Comments on: Goodness and light

By: Trevor29

Trevor29 — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 06:39:10 +0000

I read in the Listener recently that the ban on importing low-efficiency incandescent bulbs only applies to bulbs under 150W. That means that I will still be able to buy 150W linear and 300W linear haolgen bulbs. It will also mean that I can buy a 150W Par38 floodlight bulb, but may not be able to buy a 120W Par38 floodlight bulb if I don’t need as much light, unless the latter meets the efficiency rules.

Unfortunately this last quirk is actually encouraging me to use more rather than less power.

Trevor.

By: Trevor29

Trevor29 — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 01:27:26 +0000

I enquired at the other company mentioned, and they don’t have them either.

Trevor.

By: Trevor29

Trevor29 — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 01:39:18 +0000

It would help if the companies mentioned actually had the high-efficiency lamps. I’ve just returned from a wild-goose-chase to one of the companies and they hadn’t even heard of them or EECA.

Trevor.

By: BluePeter

BluePeter — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 02:42:23 +0000

>>BP - there are higher efficiency incandescents on the market (elsewhere) that will soon be brought into NZ. Same light, better performance. What’s the problem?

No problem whatsoever, so long as the light quality is the same.

If it isn’t, then I won’t be switching over. The lamps I’m referring to are high-end, designer lamps.

By: Mr Dennis

Mr Dennis — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 00:59:09 +0000

The point as I see it is not that incandescents are better than fancy modern bulbs. Quite the opposite, in MOST situations. But not all.

The point is that although you may feel energy-savers are best for you, others may have situations where incandescents are better. I have outlined a few examples (which everyone arguing for the legislation has conveniently ignored) and others have pointed out more situations. Just because you think they are fine for you doesn’t mean modern bulbs are fine for everyone.

A ban is unnecessary. As I said before, people are already using energy-savers where appropriate, so this legislation will achieve little. I use them on my most frequently used lights. But I also have places where they are inappropriate. I would spend more, not less, on lighting if I was forced to buy energy savers for every fitting (and replace the lamps that won’t take them).

toad:
I’ll tell you why the lighting industry has “bought into” this strategy - because they stand to make a tonne of money. Think of all the expensive new bulbs to be purchased, new fittings to be installed to take them, new lamps to buy to replace the old-fashioned ones that only take incandescents… Far from saving money this will cost the country a mint. If I was in the lighting industry I would be licking my chops. I object because I am a consumer and see the folly in it, and object to being forced to spend MORE money on lighting than I currently do.

By: Trevor29

Trevor29 — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 08:45:46 +0000

Make that a 28W R50 to replace a 40W R80?

(This new laptop isn’t as easy to read or type on as my older power-hungry computer.)

By: Trevor29

Trevor29 — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 08:44:09 +0000

http://www.energywise.govt.nz/yourhome/lighting/subsidies-on-efficient -lighting.html
lists a 42W R63 which replaces a 60W R80. How can it be a replacement if it is a different size. It would look horrible and let in the draft.
It also lists a 20W R50 to replace a 40W R80???

I’m still waiting for a good replacement for a 75W R80 bulb that puts out as much usable light. I tried one CFL and was disappointed - not only did it stick out more but it put out less light and was slow to reach full intensity.

Trevor.

By: Trevor29

Trevor29 — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 08:38:52 +0000

frog - I have no objection to using higher efficiency halogens, if they fit and give out a similar light in terms of both colour and level. However I haven’t seen any higher efficiency halogens in the appropriate formats - 78mm and 118mm linear halogens. It would help if I could read the light output or efficacy on the packet, but they don’t normally include that. perhaps the ones I am already using are high efficiency.

Thanks to your recent links, I’ll pay a visit to Mitre 10 or Bunnings and see if I can get some replacements for the R63 60W GLS bulbs and 50W halogen downlight bulbs that EECA are subsidising. However there do appear to be some errors creeping into the EECA web site…

Trevor.

By: insider

insider — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 00:15:53 +0000

Inferior is relative and so in the eye of the beholder. I think the public reaction to the MEPS speaks for itself in terms of whether the public thinks CFLs are superior or inferior on balance to GLS bulbs.

By: dbuckley

dbuckley — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 23:50:13 +0000

“Inferior” depends on which way you look at it.

Our house is almost all CFL lit, and some lighting is clearly “inferior” to the incandescents they replaced, and some is vastly superior. Visitors comment on both aspects.

What is unarguable is that the humble GLS lamp turns less than 10% of the electricity it consumes into light, and is thus wasteful, both on the local scale (electricity bills) and more importantly, on the larger scale - that electricity that is wasted has to be generated somehow, and we, as a country, could do with using less electricity.

This could be phrased as simply as: if you want to keep using GLS lamps where they are not necessary, you are in favour of burning more coal.