Light bulb question

paulmapp8306

Anything that is "energy efficient" or "will save you money on you electric bill" is HEAVILY market up in price. Its a big con. Yes there more efficient to run but it will take you several years to actually get the initial cost back.

If the EU or our own governement are insisting we use energy efficent lighting, then they also need to cap/subsidise the cost of such lighting.

Halogen bulbs are more efficient that incandescent ones - but not by a lot (50w hologen against 60w incandescent for instance) - which in practical terms in negligiable.

the sooner LED lighting gets to the point where it can give off the same light intensity as traditional bulbs - and get to a similar price point, the better.

MX5huggy

Anything that is "energy efficient" or "will save you money on you electric bill" is HEAVILY market up in price. Its a big con. Yes there more efficient to run but it will take you several years to actually get the initial cost back.

[FONT=&quot]Energy saving bulb is £2, it uses 14 watts instead of 60. 1000 watts (1 kilo watt) costs £0.13 therefore the light bulb pays for its self after 285 hours of use or 71 days if used for 4 hours a day.

If you need a new light fitting say £50 you still get pay back after 5 years.

Why anyone would not use these is beyond comprehension. But people also smoke. [/FONT]

paulmapp8306

I wasnt talking about energy efficient bulbs -but LED ones specifically.

Normal Halogen bulbs cab be had for 50p. Decent LED ones are £10+. It takes 6-7 years at 1/2 hours/ day (which is what a hall/landing/bathroom/bedroom typical use is). for kitchens/front rooms it makes more sense.

Ultimately though, my gripe is more about what it costs to make v what it sells for. the cost to make LED bulbs isnt much more than an incandescent - yet they cost a LOT more. Standard Energy efficient bulbs do cost a little more to make - but not as much as they cost to buy.

You calculations are out as well.

your saving 46 Watts per bulb. 1KW doesnt cost 13p - 1 HW/hour costs 13p. That means you have to run that bulb 21.7 hours to save 13p. The cost of the bulb is £2, which is 15.38 x 13p. Therefore it takes 15.38x 21.7 hours = 432 hours - NOT 285.

Depending how long you use the bulb per day determins how long it takes to re-coupe the cost, but it can be a year and a half - and many of teh cheaper £2 bulbs dont last that long (ive had several go inside a year).

Do the same calculations on LED bulbs that provide an equivilant Lumin output (do not believe the equivilant wattages on the box - watts doe not equal light output), which as I say cost £10+, and the time to recoupe just the cost of the bulb is many years - and LED bulbs cost pennies to make as I say.

What it boils down to, is do you want to pay for your useage up front - by spending more money on more energy effiecient bulbs and less on your electricity bill, or spread the cost over time by bying cheap bulbs and paying the extra on your bill.

Once standard Energy Effiecient bulbs come down to the 50p mark, and LED ones to the £2 mark things have moved sufficiently to make the savings worth while on a purly financial basis.



FWIW, I do use energy effieient bulbs in my standard fittings as there in the front room and kitchen - so get used more per day and the bulbs are cheaper than the LED ones, but not on my halogene spots/recessed fitings yet (which need the LED ones as the others are not the same size) - there too expensive for the savings.

sparklefrog

http://www.amazon.co.uk/b?ie=UTF8&node=248792031 seem to still have stock available

agasi88

Can't help myself how many people does it take to change a lightbulb.......

paulmapp8306

:beer:...........

Ben84

There's still loads of regular filament bulbs available on eBay and Amazon - but really it's not worth buying these any more. They're more expensive to use and short lived compared to the new halogen bulbs that are replacing them. If you have a look in the shops you'll find various wattage, base and shape clear bulbs that have a small halogen bulb inside an outer glass shell. The halogen replacements last longer, use 1/3rd less electricity for the same light output and they're fully dimmable with good quality light. To replace 40w bulbs you'll need 28w halogen bulbs. I also use a lot of the 42w versions instead of 60w bulbs now, and a few 70w bulbs instead of the old 100w bulbs.

Sainsburys sell them:

http://www.sainsburys.co.uk/groceries/index.jsp?bmUID=1346775536910

This is actually the 42w which replaces 60w bulbs, but if you have a dimmer you can just select whatever brightness you want.

Ben84

paulmapp8306 wrote: »

Halogen bulbs are more efficient that incandescent ones - but not by a lot (50w hologen against 60w incandescent for instance) - which in practical terms in negligiable.

Some are a lot more efficient. Philips make a range called eco 50 where 20w = 40w and 30w = 60w.

davidlizard

MX5huggy wrote: »

[FONT=&quot]Energy saving bulb is £2, it uses 14 watts instead of 60. 1000 watts (1 kilo watt) costs £0.13 therefore the light bulb pays for its self after 285 hours of use or 71 days if used for 4 hours a day.

If you need a new light fitting say £50 you still get pay back after 5 years.

Why anyone would not use these is beyond comprehension. But people also smoke. [/FONT]

But you need to look at the bigger picture.

The vast majority of the energy from an incandescent bulb is dissipated as heat into the room. Therefore, by replacing 100W bulbs with energy efficient 14W bulbs, you are pumping out 84W less heat into your room. To maintain the room at your preferred temperature, the central heating needs to put out an extra 84W of heat.

Of course, it is still more cost effective to use energy saving bulbs as 84W produced by gas will be about 1/3 the price of 84W produced by electricity. Also heat is not always wanted - e.g. in the summer. But the savings are not as great as made out.

paulmapp8306

Ben84 wrote: »

Some are a lot more efficient. Philips make a range called eco 50 where 20w = 40w and 30w = 60w.

The efficient ones Ive seen arnt that big a saving.

The philips ones Ive seen are 40w, equivilant to 50w normal. OK thats 20% saving - but the bults are over £5 as opposed to under £1.

The actual savings (cost - not environmental) of energy efficient bulbs - whatever type - acually take years before you even START to make them. The hype around them is unreal.

Yes your electric bill is les, by between 20% and 80% - which is the pull. But you pay a LOT more for the bulbs (OK £2 isnt much against 20p for traditional EE bulbs, but at £5-£10 for haologen style bulbs !!!!!) and your actually paying about the same either way over a 5 year period (not everyone has lights on 4,5 or 6 hours a day. It depends on where the lights are and the time of year).

the figures are hugly missleading - and mostly for proffit (suppliers/manufacturers) or to meet government green targets. Most people dont realiose - but if you have an understanding on electrics/electronics - how little electric actually costs (we its expensive when EVERYTHIHNG is considered lol, but I mean how long you can actually use one bulb before you have used 1 unit of power).

I am not arguing its bad to use EE bulbs - its good for the environment and it saves on the monthly electric bills, but most people are interested in the financial rewards in truth, and with the current cost of EE bulbs, and more so Halogen replacement bulbs - there is in fact very little of an insentive when you actually lok at the figures (rather than the published hype).

Ill say it again - these bulbs, and LED ones in particular cost pennies to manyfacture. why do they cost £10? which the decent output (Lumens not wattages) do. They shouldnt be more than £2 each. Thats plently to make a decent proffit and low enough to actually start to make financial sense to users.