear and wind generating sectors in the form of a very substantial
subsidy per kWh produced.
In order for that to be an appropriate economic consideration, there
would have to be some meaningful understanding of the true cost
associated with the contribution to climate change associated with these
emissions. As there is not, all it provides is a vague attempt to
appease voters/politicians/whoever. To believe that we have a
worthwhile understanding of the economic cost of things a long way in
the future, where we have little or no understanding of the way we will
actually come to deal with them (this applies to both the disposal of
nuclear stuff and the impact of climate change) is somewhat optimistic.

Robin
The Good Doctor
2007-10-01 14:37:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by R.C. Payne
Post by The Good Doctor
Post by R.C. Payne
Currently, no-one has to pay any penalty for the ammount of CO2 a power
station emmits into the atmoshpere, but this is unlikely to remain the
case in the future. All thermal power stations have big problems with
them, but the question of how to tackle climate change remains. And the
power stations continue to get older and the gas runs lower and lower.
At some point we are going to have to decide which factors are going to
be ignored/subsidised/swept under the carpet, and which will be
economically considered.
You must be wilfully blind.
The CO2 advantages of nuclear power are already "economically
considered" in the non-fossil fuel levy, a tax on all electricity
generated by burning coal, oil and gas, which is then given to the
nuclear and wind generating sectors in the form of a very substantial
subsidy per kWh produced.
In order for that to be an appropriate economic consideration, there
would have to be some meaningful understanding of the true cost
associated with the contribution to climate change associated with these
emissions.
Exactly the same applies to the completely unknown "true costs" of
nuclear power. All past estimates have been orders of magnitude out,
mainly because nuclear power has had a hidden primary purpose, which
was (until 2003) the manufacture of weapons grade plutonium. That
meant that money from the defence budget wasused to subsidise the
otherwise hopeless economics of nucplear power.
Post by R.C. Payne
As there is not, all it provides is a vague attempt to
appease voters/politicians/whoever. To believe that we have a
worthwhile understanding of the economic cost of things a long way in
the future, where we have little or no understanding of the way we will
actually come to deal with them (this applies to both the disposal of
nuclear stuff and the impact of climate change) is somewhat optimistic.
If we waited until we had a perfect understanding of the economics,
absolutely nothing would get done. The main problem is not that the
economics are imperfect, which of course they are, but that whole
chunks of the known economics are ignored in order to favour nuclear
power.

There are already genuine concerns that wind generated power will
remain an enormously costly option for the foreseeable future. It was
hoped that costs would come down rapidly, but they have not. The
problem with nuclear power is that it is even more costly than wind
power, and every time the costs are re-examined, they go up
significantly, making viability an even more distant prospect.
bobrayner
2007-10-01 15:29:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Good Doctor
Post by John B
Do you mean that the amortised lifetime cost per megawatt-hour [i.e.
original cost of building plus cost of dismantling plus all operating
costs divided by lifetime energy output] will be higher for new build
than for existing build?
Absolutely, because up till now, those costs have never been paid in
full by people buying nuclear-generated electricity.
Really?
http://www.psiru.org/reports/2004-12-E-NDA.doc
"Electricity consumers have already paid for the decommissioning of
the Magnox plants"
Post by The Good Doctor
The cheapest and most reliable generators of nuclear electricity are
the Magnox stations, which were constructed from the 1950s into the
60s. For many years, the most efficient nuclear station in the world
was the Magnox station at Wylfa, on Anglesey.
It's difficult to imagine any sensible metric on which magnox is
cheapest and most reliable. Except, perhaps, a metric that pretends
it's still the 1950s and that ignores anything outside the UK.

A lot has changed in the last half-century. Reactor designs have got
better, simpler, safer, and more efficient. Incredibly, the outside
world also has nuclear power suggestions that are worth considering...
bobrayner
2007-10-01 15:06:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Good Doctor
Post by John B
Post by John Shelley
A lot of the energy that goes into these "inefficient" incandescent bulbs
comes out as heat, rather than light which is why they are labled as
inefficient. However this emitted heat helps to keep the temperature up in
the home. So in your average home that heat will have to be sourced from
somewhere else, such as an electric fire.
1) most of the time, most people's houses don't have thermostatically
controlled heating switched on.
2) even when they do, it's much more CO2-friendly to heat a house with
gas or coal or oil than with electricity [at least until the fabled
new build of nukes comes online], because for entropy-tastic reasons
around half the energy in the gas/coal/oil that makes up the vast
majority of electricity generation is used in converting it to an
ordered energy state (whereas just burning it for heat releases 100%
of the energy).
One, the cost of nuclear-generated power from the new build stations
will cost rather more than that from existing nuclear stations, which
is already about three times the cost of power generated from coal or
gas-fired stations;
Really?
According to this:
http://nuclearpower2007.direct.gov.uk/docs/Chapter_4_Economics_of_nuclear_power.pdf

The cost of nuclear power generation has almost caught up with gas,
and "three times" seems rather exaggerated. Perhaps you're making a
comparison to some obsolete reactor design, like magnox?

However, if polluters had to pay a fair price for carbon emissions (a
carbon tax is a VERY good idea from both an economic and environmental
perspective), then nuclear power generation would be cheaper.
R.C. Payne
2007-10-01 10:27:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by John B
Post by John Shelley
A lot of the energy that goes into these "inefficient" incandescent bulbs
comes out as heat, rather than light which is why they are labled as
inefficient. However this emitted heat helps to keep the temperature up in
the home. So in your average home that heat will have to be sourced from
somewhere else, such as an electric fire.
1) most of the time, most people's houses don't have thermostatically
controlled heating switched on.
2) even when they do, it's much more CO2-friendly to heat a house with
gas or coal or oil than with electricity [at least until the fabled
new build of nukes comes online], because for entropy-tastic reasons
around half the energy in the gas/coal/oil that makes up the vast
majority of electricity generation is used in converting it to an
ordered energy state (whereas just burning it for heat releases 100%
of the energy).
I thought for modern central heating boilers, you are looking at figures
more like 85% or 90% (of LCV for the pedants). You never get 100% with
anything where the entropy word comes into it. Even if you think you
should, you don't.

Robin
Kirk Northrop
2007-09-27 22:14:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Scott
OT - but there'll need to be a lot of expenditure on domestic dimmer switch
replacements, and I bet they won't have thought of internal lamps in such as
ovens, fridges, microwaves etc...
Pygmy LED lamps are easy enough to come by...
--
Kirk
Roland Perry
2007-09-28 06:04:12 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@lan.krn.me.uk>, at 23:14:36
on Thu, 27 Sep 2007, Kirk Northrop
Post by Kirk Northrop
Post by Paul Scott
I bet they won't have thought of internal lamps in such as
ovens, fridges, microwaves etc...
Pygmy LED lamps are easy enough to come by...
But they won't survive temperatures of 200C inside a domestic oven.
--
Roland Perry
Michael Bell
2007-09-28 09:04:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
on Thu, 27 Sep 2007, Kirk Northrop
Post by Kirk Northrop
Post by Paul Scott
I bet they won't have thought of internal lamps in such as
ovens, fridges, microwaves etc...
Pygmy LED lamps are easy enough to come by...
But they won't survive temperatures of 200C inside a domestic oven.
Thank you for that! I must buy spares.

Michael Bell

--
Chris Tolley
2007-09-28 10:41:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
on Thu, 27 Sep 2007, Kirk Northrop
Post by Kirk Northrop
Post by Paul Scott
I bet they won't have thought of internal lamps in such as
ovens, fridges, microwaves etc...
Pygmy LED lamps are easy enough to come by...
But they won't survive temperatures of 200C inside a domestic oven.
Because of the plastic in which they are encased (which presumably could
be replaced with something suitable), or something else?
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632815.html
(31 409 at Birmingham New Street, Jun 1985)
Roland Perry
2007-09-28 15:19:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Tolley
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Kirk Northrop
Pygmy LED lamps are easy enough to come by...
But they won't survive temperatures of 200C inside a domestic oven.
Because of the plastic in which they are encased (which presumably could
be replaced with something suitable), or something else?
The semiconductor material.
--
Roland Perry
John B
2007-09-28 00:05:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by D7666
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7016020.stm
''... Plans to phase out the traditional lightbulb by 2011 have been
announced by Environment Secretary Hilary Benn.
Mr Benn told the Labour conference he wanted to see an end to the sale
of 150-watt bulbs from next January.
Less powerful traditional bulbs would be taken off the shelves in
stages under the voluntary energy-saving scheme by 2011.
And so our aim is for traditional 150-watt lightbulbs to be phased out
by January next year, 100-watt bulbs the year after, 40-watt bulbs the
year after that and all high-energy lightbulbs by 2011."
etc
etc
NR undetaking a massive relamping of signals by 2011 ?
Not required. What's been agreed is that the three or four firms who
import lightbulbs into this country will stop selling (conventional,
bulb-shaped bayonet cap ones) into retail - note the 'voluntary'.

It's almost certain that for industrial/commercial applications where
changed from incandescent will be prohibitive in the medium term,
there'll be a continued supply.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org
Michael Bell
2007-09-28 05:57:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by John B
Post by D7666
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7016020.stm
''... Plans to phase out the traditional lightbulb by 2011 have been
announced by Environment Secretary Hilary Benn.
Mr Benn told the Labour conference he wanted to see an end to the sale
of 150-watt bulbs from next January.
Less powerful traditional bulbs would be taken off the shelves in
stages under the voluntary energy-saving scheme by 2011.
And so our aim is for traditional 150-watt lightbulbs to be phased out
by January next year, 100-watt bulbs the year after, 40-watt bulbs the
year after that and all high-energy lightbulbs by 2011."
etc
etc
NR undetaking a massive relamping of signals by 2011 ?
Not required. What's been agreed is that the three or four firms who
import lightbulbs into this country will stop selling (conventional,
bulb-shaped bayonet cap ones) into retail - note the 'voluntary'.
It's almost certain that for industrial/commercial applications where
changed from incandescent will be prohibitive in the medium term,
there'll be a continued supply.
There's also the possibility of buying a "lifetime supply". That is
common in the motor industry, when a model is taken out of production,
enough spares - which are really components not built into a car - are
produced to last the anticipated service life of that model on the
road. Then the production facilities are removed and replaced with
something else.

Michael Bell

--
Roland Perry
2007-09-28 06:05:18 UTC
Permalink
What's been agreed is that the three or four firms who import
lightbulbs into this country will stop selling (conventional,
bulb-shaped bayonet cap ones) into retail - note the 'voluntary'.
So eBay gets a boost, then.
--
Roland Perry
Stephen Furley
2007-09-28 09:51:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by John B
Not required. What's been agreed is that the three or four firms who
import lightbulbs into this country will stop selling (conventional,
bulb-shaped bayonet cap ones) into retail - note the 'voluntary'.
Then it's not 'voluntary' as far as the end user is concerned if they
cannot buy them.
Post by John B
It's almost certain that for industrial/commercial applications where
changed from incandescent will be prohibitive in the medium term,
there'll be a continued supply.
The cost for industrial and commercial users would be very small,
because conventional GLS incandescent are pretty much extinct there
anyway. How many industrial or commercial buildings have you seen lit
with them in the last few decades?

I believe that 1500W GLS lamps have not been made for some years now,
1000, 750, 500 and 300W ones are difficult to obtain, and even 200W
ones are now rare. Most incandescent lamps these days are small,
often decorative ones. High-Wattage ones are now largely limited to
specialised ones in a few applications, e.g. stage lighting, which
will presumably be exempt.

This will probably make little difference to anyone; it's just the
Government wanting to be seen to be doing something. If they really
wanted to make a difference they would probably do better to phase out
500W continuously-burning halogen floodlights, which are widely used,
and for which there are plenty of alternatives readily available.
John B
2007-09-28 10:37:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Furley
Post by John B
Not required. What's been agreed is that the three or four firms who
import lightbulbs into this country will stop selling (conventional,
bulb-shaped bayonet cap ones) into retail - note the 'voluntary'.
Then it's not 'voluntary' as far as the end user is concerned if they
cannot buy them.
They can, just not at normal retail channels. The idea is to make Dave
Bloke, who doesn't much care what kind of lightbulb he uses in his
house but isn't used to these weird new-fangled fluorescent things, to
switch to lower-energy bulbs through inertia. Anyone who can be
bothered to hunt out conventional bulbs will do so. And the kind of
bulbs that are used in ovens etc will remain on sale.
Post by Stephen Furley
Post by John B
It's almost certain that for industrial/commercial applications where
changed from incandescent will be prohibitive in the medium term,
there'll be a continued supply.
The cost for industrial and commercial users would be very small,
because conventional GLS incandescent are pretty much extinct there
anyway. How many industrial or commercial buildings have you seen lit
with them in the last few decades?
I believe that 1500W GLS lamps have not been made for some years now,
1000, 750, 500 and 300W ones are difficult to obtain, and even 200W
ones are now rare. Most incandescent lamps these days are small,
often decorative ones. High-Wattage ones are now largely limited to
specialised ones in a few applications, e.g. stage lighting, which
will presumably be exempt.
Quite. The original point upthread was about NR signals - I believe
these are still tungsten filament when they're not LED?
Post by Stephen Furley
This will probably make little difference to anyone; it's just the
Government wanting to be seen to be doing something. If they really
wanted to make a difference they would probably do better to phase out
500W continuously-burning halogen floodlights, which are widely used,
and for which there are plenty of alternatives readily available.
I thought halogen, although high-power, had a reasonably decent light/
heat ratio? Might be totally wrong though.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org
Stephen Furley
2007-09-28 11:34:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by John B
I thought halogen, although high-power, had a reasonably decent light/
heat ratio? Might be totally wrong though.
The luminious efficacy fo GLS incandescent lamps is typically about
11-15 lm/W; small ones tend to be lower than large ones, long-life
ones are the worst, as they are basically normal lamps which are under-
run somewhat to inrease the life. The lower the filament temperature
the lower the efficacy. Halogen replacements for these lamps, such as
the Philips Halogena manage maybe 10% better.

Of the discharge lamps which are used in industrial and commercial
environments, MBF (high pressure mercury) are the worst, at about 50lm/
W, SON (high pressure sodium) and metal halide maybe 70-100lm/W, and
the best SOX (low pressure sodium) can reach 200lm/W. Fluorescents
are probably somewhere in the upper 10s of lm/W; similar to metal
halide. There are many different types, and they vary quite a bit.
These figures to not include the losses in the ballast, which all
normal dischagre lamps need. Some ballast types have lower losses
than others, but overall discharge lamps are far more efficient than
even halogen lamps.

There are other factors to consider; if you need coloured light, then
a white lamp with a coloured filter is not a very efficient way to
produce it, so a source which radiates coloured light directly, such
as LED, becomes more attractive. Where a light source is used with an
optical system, then the shape, size and position of the source become
significant. For example, the small filament of a low-Voltage halogen
lamp may work much better than a mains-Voltage straight tungsten lamp
in something like a slide projector.

As I understand it, the intention is to phase out GLS tungsten lamps,
especially high-Wattage ones. Since use of these is rapidly
declining anyway, I doubt that it will make much difference, either to
users of lighting, or in environmental terms.

I would guess that LEDs will tend to be used much more in railway
signals in future, though there have been concerns about the narrow
viewing angle of some which have been installed; that sounds like
something that wouldn't be too difficult to resolve.
MB
2007-09-28 13:35:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Furley
Post by John B
Not required. What's been agreed is that the three or four firms who
import lightbulbs into this country will stop selling (conventional,
bulb-shaped bayonet cap ones) into retail - note the 'voluntary'.
Then it's not 'voluntary' as far as the end user is concerned if they
cannot buy them.
Post by John B
It's almost certain that for industrial/commercial applications where
changed from incandescent will be prohibitive in the medium term,
there'll be a continued supply.
The cost for industrial and commercial users would be very small,
because conventional GLS incandescent are pretty much extinct there
anyway. How many industrial or commercial buildings have you seen lit
with them in the last few decades?
I believe that 1500W GLS lamps have not been made for some years now,
1000, 750, 500 and 300W ones are difficult to obtain, and even 200W
ones are now rare. Most incandescent lamps these days are small,
often decorative ones. High-Wattage ones are now largely limited to
specialised ones in a few applications, e.g. stage lighting, which
will presumably be exempt.
This will probably make little difference to anyone; it's just the
Government wanting to be seen to be doing something. If they really
wanted to make a difference they would probably do better to phase out
500W continuously-burning halogen floodlights, which are widely used,
and for which there are plenty of alternatives readily available.
Though some areas where there is rotating machines prefer incandescent
lamps. Also many people use ruggedised versions in handlamps etc.

What about external applications? CFLs are very poor in low temperatures so
if you have CFLs in outside lights they tend to get left switched on all the
time.

MB
Stephen Furley
2007-09-28 15:29:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by MB
Though some areas where there is rotating machines prefer incandescent
lamps.
Can sometimes be a problem with all types of mains-frequency lamps,
though fluorescents are worse than incancescents. Unlikely to be an
issue with high-frequency electronic control gear.
Post by MB
Also many people use ruggedised versions in handlamps etc.
Even rough service lamps are generally more fragile than discharge
ones, though obviously, there's a limit to how much rough treatment
any type of lamp can take.
Post by MB
What about external applications? CFLs are very poor in low temperatures so
if you have CFLs in outside lights they tend to get left switched on all the
time.
Certainly a problem with many CFLs. Some are better than others; I
can't remember whether it's amalgam or liquid mercury ones which are
better at low temperatures. There are some special CFLs intended for
use at low temperatures; such as the 'Polar' ones which Philips make
for applications such as streetlighting.

Personally, I'd tend to avoid CFLs if low temperatures were likely,
and use HID lamps of some sort, these days probably metal halide.

These days there really are few applications, though there are some,
where high-Wattage GLS incandescent lamps are the best answer.
MB
2007-09-28 17:15:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Furley
Post by MB
Though some areas where there is rotating machines prefer incandescent
lamps.
Can sometimes be a problem with all types of mains-frequency lamps,
though fluorescents are worse than incancescents. Unlikely to be an
issue with high-frequency electronic control gear.
Post by MB
Also many people use ruggedised versions in handlamps etc.
Even rough service lamps are generally more fragile than discharge
ones, though obviously, there's a limit to how much rough treatment
any type of lamp can take.
Post by MB
What about external applications? CFLs are very poor in low temperatures so
if you have CFLs in outside lights they tend to get left switched on all the
time.
Certainly a problem with many CFLs. Some are better than others; I
can't remember whether it's amalgam or liquid mercury ones which are
better at low temperatures. There are some special CFLs intended for
use at low temperatures; such as the 'Polar' ones which Philips make
for applications such as streetlighting.
Personally, I'd tend to avoid CFLs if low temperatures were likely,
and use HID lamps of some sort, these days probably metal halide.
These days there really are few applications, though there are some,
where high-Wattage GLS incandescent lamps are the best answer.
Though presumably those types that are designed for low temperatures are
more expensive when you might only be using the light for a few minutes in
many applications.

MB
Stephen Furley
2007-09-28 19:16:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by MB
Though presumably those types that are designed for low temperatures are
more expensive when you might only be using the light for a few minutes in
many applications.
Yes, they're more expensive. They're designed for applications such
as minor-road streetlighting, where they would be used for long
continuous operation. If you've got a need for a bright light in cold
conditions for a few minutes at a time then they're probably not the
answer. If you really do need the light for just a few minutes at a
time, and those times are fairly infrequent, then an incandescent lamp
may be the best solution. I don't want to see any type of lamp
banned; I use everything from carbon arcs to LEDs, and I'm trying,
with difficulty, to obtain a few 200W clear GLS lamps for something.
I can only find one place that still lists them, and they only sell
them by the case. Pearl ones still seem to be fairly readily
available to order, but not in shops. I simply think that this scheme
will make little difference because it is trying to phase out lamps
which are little used anyway. It will be inconvenient to a small
number of people, make no difference to most, and result in very
little reduction in energy consumption.
Mortimer
2007-09-28 19:37:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Furley
Post by MB
Though presumably those types that are designed for low temperatures are
more expensive when you might only be using the light for a few minutes in
many applications.
Yes, they're more expensive. They're designed for applications such
as minor-road streetlighting, where they would be used for long
continuous operation. If you've got a need for a bright light in cold
conditions for a few minutes at a time then they're probably not the
answer. If you really do need the light for just a few minutes at a
time, and those times are fairly infrequent, then an incandescent lamp
may be the best solution. I don't want to see any type of lamp
banned; I use everything from carbon arcs to LEDs, and I'm trying,
with difficulty, to obtain a few 200W clear GLS lamps for something.
I can only find one place that still lists them, and they only sell
them by the case. Pearl ones still seem to be fairly readily
available to order, but not in shops. I simply think that this scheme
will make little difference because it is trying to phase out lamps
which are little used anyway. It will be inconvenient to a small
number of people, make no difference to most, and result in very
little reduction in energy consumption.
It's also going to result in horrendous one-off bills for people like me. My
house was a show house and every single light-fitting that was installed
takes non-standard bulbs: either miniature bayonet or miniature screw bulbs,
for which there isn't an equivalent (either in size or light fitting) in
energy saving. The only energy-saving bulbs that I've got are in table lamps
that I bought myself. Also the hall, landing and kitchen are lit by a series
of miniature halogen spot-lights set into the ceiling - that's the case in
all the houses, not just my show house. If those bulbs are withdrawn, that's
a new set of light fittings that will be needed as well as new bulbs.

Maybe by the time those specialised bulbs are withdrawn, energy-saving bulbs
will be available in smaller sizes and SBC/SES fittings.

I presume it's still the case that you can't use a thyristor dimmer with
energy-saving bulbs since they are discharge rather than filiament.
Stephen Furley
2007-09-28 20:39:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mortimer
It's also going to result in horrendous one-off bills for people like me. My
house was a show house and every single light-fitting that was installed
takes non-standard bulbs: either miniature bayonet or miniature screw bulbs,
for which there isn't an equivalent (either in size or light fitting) in
energy saving. The only energy-saving bulbs that I've got are in table lamps
that I bought myself. Also the hall, landing and kitchen are lit by a series
of miniature halogen spot-lights set into the ceiling - that's the case in
all the houses, not just my show house. If those bulbs are withdrawn, that's
a new set of light fittings that will be needed as well as new bulbs.
Maybe by the time those specialised bulbs are withdrawn, energy-saving bulbs
will be available in smaller sizes and SBC/SES fittings.
Do you have an Ikea store anywhere near you? They stock a wider range
of small low-energy bulbs than just about anybody else. I have a 7W
'golfball' type with a SES cap in a bedside table lamp, and it is just
about equal to a 25W golfball tungsten bulb, and only slightly
larger. It does take a couple of minutes to run up to full output,
therefore not really suitable for frequent switching on and off. I'm
pretty sure this is made by Megaman; they have a UK website here:
http://www.megamanuk.com/ The lamps are made in China, and are very
good. I've also got a Sylvania 'candle' bulb that I brought back from
America, which is also made in China, and also very good, though now
well past it's rated hours. It's E12 cap, and 120V, so it needs an
adapter and transformer to operate here, but it runs quite happily on
a 50Hz. supply, as most electronic ballasts will, since they convert
the ac to dc, then to high-frequency ac.

I have a collection of something like 1500 lamps, of just about every
type; everything from from fractions of a Watt up to multi-kW. I've
got a quite rare 140W SLI-H linear low pressure sodium lamp on my desk
in front of me at the moment. I acquired it last year, but have only
just got the control gear to operate it. I'm just running it up for
the first time, so I'm trying to type with a very bright orange light
in my eyes at the moment!
Post by Mortimer
I presume it's still the case that you can't use a thyristor dimmer with
energy-saving bulbs since they are discharge rather than filiament.
There are dimmable CFL lamps, but they need special, and expensive,
control gear. There are also some integrated ones which claim to work
with conventional dimmers; I've heard very bad things about them, and
I don't think they are available in the UK yet. It's still very early
days for this. Megaman also make a lamp which can be dimmed in steps,
by just switching it on and off; each time you switch it on it comes
up at a lower brightness. I think there are four settings. It
doesn't change in colour in the way that a tungsten lamp does, and no
fluorescent lamp can be dimmed right down; they will reach a certain
point where they will either just go out, or flicker badly. If you
want to dim lamps right down then you really need incandescent lamps
at this time. That's the main reason they're used for stage lighting,
despite the high cost. The lighting load for a large stage is often
hundreds of kW.

Must get railways in the UK back into this discussion somehow :)
Recliner
2007-09-29 21:59:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Furley
Post by Mortimer
I presume it's still the case that you can't use a thyristor dimmer
with energy-saving bulbs since they are discharge rather than
filiament.
There are dimmable CFL lamps, but they need special, and expensive,
control gear. There are also some integrated ones which claim to work
with conventional dimmers; I've heard very bad things about them, and
I don't think they are available in the UK yet. It's still very early
days for this. Megaman also make a lamp which can be dimmed in steps,
by just switching it on and off; each time you switch it on it comes
up at a lower brightness. I think there are four settings. It
doesn't change in colour in the way that a tungsten lamp does, and no
fluorescent lamp can be dimmed right down; they will reach a certain
point where they will either just go out, or flicker badly. If you
want to dim lamps right down then you really need incandescent lamps
at this time. That's the main reason they're used for stage lighting,
despite the high cost. The lighting load for a large stage is often
hundreds of kW.
What happens if you use a CFL on a dimmer circuit, but make sure you
turn it up to 'full'? I assume no harm is done to either the dimmer or
the lamp during the brief instant when the dimmer is in operation?
Mortimer
2007-09-29 22:11:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Furley
Post by Mortimer
I presume it's still the case that you can't use a thyristor dimmer
with energy-saving bulbs since they are discharge rather than
filiament.
There are dimmable CFL lamps, but they need special, and expensive,
control gear. There are also some integrated ones which claim to work
with conventional dimmers; I've heard very bad things about them, and
I don't think they are available in the UK yet.
What happens if you use a CFL on a dimmer circuit, but make sure you turn
it up to 'full'? I assume no harm is done to either the dimmer or the
lamp during the brief instant when the dimmer is in operation?
When the dimmer is on maximum, the waveform is more or less a normal sine
wave - at least for a resistive load like a tungsten light. As you turn it
down, the front portion of the positive and negative halves of the sine wave
stays at zero and only turns on part-way through the cycle - the more it's
turned down, the later is the turn-on point.

I'm not sure what effect the CFL has on the current waveform, but I would
imagine it will be heavily modified, both because of the inductance of the
choke and because the CFL will not strike until a certain minimum voltage
has been reached.

I wonder if the greatest damage occurs when the dimmer is in its half-way
setting?

Do the dimmable CFLs have the same power rating as a tungsten in terms of
the power that the dimmer is able to handle, or does a 20W CFL require a
dimmer that's able to handle much more than 20W?
Roland Perry
2007-09-28 15:26:31 UTC
Permalink
CFLs are very poor in low temperatures so if you have CFLs in outside
lights they tend to get left switched on all the time.
The very first CFL I ever bought (early 90's) was put in the lantern
outside my garage - because it illuminated the path to the house and was
on all evening in the Winter. Within a week someone had stolen it :(
--
Roland Perry
Bill Borland
2007-09-28 16:13:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by D7666
Mr Benn told the Labour conference he wanted to see an end to the sale
of 150-watt bulbs from next January.
None of the numerous advertisements for fluorescent lamps "equivalent
to" various sizes of incandescent lamps that I have seen have
mentioned 150 watts. The largest size I have seen is allegedly
equivalent to a 100 watt bulb. So I guess it's off to Tesco's
tomorrow to stock up - I use a lot of 150s.
Has anyone seen a 150-equivalent? It would be typical of the present
shower to make something illegal (or at least unavailable) without
arranging for a supply of suitable replacements.
Incidentally, the heat generated by filament bulbs (see further down
this thread) will in most cases be at ceiling level and will not
really help to keep my feet warm. Warm air rises, remember.
--
Bill Borland
BH Williams
2007-09-28 16:47:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Borland
Post by D7666
Mr Benn told the Labour conference he wanted to see an end to the sale
of 150-watt bulbs from next January.
None of the numerous advertisements for fluorescent lamps "equivalent
to" various sizes of incandescent lamps that I have seen have
mentioned 150 watts. The largest size I have seen is allegedly
equivalent to a 100 watt bulb. So I guess it's off to Tesco's
tomorrow to stock up - I use a lot of 150s.
Has anyone seen a 150-equivalent? It would be typical of the present
shower to make something illegal (or at least unavailable) without
arranging for a supply of suitable replacements.
Incidentally, the heat generated by filament bulbs (see further down
this thread) will in most cases be at ceiling level and will not
really help to keep my feet warm. Warm air rises, remember.
--
Bill Borland
Haven't seen a 150W equivalent, but I bought my mother what was described as
a '2 x 60W' equivalent in B&Q Cardiff last week.
Brian
David Jackson
2007-09-28 17:21:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by BH Williams
Haven't seen a 150W equivalent, but I bought my mother what was described as
a '2 x 60W' equivalent in B&Q Cardiff last week.
That'll be a 23w one. I use those to replace 100w tungsten bulbs, so
they're not a replacement for 150w bulbs. I've collected several free
11w CFLs at various council-sponsored "energy-saving advice" displays.
They won't really go into any fitting we have. Why are "free" items so
useless? Er, I think I've just answered my own question... <g>
--
Dave,
Frodsham
Charles Ellson
2007-09-28 23:21:53 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 18:21:46 +0100, David Jackson
Post by David Jackson
Post by BH Williams
Haven't seen a 150W equivalent, but I bought my mother what was described as
a '2 x 60W' equivalent in B&Q Cardiff last week.
That'll be a 23w one. I use those to replace 100w tungsten bulbs, so
they're not a replacement for 150w bulbs. I've collected several free
11w CFLs at various council-sponsored "energy-saving advice" displays.
They won't really go into any fitting we have. Why are "free" items so
useless? Er, I think I've just answered my own question... <g>
42w, 57w and 70w CFLs seem to be available from a number of UK
suppliers, the only other difference being that they mainly seem to be
4-pin lamps using external control gear but they probably still take
up roughly the same space as a 150w incandescent lamp once you've
allowed for the heat output of the latter. A lot of 150w lamps in
"ordinary" use are possibly candidates for replacement with
conventional batten fittings rather than CFLs.
MB
2007-09-28 17:19:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Borland
Post by D7666
Mr Benn told the Labour conference he wanted to see an end to the sale
of 150-watt bulbs from next January.
None of the numerous advertisements for fluorescent lamps "equivalent
to" various sizes of incandescent lamps that I have seen have
mentioned 150 watts. The largest size I have seen is allegedly
equivalent to a 100 watt bulb. So I guess it's off to Tesco's
tomorrow to stock up - I use a lot of 150s.
Has anyone seen a 150-equivalent? It would be typical of the present
shower to make something illegal (or at least unavailable) without
arranging for a supply of suitable replacements.
Incidentally, the heat generated by filament bulbs (see further down
this thread) will in most cases be at ceiling level and will not
really help to keep my feet warm. Warm air rises, remember.
--
Bill Borland
I have one here but not actually used it yet

26 watt equivalent to 150 watt

I also have

23 watt equivalent to 120 watt

(I always think that the "equivalent to" wattage is optimistic with CFLs,
must dig out an old photographic light meter one day and compare them.

MB
David Jackson
2007-09-28 19:10:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by MB
I always think that the "equivalent to" wattage is optimistic with CFLs,
must dig out an old photographic light meter one day and compare them.
My experience also.

I've just read this article, thanks to a poster on my local group:

http://www.sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm

The writer seems to share our theory about equivalents, and gives a lot
more useful information.
--
Dave,
Frodsham
The Good Doctor
2007-09-28 19:31:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by MB
must dig out an old photographic light meter one day and compare them.
I did exactly that, and I reckoned on a factor of more like 4.

A 20 watt fluorescent would be about the same as an 80 watt tungsten.
Mortimer
2007-09-28 20:06:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Good Doctor
Post by MB
must dig out an old photographic light meter one day and compare them.
I did exactly that, and I reckoned on a factor of more like 4.
A 20 watt fluorescent would be about the same as an 80 watt tungsten.
I've just done a very quick test:

- table-lamp with shade removed, illuminating a piece of paper about 50 cm
away (constant bulb-paper distance for all the tests)
- SLR camera framed to include the whole sheet of paper (to give consistent
distance from camera to subject)
- put 11W energy-saving, 60W tungsten and 100W tungsten bulbs in the lamp
(fluorescent bulb had been running for several hours so it was up to maximum
brightness)

11W: 1/3 sec at f11
60W: 1/8 sec at f11
100W: 1/15 sec at f11

So if the 11W bulb is designated as a brightness and a power of 1, the
tungsten bulbs are 2.7 and 5 times as bright for power consumption of 5.5
and 9.1 times.

Using the 60W bulb as comparison, this suggests that the equivalent
brightness of a 60W tungsten is about 2.7*11 = 30W in fluorescent, which
seems rather poor - a factor of 2 rather than your factor of 4.

Comparing against 100W, equivalent is 5*11=55W - a factor of 1.8.
The Good Doctor
2007-09-28 20:13:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mortimer
Post by The Good Doctor
Post by MB
must dig out an old photographic light meter one day and compare them.
I did exactly that, and I reckoned on a factor of more like 4.
A 20 watt fluorescent would be about the same as an 80 watt tungsten.
- table-lamp with shade removed, illuminating a piece of paper about 50 cm
away (constant bulb-paper distance for all the tests)
- SLR camera framed to include the whole sheet of paper (to give consistent
distance from camera to subject)
- put 11W energy-saving, 60W tungsten and 100W tungsten bulbs in the lamp
(fluorescent bulb had been running for several hours so it was up to maximum
brightness)
11W: 1/3 sec at f11
60W: 1/8 sec at f11
100W: 1/15 sec at f11
So if the 11W bulb is designated as a brightness and a power of 1, the
tungsten bulbs are 2.7 and 5 times as bright for power consumption of 5.5
and 9.1 times.
Using the 60W bulb as comparison, this suggests that the equivalent
brightness of a 60W tungsten is about 2.7*11 = 30W in fluorescent, which
seems rather poor - a factor of 2 rather than your factor of 4.
Comparing against 100W, equivalent is 5*11=55W - a factor of 1.8.
Perhaps I used better fluorescent bulbs? Most of mine are Philips.
Mortimer
2007-09-28 20:33:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Good Doctor
Post by Mortimer
Post by The Good Doctor
Post by MB
must dig out an old photographic light meter one day and compare them.
I did exactly that, and I reckoned on a factor of more like 4.
A 20 watt fluorescent would be about the same as an 80 watt tungsten.
- table-lamp with shade removed, illuminating a piece of paper about 50 cm
away (constant bulb-paper distance for all the tests)
- SLR camera framed to include the whole sheet of paper (to give consistent
distance from camera to subject)
- put 11W energy-saving, 60W tungsten and 100W tungsten bulbs in the lamp
(fluorescent bulb had been running for several hours so it was up to maximum
brightness)
11W: 1/3 sec at f11
60W: 1/8 sec at f11
100W: 1/15 sec at f11
So if the 11W bulb is designated as a brightness and a power of 1, the
tungsten bulbs are 2.7 and 5 times as bright for power consumption of 5.5
and 9.1 times.
Using the 60W bulb as comparison, this suggests that the equivalent
brightness of a 60W tungsten is about 2.7*11 = 30W in fluorescent, which
seems rather poor - a factor of 2 rather than your factor of 4.
Comparing against 100W, equivalent is 5*11=55W - a factor of 1.8.
Perhaps I used better fluorescent bulbs? Most of mine are Philips.
Mine are Homebase own-brand. What a cheapskate I am!
Charles Ellson
2007-09-28 23:52:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mortimer
Post by The Good Doctor
Post by MB
must dig out an old photographic light meter one day and compare them.
I did exactly that, and I reckoned on a factor of more like 4.
A 20 watt fluorescent would be about the same as an 80 watt tungsten.
- table-lamp with shade removed, illuminating a piece of paper about 50 cm
away (constant bulb-paper distance for all the tests)
- SLR camera framed to include the whole sheet of paper (to give consistent
distance from camera to subject)
- put 11W energy-saving, 60W tungsten and 100W tungsten bulbs in the lamp
(fluorescent bulb had been running for several hours so it was up to maximum
brightness)
11W: 1/3 sec at f11
60W: 1/8 sec at f11
100W: 1/15 sec at f11
So if the 11W bulb is designated as a brightness and a power of 1, the
tungsten bulbs are 2.7 and 5 times as bright for power consumption of 5.5
and 9.1 times.
Using the 60W bulb as comparison, this suggests that the equivalent
brightness of a 60W tungsten is about 2.7*11 = 30W in fluorescent, which
seems rather poor - a factor of 2 rather than your factor of 4.
Comparing against 100W, equivalent is 5*11=55W - a factor of 1.8.
Aren't some photographic meters a bit selective about how much of the
visible spectrum they react to ?
Chris Tolley
2007-09-29 00:24:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Mortimer
Post by The Good Doctor
Post by MB
must dig out an old photographic light meter one day and compare them.
I did exactly that, and I reckoned on a factor of more like 4.
A 20 watt fluorescent would be about the same as an 80 watt tungsten.
- table-lamp with shade removed, illuminating a piece of paper about 50 cm
away (constant bulb-paper distance for all the tests)
- SLR camera framed to include the whole sheet of paper (to give consistent
distance from camera to subject)
- put 11W energy-saving, 60W tungsten and 100W tungsten bulbs in the lamp
(fluorescent bulb had been running for several hours so it was up to maximum
brightness)
11W: 1/3 sec at f11
60W: 1/8 sec at f11
100W: 1/15 sec at f11
So if the 11W bulb is designated as a brightness and a power of 1, the
tungsten bulbs are 2.7 and 5 times as bright for power consumption of 5.5
and 9.1 times.
Using the 60W bulb as comparison, this suggests that the equivalent
brightness of a 60W tungsten is about 2.7*11 = 30W in fluorescent, which
seems rather poor - a factor of 2 rather than your factor of 4.
Comparing against 100W, equivalent is 5*11=55W - a factor of 1.8.
Aren't some photographic meters a bit selective about how much of the
visible spectrum they react to ?
Yes they are. Some can also be fooled by pulsed light. My first SLR with
TTL metering had a needle that moved up and down, linked presumably to a
selenium-based photocell. The next one had an array of red LED's that
did a mini Blackpool Illuminations under certain lighting conditions;
maybe that was a CdS photocell, or something similar.
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p12598507.html
(31 408 and 55 012 at London Kings Cross, 22 Nov 1980)
Mortimer
2007-09-29 08:19:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Mortimer
Using the 60W bulb as comparison, this suggests that the equivalent
brightness of a 60W tungsten is about 2.7*11 = 30W in fluorescent, which
seems rather poor - a factor of 2 rather than your factor of 4.
Comparing against 100W, equivalent is 5*11=55W - a factor of 1.8.
Aren't some photographic meters a bit selective about how much of the
visible spectrum they react to ?
The meter in my digital camera seems to be pretty good. I took two photos,
one with the fluorescent bulb and one with the tungsten. Having
white-balanced for the slightly different colour temperature (the
energy-saving bulb is slightly more orange - they overdid the
colour-correction!) before taking the pictures, the results are
indistinguishable, so the meter is adjusting correctly.

Where you start to get problems is when you take pictures at faster shutter
speeds because you are at the mercy of whereabouts the exposure occurs in
the on-off cycle of the fluorescent bulb so the brightness varies on
successive pictures - and also the colour varies, presumably because the
different phosphors take slightly different times to fade when the discharge
ceases.

I've found modern energy-saving bulbs as good as tungsten lights for taking
photos under, certainly with my digital camera, providing you white-balance
properly - it's not like the old days (and with film) when all your pictures
came out a ghastly green.
The Good Doctor
2007-09-29 09:57:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Ellson
Aren't some photographic meters a bit selective about how much of the
visible spectrum they react to ?
Back in the 1970s, yes. Not any more.

And even then, I was aware of the problem and
used a light meter that did not suffer from it.
Roger R
2007-09-30 10:58:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mortimer
Post by The Good Doctor
Post by MB
must dig out an old photographic light meter one day and compare them.
I did exactly that, and I reckoned on a factor of more like 4.
A 20 watt fluorescent would be about the same as an 80 watt tungsten.
- table-lamp with shade removed, illuminating a piece of paper about 50 cm
away (constant bulb-paper distance for all the tests)
- SLR camera framed to include the whole sheet of paper (to give
consistent distance from camera to subject)
Because of the completely different spectral pattern of the types of lamps
being considered here -including LED types - I think your 'sheet of paper'
test is completely unrepresentative.

A tungsten filament lamp produces light energy in a broad a Gaussian
distribution all across the visible spectrum.
A fluorescent lamp produces light energy at a small number of distinct
frequencies corresponding to the resonant frequencies of the various
fluorescing powder components used.
An instrument type LED - a laser -produces light at one very specific
frequency, in early days only red.
A domestic LED uses different doping compounds in the semiconductor to
achieve 'white' light (not white IMO) but the light is still at very
specific wavelengths.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LED_lamp

The spectral distributions of the various types of lamps produce very
different effects when lighting a room, as much of what we see is the light
reflected from objects in the scene. If the light is restricted to a
few specific frequencies, e.g. fluorescent or LED types, the effect on the
scene is going to appear quite different to the broadband of energy across
the whole spectrum produced by the tungsten lamp.

Perhaps the reason people say fluorescent light is 'hard', is because it
needs to be very much brighter than tungsten at those few frequencies it
produces to achieve the desired lighting level.
In the case of the LED with very specific frequencies, in my experience the
room appears poorly lit, even though the light is very bright.

I think you should devise a new test that takes into account the different
spectral distributions of the lamps and their effect upon the scene.

On a railway theme, because the single frequency of an LED is very bright to
look at, then they would probably be excellent for signalling purposes.

Roger R
Chris J Dixon
2007-09-30 19:09:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger R
Because of the completely different spectral pattern of the types of lamps
being considered here -including LED types - I think your 'sheet of paper'
test is completely unrepresentative.
How about the classic grease spot test?

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-photomet.html

Chris
Roger T.
2007-09-28 19:37:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Borland
None of the numerous advertisements for fluorescent lamps "equivalent
to" various sizes of incandescent lamps that I have seen have
mentioned 150 watts.
Since CFLs are not dimmable, what are people supposed to use in dimmable
circuits?

Our federal government here in Canada has come up with some equally silly
legislation regarding banning incandescent lamps (Not "bulbs". "Lamps" give
off light, "bulbs" grow in the garden.)


--
Cheers.

Roger T.
Home of the Great Eastern Railway at:-
http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/
Latitude: 48° 25' North
Longitude: 123° 21' West
Robert Hampton
2007-09-28 20:38:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger T.
Since CFLs are not dimmable, what are people supposed to use in dimmable
circuits?
I was curious about this too. A bit of Googling turned up this web site,
which claims to offer a dimmable CFL. No idea if it works or not:
http://www.1stopelectrics.com/product/yca20d-b22/
--
Robert Hampton (change 'nospam' to 'rhmeuk' to reply)
Class 502 EMU Appeal: http://www.class502.org.uk/
Mortimer
2007-09-28 21:15:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Hampton
Post by Roger T.
Since CFLs are not dimmable, what are people supposed to use in dimmable
circuits?
I was curious about this too. A bit of Googling turned up this web site,
http://www.1stopelectrics.com/product/yca20d-b22/
Ah, so they do make them now?

I remember our lecture theatre at school, probably built in the early 70s (I
was there in the late 70s) had multiple rows of conventional fluorescent
tubes as house lights. And these could be dimmed. The control circuitry in
the projection booth made a very annoying buzzing at certain brightness
settings and you had to be careful to earth any audio equipment properly
otherwise it would pick up horrendous RFI. Fading up an audio input that had
nothing plugged into it (ie not a blank plug with a load resistor in it -
specially made for the purpose) would deafen the audience ;-)

How would that brightness control circuity work? Would it be altering the
mark-space ratio of a high-frequency square wave?
The Good Doctor
2007-09-28 22:06:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Hampton
Post by Roger T.
Since CFLs are not dimmable, what are people supposed to use in dimmable
circuits?
I was curious about this too. A bit of Googling turned up this web site,
http://www.1stopelectrics.com/product/yca20d-b22/
Jeez, it costs TWELVE POUNDS!

Sorry about the shouting ... but twelve pounds for a bl**dy lightbulb?
Bruce
2007-09-28 23:06:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Good Doctor
Post by Robert Hampton
Post by Roger T.
Since CFLs are not dimmable, what are people supposed to use in dimmable
circuits?
I was curious about this too. A bit of Googling turned up this web site,
http://www.1stopelectrics.com/product/yca20d-b22/
Jeez, it costs TWELVE POUNDS!
Sorry about the shouting ... but twelve pounds for a bl**dy lightbulb?
Yes but you're saving the planet (I think)
--
Bruce Fletcher
Stronsay, Orkney
<www.stronsay.co.uk/claremont>
(Remove teeth to reply)
The Good Doctor
2007-09-29 10:00:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bruce
Post by The Good Doctor
Post by Robert Hampton
Post by Roger T.
Since CFLs are not dimmable, what are people supposed to use in dimmable
circuits?
I was curious about this too. A bit of Googling turned up this web site,
http://www.1stopelectrics.com/product/yca20d-b22/
Jeez, it costs TWELVE POUNDS!
Sorry about the shouting ... but twelve pounds for a bl**dy lightbulb?
Yes but you're saving the planet (I think)
There's a limit to how much I will spend to save the planet. A
dimmable CFL is not exactly one of life's essentials. I have only had
a dimmer once, and I didn't like it, so after the first few days of
playing with it, I never used it again. All my lights at my present
home have on-off switches.

If I want subdued lighting I turn some of them off.

Or all of them. ;-)
Theo Markettos
2007-09-29 18:11:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Good Doctor
There's a limit to how much I will spend to save the planet. A
dimmable CFL is not exactly one of life's essentials. I have only had
a dimmer once, and I didn't like it, so after the first few days of
playing with it, I never used it again. All my lights at my present
home have on-off switches.
But shirley the point is that increasing the demand for dimmable CFLs will
reduce the price? At the moment everyone buys dimmable incandescents
because they're the cheap option. Remove the cheap option and something
else will become cheap.
Post by The Good Doctor
If I want subdued lighting I turn some of them off.
Or all of them. ;-)
Digital lighting :)

Theo
The Good Doctor
2007-09-29 18:43:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Theo Markettos
Post by The Good Doctor
There's a limit to how much I will spend to save the planet. A
dimmable CFL is not exactly one of life's essentials. I have only had
a dimmer once, and I didn't like it, so after the first few days of
playing with it, I never used it again. All my lights at my present
home have on-off switches.
But shirley the point is that increasing the demand for dimmable CFLs will
reduce the price? At the moment everyone buys dimmable incandescents
because they're the cheap option. Remove the cheap option and something
else will become cheap.
Or, remove the cheap option, and the sellers of the sole remaining
option soon realise that they can charge what they like!

The days of responsible capitalism in the UK have long gone. Welcome
to Rip-Off Britain!
Post by Theo Markettos
Post by The Good Doctor
If I want subdued lighting I turn some of them off.
Or all of them. ;-)
Digital lighting :)
Yes, but I have 7 light fittings of differing brightness in this room.

So the options are not limited to just zero and one!


(Anyway, I think you meant "binary")
Stephen Furley
2007-09-28 19:58:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Borland
None of the numerous advertisements for fluorescent lamps "equivalent
to" various sizes of incandescent lamps that I have seen have
mentioned 150 watts. The largest size I have seen is allegedly
equivalent to a 100 watt bulb. So I guess it's off to Tesco's
tomorrow to stock up - I use a lot of 150s.
You're probably looking for something like a 36W lamp; they do exist,
but are not as common as the smaller sizes. I've got a 25W helix one
here, which claims to be equal to 125W, but I'd say it's probably more
like 110. Most of these published figures are somewhat optimistic.
I've got a portable floodlight with a 42W non-integrated, i.e. it has
a separate permanent ballast, CFL. That certainly puts out more light
than a 150W GLS lamp. I really don't think that trying to match the
existing light is a good idea. Many areas are either under or over
lit for their purpose. Better to install new lighting suitable for
the purpose of the room, rather than trying to reproduce the existing,
often unsatisfactory, lighting.

As far as the integrated CFLs are concerned, some are certainly better
than others, and it's not always the major brands which are better.
In my experience GE tend to be rather poor in recent years, and this
goes for their other lamp types as well. Philips are better. Osram
are generally good, though I have got a couple of integrated ones
where the ballast compartment temperature is too high for my liking.
Some, but not all, of the un-named Chinese made ones are very good.
The ones from Ikea seem to be generally good; I'm pretty sure some of
these are made by Megaman, who have a very good reputation, but I
don't think all of them are. How do you tell a good lamp from a bad
one before you buy it? That's a good question; I don't have a good
answer. With integrated lamps it generally seems to be the ballast
which fails, sometimes dangerously. Non-integrated lamps, with
separate ballasts, in fittings designed for them seldom seem to give
problems.
Post by Bill Borland
Has anyone seen a 150-equivalent? It would be typical of the present
shower to make something illegal (or at least unavailable) without
arranging for a supply of suitable replacements.
Incidentally, the heat generated by filament bulbs (see further down
this thread) will in most cases be at ceiling level and will not
really help to keep my feet warm. Warm air rises, remember.
--
Bill Borland
Loading...