Low - energy lighting
THE UK Government's planned switchover from traditional light bulbs to low-energy lighting by 2011.
I have heard some bizarre and uninformed debates on the topic of replacing the ‘old’ incandescent bulbs with the new energy efficient fluorescent lights.. curious to know if anyone can shed some light on the following points i have seen raised.
1. The British Skin Foundation warned that the new bulbs will cause problems for people with light-sensitive skin!
2. The new bulbs have a high carbon footprint. Is it more or less over the life of the bulb than the traditional alternative? I would be curious to know if these carbon calculations include transport from point of manufacture!
3. Evidently there is a problem with disposing of the new bulbs due to the mercury content! Is the mercury content significant / more or less than traditional alternatives?
4. Evidently there is a difference between the energy saving fluorescent bulbs for domestic and industrial markets. The domestic products have mercury in them and the commercial / industrial don’t due to health and safety!! Is this an urban legend
5. What actually is the efficiency difference & long term cost saving to the consumer, if there is any?
6. Fluorescent lights seem to have some sort of ionising characteristic, where they affect the air around them. This affects a certain number of people, probably tens of thousands of people in Britain. Certain forms of eczema, for example, flare up anywhere near fluorescent lights!!
Added By:
Another thought about lighting. CFL's (compact fluorescent lamps) still use around 10 W of electricity, take a while to 'warm up' to full brightness and have a life expectancy of around 1500 hours. Thus the life expectancy and energy usage are improvements over traditional incandescent bulbs.
However, I think LED lighting might have a big part to play in the future too. LED performance seems to be on the up in terms of brightness and colour ranges (i.e. from cold hard white for shops through to warmer tones for domestic use), whilst maintaining the stunningly low energy consumption - less than three or four Watts for a 35 W equivalent bulb and outstanding life expectancy (in excess of 50 000 hours!). They're harder to break too.
Author: Duncan
Source: http://www.lowcarboneconomy.com
View original article