Energy saving light bulbs offer dim future

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/6110547/Energy-saving-light-bulbs-offer-dim-future.html

by d0mine • 17 years ago

14 17 17 years ago

telegraph.co.uk

ilkhd2• 17 years ago

Several things: 1. Ok, 15w or 11w - not a big deal, the difference in energy savings less than 10%. Irrelevant worry. 2. But real issue is spectral content of light, it is not same, and frankly, I find flourescent light very unpleasant.

anigbrowl• 17 years ago

You might prefer daylight-balanced tubes then. Alternatively, just hold out for LEDs which offer a wide range of color temperatures.

Protip: if you absolutely cannot live without the incandescent look, get the bulbs you want at a photography store and put a dimmer into the power line (because they're typically 200w+). You might get some sticker shock with your next electricity bill, though.

cameldrv• 17 years ago

The color temperature is not the issue in how fluorescents look. The color issue is that there are a only a few phosphors in the bulb, and so all of the light coming out is at just a few discrete wavelengths. An incandescent produces a smooth combination of all wavelengths in the visible range. The light from a fluorescent looks like the right color on a white surface, but many dyes reflect specific wavelengths of light. This means that colors under even good fluorescent lights look different than under incandescent or daylight. LEDs have the exact same problems.

Gibbon• 17 years ago

I had six daylight-balanced mini fluorescent bulbs in my living room and I had to remove three of them because they were blindingly bright. These are 8w bulbs.

cmars232• 17 years ago

Too bad EU is on 220v. I'd ship you guys incandescents from the US.

ars3• 17 years ago

You could actually, if the sockets are the same. The light will be twice as bright, and the bulb will last probably 1/4 of the normal lifespan. The energy efficiency will be higher.

The hotter the filament, the shorter the life, but the better the energy efficiency (also slightly less reddish light). Light bulbs have a filament length tuned typically to 2000 hours.

TV studio lights are often tuned to last just 50 hours, but they are way more energy efficient. But not necessarily dollar efficient.

Capitalist• 17 years ago

No, they burn really bright for about 1-2 seconds and blow out. Voice of experience.

fnid2• 17 years ago

11W low-energy CFL produced only 58 per cent of the illumination of an "equivalent" 60W bulb

So use two and you get over twice as much light for about 1/3 the energy consumption.

masklinn• 17 years ago

> So use two and you get over twice as much light

Over 15% more, 2x58 = 116 not >200.

Or get a 22W CFL. The issue here is the false claims of equivalence between 60W incandescent and 11W CFL.

fnid2• 17 years ago

Yes, you're correct. Thanks.

ars3• 17 years ago

More garbage science.

You can not measure lux when you are so close to the bulb, and lux is not the correct measurement for light bulbs anyway, lumens is.

Lumens: total light produced by bulb in all directions.

Lux: amount of light hitting a sensor, adjusted proportionally based on size (area) of sensor. (It's actually light per area.)

If you put the sensor close to the bulb most of the light from the bulb will bypass the sensor.

An incandescent is basically a point source of light, so putting the sensor close works fine.

Florescent is not, the light output comes from a large area. For the real world, unless you need a spotlight, this makes no difference, since you are illuminating an entire room. But if you try to measure with a small sensor you will underestimate the light output.

J_McQuade• 17 years ago

Dear Daily Telegraph,

When an energy saving light-bulb is on, can you see?

Good, now be quiet.

ernop• 17 years ago

The really weird thing is that a normal, useful technology, which produces no bad externalities (no extra pollution, etc.) is being banned outright, rather than being taxed - instead of this why didn't they just slowly raise taxes on incandescent bulbs, to force people to notice? And instead of that, it'd be even better just to raise taxes on energy itself - that way people could choose where to cut energy costs, and not be forced to cut it specifically from the light bulb portion of their total energy cost.

Also, the fact that people haven't stopped using incandescent bulbs naturally just shows that electricity is still ridiculously cheap.

streety• 17 years ago

I don't agree that people still using incandescent bulbs is evidence that electricity is ridiculously cheap. Electricity bills aren't itemised so only when the total becomes painful will people consider the cost of their individual appliances. Bulbs are priced individually and so people are hesitant to switch to an option, CFLs, which they may perceive to be the more expensive.

skwiddor• 17 years ago

> In our test, we used a simple lamp with a light metre placed half a metre away,

A light metre is 1 / 299 792 458 or 3.33 x 10e-11 seconds

Energy saving light bulbs offer dim future

Related Stories