Saturday, February 14, 2009

Energy Saving Light Bulbs?



I'm not a great believer in the doom laden green/environmentalist nutters but, as an energy company recently sent us a free box of energy saving light bulbs, we decided to try them.

In our living room we have three lamps which provide enough light to create a nice cosy atmosphere, especially when we have a log fire going, but enough light to read by. Then, as bulbs blew, we replaced them with energy saving bulbs. This week the third went and all three lamps had energy savers. It has been like living with Victorian gaslight. Totally unable to read and can barely cross the room without bumping into things.

So we have just got back from a shopping trip. Did we buy more lamps or replace the offending energy saving bulbs? We have replaced the bulbs. It seems logical to me that if the energy savers are so crap you need to increase the number of lights, then they save bugger all energy anyway.

After finding out about the dangers if the bulbs break, I'm wondering whether to pop up the road to Sellafield and see if I can throw them in with some nuclear waste they may be burying.

7 comments:

Mark Wadsworth said...

That leaflet is a load of rubbish. Is it even genuine?

Secondly, I know it is de rigeur in right wing circles to slag off energy savers, but as it happens I like them. You just have to buy the appropriate wattage, i.e. 20W energy saver = 100W normal bulb.

They last more or less for ever, like fluourescent tubes, but they do fade after a few years (like fluourescent tubes ...)

Gregg said...

75 watts and complete shite. That's being realist not 'de rigeur'.

Gregg said...

And we've been out with friends tonight who concur. So don't talk shite Mark.

Gregg said...

That last comment was tongue-in-cheek Mark. Hope it didn't offend!

I don't actually believe Mrs B, the secretary and treasurer of my local UKIP Branch and yours truly are the font of all knowledge.

Greg L-W. said...

Hi,

Perhaps Mark should save on hot air and energy by quitly studying the facts in silence - once he had he would have nothing to say other than sorry.

Low energy bulbs are hugely damaging to the environment, have a high failure rate due to the huge number of components, when dead constitute a hazardous waste, contain mercury, are industrially complex, are hugely inefficient electrically as they use so much power to 'power up' equal to about 45 minutes of being on!

Then consider the simplicity and efficiency of the Edison Bulb. Very cost effective and based on real cost last longer per penny invested.

Then consider the fact that the new dud bulbs use more fuel to transport fropm various sources for the dozens of parts to the manufacturing plant to the retail user that this far outweighs andy possible saving.

What were we saving by the way and why?

Don't forget because they take time and high cost to power up most people leave them on! Then accept the fact that you need about three to replace the one Edison bulb.

Sorry will cost you very little energy Mark.

Please don't quote me Wiki on any climate or carbon data as in the main it is publishing JUNK due to a small army of funded warmists changing entries all day and night!

Regards,
Greg L-W.

JRom said...

Love green and go green! saving energy really works an d helps our environment!

Gregg said...

No it doesn't, but there you go.