100W lightbulbs to be banned?

BillieTheBot

So says The Telegraph. Is this really true? My house is full of them and I have spares going too. I don't think much of the energy-saving bulbs, so if 100W do get phased out, I will be buying LED bulbs such as these and they are actually pretty good.

Former Member

Well it would seem people like yourself are the reason a ban is needed

Why would you need a house full of 100 Watt light bulbs?

Is every bulb on a dimmer?

You can get halogen lights which give off light like a traditional bulb and use less electricty.

Most of the time my room is lit by a 20 watts halogen bulb, but the same room also has brighter lights on Dimmers and an energy saving light as well also 20 watts.

Former Member

I like my place lit up and I pay accordingly. I also have DMX disco lights. It's my hobby not yours, DG.

Former Member

LED bulbs are bollocks tbh, not suitable for household lighting if you ask me just yet, they'll get better tho.

Low energy lighting however is pretty good.

they aint gonna be banned, just no more made and sold in europe. so you could buy a thousand now and keep them till they run out (queue ebay selling chinese imports).

altho...a house full of 100w incandecents? are you crazy???? i dont think i've ever felt the need for 100w. 60w max for a house.

Former Member

Cheers LuckyStrike. I just never knew. This law seemed to slipped by me without me noticing. Most of my DMX lights are LED anyway which are more efficient than energy saving - range between 15W and 39W. Plus, because they're disco lights, they can change colour. They are serving great as ambient lights.

What will happen in the bathroom though? Are spotbulbs included in the ban? I thought it was normal to have 100W spotbulbs in the bathroom so that people can see what theyre doing. Make-up, shaving, nail-clipping etc. Plus, I'm visually impaired.

Former Member

Monserrat wrote: »

I thought it was normal to have 100W spotbulbs in the bathroom so that people can see what theyre doing. Make-up, shaving, nail-clipping etc. Plus, I'm visually impaired.

You'll find that most spot lights in bathrooms/kitchens or those that are recessed into a ceiling are halogen. Probably something to do with giving off less heat.

Former Member

All incandecent lightblubs are to be banned from sale in Europe (including imports), not just 100W incandecent lightbulbs. Quite rightly too. If you stockpile them you can still use them, but why on earth would you want to?

100W bulbs of other types are not going to be banned, but it's rare you see 100W energy saving lightbulbs or 100W halogen spotlights.

Former Member

I kinda agree with Monserrat here, in the sense that if he's paying for the electricity... it's not like energy saving lightbulbs aren't cheap either, so people do have a genuine choice. It's not like taxing cigarrettes which are proven to kill people, this is just to reduce people's energy consumption. Would the next law be that people are banned from journeys that are less than 1 mile, because they could reasonably walk that? It's their own choice if they want to be lazy and waste petrol / engine wear and tear / become unfit.

Unless there is a more sinister side to these lightbulbs (like how they banned CFCs or something because they cause cancer).

Former Member

Incandecent lightblubs are environmentally very damaging- not just on electricity usage, but also on manufacturing costs and the filament- and are rightly banned. The alternatives are good enough.

Former Member

Kermit wrote: »

Incandecent lightblubs are environmentally very damaging- not just on electricity usage, but also on manufacturing costs and the filament- and are rightly banned. The alternatives are good enough.

Exactly - it's just the same as the government subsidising renewable energy sources, which we pay more for through taxation. Without these measures most people would only ever go for the cheaper option, regardless of the impact on the environment.

Former Member

Oh, and CFCs weren't banned because of cancer risks, they were banned for contributing to ozone depletion.

Former Member

Kermit wrote: »

Oh, and CFCs weren't banned because of cancer risks, they were banned for contributing to ozone depletion.

Thats what I thought as well,

I have to say I use Energy saving bulbs and prefer tham due to the fact that, yes initially they are more expensive but my energy saving bulbs tend to last 3/4times longer than incandecent bulbs so really that plus energy saving works out perfect, also there are plenty of bright/bright enough energy saving bulbs out there that are almost on par with 100w

Former Member

Kermit wrote: »

Incandecent lightblubs are environmentally very damaging- not just on electricity usage, but also on manufacturing costs and the filament- and are rightly banned. The alternatives are good enough.

It depends on what "good enough" means. Take a read on on colour rendering index (CRI) and lux. CRI is the ability to reproduce as close a colour to daylight as possible and lux is the ability to light up a room. At the moment, energy-saving achieves neither of these.

Energy saving and Windows Vista both have something in common. I'll skip both. In Windows, I'll go straight to 7 and in bulbs, I'll go straight for LED lamps once they've improved their wattage.

Former Member

The latest Philips daylight bulbs have very good CRI and lux readings, as good as if not better than the incandecent equivalent.

Former Member

Kermit wrote: »

Oh, and CFCs weren't banned because of cancer risks, they were banned for contributing to ozone depletion.

Strangely enough the HFC's brought in to replace them are massively warming - many thousands of times more than CO2. We can use butane in the majority of cases but most air cons are still filled with HFC's. If was was cynical enough I would suggest it had something to do with HFC's being made by big US companies with huge power.