I recently received a couple of energy saving light bulbs from my electricity supplier - one is supposed to be equivalent to a 60W bulb, the other to
a 75W bulb.
Is it just me, or are these bulbs really dim? Even when you allow some time for them to warm up properly, they cast a very gloomy light that's
nowhere near as bright and cheery as the filament bulb they replaced.
I reckon that the '60W equivalent' is about as bright as a 40W filament bulb...
I'm sure the ratings are very optimistic, and some of them can take quite a long time to reach full brightness.
They also don't seem to last very long, I've replaced several already that have barely outlasted filament bulbs.
I always buy one size up as they are optimistic about the comparisons. You're still saving a lot of power as you might need an 11W bulb rather than a 9W one to be as bright as a 100W incandescent.
The one place where we have filament bulbs running for quite a time is in the kitchen - we've got six 50W GU10 downlighters. The energy saving
equivalents are £9 each minimum, for decent brands from the cheapest on-line supplier I could find...
But, even so, that makes 66W instead of 300W, which is significant when the lights may be on for hours at a time in the winter. Trouble is, they are
18mm longer than the filament originals.
The rest of the house has energy-savers for every bulb that may be left on for significant amounts of time. I haven't bothered to change bulbs
where they are only switched on for a minute or so - by the time they warm up enough to give decent light, they'd be switched off again!
[Edited on 25/9/08 by David Jenkins]
all my lights are energy saving, I love the way they take a while to heat up as I hate being blinded in the morning. I have had to replace 2 in four years out of around 20 odd bulbs which I think is very good. I have a few 5w ones in the hall that I can't even be bothered turning off seeing how little they use. Old fashioned bubs have no place in my house at all, there banned
Can't stand them. You go into the bedroom to get something and you're back out before they know you've switched them on
i find night vision goggles to be far more efficient.
Just a shame the house is so damned cold now.
quote:
The one place where we have filament bulbs running for quite a time is in the kitchen - we've got six 50W GU10 downlighters. The energy saving equivalents are £9 each minimum, for decent brands from the cheapest on-line supplier I could find...
Hi
Is there any truth in the rumour that energy saving bulbs have to be left on for about twenty minutes before making any saving over normal filaments?
The inference being they use quite a lot of energy in the start up phase.
Regards Mick
Hi
After a bit of searching I found this
Can I use a CFL in applications where I will be turning the lights on/off frequently?
Compact fluorescent light bulbs work best if they are left on for over 15 minutes each time they are turned on. These types of lamps can take up to 3
minutes to warm-up. Warm-up will probably not be noticeable from a user stand point, but the lamp needs to warm-up in order to reach the point of most
efficient operation. Frequently switching them on and off will shorten the life of the product. If the life of the lamp is shortened significantly,
you will not reap the financial benefits (includes energy & life of lamp), that are common to CFL lamps.
So possibly not beneficial in some applications, (bathrooms, toilets, wardrobes etc.)
Regards Mick
Mythbusters tested this (so it must be true....) about wether or not you had to leave a flourescent type lamp on for a protracted period of time to
reap the benefits or wether or not it used up 30mins of electricity to start the lamp.
They reckoned the myth was busted, but I think it depends on wether or not use an electronic ballast (straight on) or a switch start ballast
(wirewound - flick,flick,flick,lamp on). The electronic type ballast (as used in all modern CFL type lamps) is hugely more efficient (some can even be
dimmed) than a conventional switch start ballast - so I wonder which they tested the myth with. I can't remember.
Interestingly though, for the average user, replacing an ordinary tungsten type lamp with a CFL or LED will produce savings but I have to be honest
and state that I am a sceptic. Unless you have all tungsten type lamps in your house and leave them on half the day, switching to CFLs won't save
you much money each month. Your big energy costs come from your electric shower, kettle, washing machine, tumble drier etc..
Only my opinion tho.....
quote:
Originally posted by Mix
Hi
Is there any truth in the rumour that energy saving bulbs have to be left on for about twenty minutes before making any saving over normal filaments? The inference being they use quite a lot of energy in the start up phase.
Regards Mick
quote:
To use 0.02 kWh in 3 seconds would require a power consumption of 24kW, a current draw of 100 Amps - I think not!
quote:
Originally posted by greglogan
replacing an ordinary tungsten type lamp with a CFL or LED will produce savings but I have to be honest and state that I am a sceptic. Unless you have all tungsten type lamps in your house and leave them on half the day, switching to CFLs won't save you much money each month.
But .... twist this around.
What is the environmental cost of producing and destroying the energy saving bulb???
Its FAR higher than a normal bulb & i've yet to see a study that takes into account the fact a normal bulb gives off far more heat -
therefore reducing your need to heat the room. In fact in my downstairs toilet, it doesn't have a heater but if you put the light on, after a
minute its warmed it up enough for you to notice.
Also, if you break a energy saving bulb, immediately evacuate the room. You've just released mercury into the atmosphere. Come back in 15
minutes, open the windows and leave again for a while. Hopefully the mercury will then have been dispersed more finely into the atmosphere so its not
noticable.
Having said all that, i'm replacing normal bulbs with energy saving ones as the normal ones blow.