Question of the day

[caddyman]

A couple or three months ago, the EU in its wisdom made it illegal to sell, or import 100W light bulbs in EU member states.

Now I could rant about this on any number of levels, but I'm not going to and I shall ignore any comments that explain in tedious detail why high-handed Führer Directives from an unelected and undemocratic body are a good thing.

My question for today is rather more prosaic: Given that the legal replacements are shit and potentially harmful to health, why has not some enterprising manufacturer not introduced a 99W bulb, or if there is a small margin of error in the measurement of wattage, a 95W bulb?

I expect they are too busy trying to make wind, tide and solar power defy the laws of physics in an attempt to make them economically and practically viable.

Comments

[oldnick.livejournal.com]

Would you invest in setting up production for a 99W incandescent bulb, knowing that the legislation is already in place to ban 60W incandescent bulbs, and shortly afterwards all incandescent bulbs?

Seen todays statistics on the other failing of the new bulbs - that even if they last their designed lifespan, they lose approx 22% of their brightness before they fail?

[caddyman.livejournal.com]

I hadn't realised that the old 60w bulb was on death row, too.

The link above covers the 22% brightness loss. It also reports that RNIB are suggesting partialy sighted people by halogen bulbs to reduce the likelihood of injury because legal bulbs are so dim. A bit like the Commission, really.

[nyarbaggytep.livejournal.com]

So, how would you address the energy crisis then? Because you know, it seems to me that dimmer light bulbs are not really the end of the world, whereas, continuing to emit carbon at the rate we are, well, that might be.

[caddyman.livejournal.com]

You won't like the only workable answer! ;-)

[mr-h-r-hughes.livejournal.com]

We've had all energy-saving bulbs since we moved in 4 and a half years ago - we've never changed one and they are as bright as the old type. Not sure where everybody gets these dim ones I haer so much about ?

[nyarbaggytep.livejournal.com]

Are you sure?

[caddyman.livejournal.com]

Well the answer is, of course, nuclear energy. Properly constructed power stations with carefully regulated use of radioactive materials etc of course.

I like the idea of solar power, wind turbines and floaty things in the sea generating power, but my understanding of the physics is that to produce power in the required amounts even for now, much less the future, these things would be an environmental disaster all of their own. Even allowing for improvements in technology, there is a physical limit to these technologies that cannot be overcome. So on balance, and fully aware that if it’s done wrong we will all look like Ready Brek adverts from the 70s (if anyone but me remembers them), nuclear energy seems the only viable alternative to oil and coal.

People more clever than me may well find ways of beating all this at some point, but any such technology is so far from being developed as a viable alternative that for the next couple of generations at least we will have to make do with building now with today’s best technology, what we need for tomorrow.

Of course, that doesn’t mean that people shouldn’t try to be more efficient in their energy use. The bit about 99w bulbs was intended to be at least partially fatuous. Of course, if Mr M is right and I have no reason to disbelieve him, the entire question is moot and we will be wandering around with long life bulbs, halogen lamps or candles.

I wonder what the carbon footprint is of replacing each 100w bulb with the equivalent output in candles..?

[nyarbaggytep.livejournal.com]

I'm not entirely against Nuclear Power, I do agree that starting by becoming more efficient is the right way to start though.

I think there's a way in which the lightbulbs legislation is a tiny step in the right direction not being matched in other areas.

[november-girl.livejournal.com]

Where did you get your bright ones? The dimness in our house is driving me nuts.

[november-girl.livejournal.com]

I agree.

[fractalgeek.livejournal.com]

1) Sometimes you want the heat too
2) Sometimes you want instant start
3) Sometimes you don't want to replace your security system that won't work with CF tubes.

But most of all:
4) LED "bulbs" will be better, cheaper, safer, and more power efficient, but we have just loaded our houses with lights with a decade lifespan, slowing their introduction hugely.

[nyarbaggytep.livejournal.com]

Ooh, I didn't know you could get LED bulbs for domestic lights?

[fractalgeek.livejournal.com]

In strange colour balances, now. They're saying white are 1-2 years away.

[fractalgeek.livejournal.com]

I agree - the ones claimed to be 100W equivalents don't seem to be as bright to me.

We're trying daylight ones in our lounge. The bluer colur range does feel brighter...

[november-girl.livejournal.com]

I might try those. It's got to the point that despite having 2 "110w" bulbs on in the lounge, I still can't see well enough to unload the clothes horse, for example. :-(