forum: if it\'s not saving, it\'s not working - kenneth mellanby is unconvinced by the low-energy bulb
Regardless of the impact of rising greenhouse gas levels, fossil fuels (
The source of most of our electricity)
It is the limited resources that future generations need.
Their excessive use produces other serious contaminants and carbon dioxide.
When this is combined with efficiency, their frugal use is just good housekeeping.
There has been considerable publicity on the top.
The efficiency bulb wastes much less energy than the ordinary filament bulb.
However, I find that many of their arguments are often considered-
The environmental protection organization is very unconvincing.
There is no doubt that the banner advertisement in The New Scientist claims that it is low
£ 22 energy bulb. 95 (
For filament bulbs, relative to 39 p)
Their light output is equivalent to a normal 75-
Watt bulb, about 20 of the current used for wire bulb.
It seems like a substantial saving, but will it seriously reduce the electricity bill?
I live in a 100 High House. year-
Old terrace villa in central Cambridge.
There are neighbors on both sides and they keep the house warm as I have also contributed to their comfort.
The narrow walls behind and in front of the House are mostly windows, and of course the windows are double glazed (
To prevent the noise of the students, also to keep the heat).
The roof is well protected by a thick layer of fiberglass.
Our only energy source is electricity for space heating (night storage)
Cooking and hot water and light.
There seem to be 41 lights in our house.
If I replace all of this with low-
Capital spending on energy bulbs will be well above £ 900.
If the money is invested in the construction society, it will generate taxes once a year
Free income of more than hundred pounds.
This is more money than I spend on lighting and replacing filament bulbsas.
I realized it was stupid to install expensive low-cost equipment
Places where energy is rarely used-spare rooms, cabinets, restrooms.
But even in the rest of the house, they will be a questionable investment.
Ordinary bulbs may not be efficient, but the current they use is relatively small.
I will reduce the electricity bill by lowering the room temperature to a certain extent, occasionally turning off a heater or reducing the hot bath.
According to my calculations, the conversion of any ordinary light will only start to pay if it is used more than 1000 hours a year.
It may prove more effective to use smaller bulbs and close more tightly.
Finally, the increase in manufacturing low energy costs
Allowed energy barriers?
Factories, shops and offices are likely to get even more savings where the lights burn for 8 or even 24 hours a day.
This is true, but in many such places, efficient fluorescent tubes are already being used.
In fact, in my own house, I have installed a tube in a dark kitchen, and I believe many householders have done the same.
So in the low case
Energy bulbs that may be used are often overvalued.
Another point should be remembered.
The heat generated by the light wire is not completely \"wasted.
It is helpful to warm some buildings.
In fact, if the insulation performance is really good, it could be everything needed to produce acceptable warmth. With low-
Sometimes, it is not necessary for energy lamps, auxiliary heaters.
We should concentrate on developing the real economy.
In many existing buildings, especially in factories, the thermal insulation performance can be greatly improved.
Public buildings, including offices, shops and hotels, are generally overheated.
In this regard, the economy may produce lower than the use-
Energy bulbs in our house
Kenneth melambi is the first director and founder of the Munks Wood experimental station set up by the Nature Conservation Association
Editor of The Journal of environmental pollution.