I just saw this article, which was published back in March -

Look up at the ceiling above you, and chances are there is a centuries-old piece of kit swinging from a cord. The light bulb has been hanging around for more than 150 years. Yet between its invention and the present day, its design has hardly changed.

But now the days of the traditional incandescent bulb look numbered. These electricity-sapping glass orbs have fallen out of favour with environmentally-conscious governments and consumers.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120314-the-end-of-the-lightbulb/1

But that's *not true* is it? Consumers don't have a choice as laws have been enacted against our will to ban the sale of working incandescent lightbulbs. Which is why we have rubbish and toxic flourescent lamps in our house which take a couple of minutes to generate the amount of light I actually wanted when I flipped the switch. Fit for purpose? Don't make me laugh!

I tried LED lamps a few years back and they were weak with a horrible green tint and cost 90 Euros for my living room alone! Needless to say they went straight back for a full refund.

Once again the BBC decides not to let a small thing like the truth to get in the way of an eco puff piece. Shameless indeed. :o

I have a cupboard full of old fashioned, very bright and very useful, politically incorrect incandescent light bulbs ^.^

Out of favour? I buy them whenever I find them. A good dodge is that heavy-duty bulbs are still available.
Jun 15, 2012 at 4:02 PM rhoda

Better than nothing. But (I believe) heavy-duty bulbs run at a lower filament temperature than ordinary bulbs, with consequent spectral shift in the red direction, and lower efficiency - though longer life than the 1000 hr for standard bulb..

In principle, this could be compensated by using a step-up transformer to bring the voltage up to whatever it needs to give the same temperature as the now-unavailable normal bulbs (at a guess around 250 volts). But transformers are expensive and bulky things.

I read somewhere (The Economist probably) that those expecting energy consumption to fall as a result of future low energy LED lighting will probably be disappointed. People like light and, given a better lighting technology, they will most likely use more of it, offsetting any gains in efficiency...

Much is now being made of the efforts to ban MERCURY worldwide - given that the CFL replacements of the traditional filament lamp contain said 'poison' where do we go now? Will we be 'forced' to change the CFLs out for LED in the same way we were 'forced' to use CFLs in the first place?
Shades of 'left-hand/right-hand' here.....

I've no experience with LED's as domestic lighting, but last year fitted a CFL R7s fitting to an outside floodlight where I'd previously had a 300W tungsten fitting. The tungsten lamps usually lasted around 12 months. The new fitting I expected around 5yrs at 25W, so despite the £10 purchase, should save money. Result? the new fitting lasted 7months. Waste of space. However, the company I bought if from replaced it FOC, so we'll see if it does any better. I'll not put money on it.

Only just read this thread, whilst waiting for the initial price of LED lights to fall and the quality of the light to improve I have been using these. 60W halogen max but better quality light than the alternatives.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Bell-G9-Adaptor-Bulb-60w-BC-05340-Very-clever-/220752838823?pt=UK_Light_Bulbs&hash=item3365e500a7

> I read somewhere (The Economist probably) that those expecting energy
> consumption to fall as a result of future low energy LED lighting will probably
> be disappointed. People like light and, given a better lighting technology,
> they will most likely use more of it, offsetting any gains in efficiency...

You really don't like progress do you?

Current LED technology isn't quite up to producing an equivalent LED GU10, but it's not far off.

It might require a 7W LED to give the same output, but that's a 7:1 ratio. You'd end up having to wear sunglasses inside if you install the equivalent wattage.

Nail, a miss is as good as a mile. We are being prevented from buying the domestic lamps we want and need thanks to alarmist propaganda and there is no viable alternative out there. The suggestion in the BBC story that consumers don't want incandescent lamps is a fabrication. The less charitable would call it a lie.

> Nail, a miss is as good as a mile.

Aye, right enough Fairy.

> We are being prevented from buying the domestic lamps we want
> and need thanks to alarmist propaganda and there is no viable
> alternative out there.

Yet (but I think there might be within a couple of years).

> The suggestion in the BBC story that consumers don't want incandescent
> lamps is a fabrication. The less charitable would call it a lie.

Yes fair enough.

But I'm an engineer and I like a well light house (/kitchen) and I can see there might be more efficient solutions than incandescent bulbs available fairly soon.

Nial

Nial said: "You really don't like progress do you?"

On the contrary: how did I give that impression? I was just reporting something I read that I think could well be true. You might not light your rooms to daylight levels (although I'd personally enjoy true daylight lighting, and SAD sufferers surely would), but when there are cheap, efficient, LED lights that cost little to run, why not build them into things: along paths outside, around picture rails pointing upward, under the eaves to illuminate features etc. You can think of many others and soon you find that instead of saving energy, you are actually using more! One doesn't need to be a technophobe to see that.

You ve all missed the point
Ain't is or isn't the best type light bulb
It's. being forced to use one particular type of light bulb

Typical regulatory class got a problem just ban it
What makes this even worse there isn't actually a problem

This discussion serves as a perfect demonstration, people have a variety of choices and reasons for those choices. Some people like to make their own, some like to make their choices apply to other people. Some groups want to outlaw the ability to make that choice as an individual. We should always use caution when some group insists on deciding what is best for us.

If incandescent bulbs had really fallen out of favour, the government would hardly need to ban them, would they?

No, the plain truth is that many consumers just do not care for the awful light that emanates from those spiral CFL bulbs. Many consumers have actually tried them and been dissappointed when they find the bulbs do not last nearly as long as the packaging claims. I absolutely hate CFL bulbs. They strain my eyes and cause my skin to feel sore when I sit near one for more than 20 minutes. I just want to smash them to little pieces whenever I see one. Honestly, the only thing that stops me from doing so is the knowledge that it would just release the toxic mercury vapor inside the bulb everywhere.

As for LED lighting, why is everyone so excited? How many consumers have actually tested LED bulbs in their own homes? You do realise that the quality of light is not quite the same? There are many areas in my house where the lights are not left on very long. LED bulbs are expensive. How long will it take for an LED bulb to pay for itself in these places? I did a calculation and determined that if I switch out my closet light with a 60-Watt equivalent LED bulb, I will be dead before the energy savings ever pay for the cost of the bulb. I don't think a 60-Watt equivalent would be quite bright enough, though. Too bad the LED options for anything brighter than this are very limited and VERY expensive.

I also doubt whether "energy efficient" lighting is actually more efficient in the colder climate of northern Europe. I only turn on my lights in the night, when it is colder than during the day. An incandescent bulb is actually 100% efficient - it is just that more of the energy goes to producing heat. Even when I do not have my heater turned on, any extra heat in my home is more than welcome.

Anders, if you have a 60W bulb in a closet I'd say you are more at risk of dying from fire than old age.

Also, note that not all CFL bulbs are equal. I have some that, as you say, give off a horrible light. Others that has a much yellower light, more like an incandescent.

On heating your home, why not scrap the heating system and just use light bulbs? You might find that gas is cheaper...

I have found one very good use for LED Bulbs. I have a hobby as a bike builder, my favoured bikes are the old sit up and beg type roadsters. I also have a penchant for Sturmey Archer Dynamo Hubs and recent developments in LED's now means I can fit extremely bright LED's in to older style bike lights, the original bulbs for these are no better than candles and I welcome the fact that these types of lamps have been future proofed and made much more safer for when riding at night.

This is less to do with the various alternative technologies available than with the loss of freedom of choice. Yet again we're suffering a 'we know what's best' scenario from people who clearly DON'T know what is best but are instead pushing an ideal based on lobbying and brown envelopes.