This debate is now closed.
Do you welcome the ban on incandescent light bulbs?
A European Union ban on the manufacture and import of 100 watt and frosted incandescent light bulbs has come into force. Do you welcome this move to protect the environment?
The EU wants the bulbs to be replaced by longer-lasting compact fluorescent lamps which use up to 80% less electricity than traditional bulbs. The ban will be extended to all incandescent bulbs by 2012.
Campaigners say the new bulbs can trigger health problems in people with light-sensitive medical conditions. Some shopkeepers have reported that many people were stockpiling 100W bulbs ahead of the ban. Any remaining supplies can still be sold in shops.
Have you already changed to energy-saving bulbs and are you enjoying the savings? Are you stockpiling the old style bulbs? Have you experienced any practical drawbacks in using the new style bulbs?
Read the full story
Published:
Tuesday, 1 September, 2009, 10:23 GMT
11:23 UK
All comments as they come in
Added:
Wednesday, 2 September, 2009, 14:38 GMT
15:38 UK
I could fly 10 times around the world in a jumbo jet but cannot buy a light bulb. Makes sence if you're a politican I guess.
Paul Delasaux, Bromley
|
Added:
Wednesday, 2 September, 2009, 14:37 GMT
15:37 UK
Now we are told not to switch CFLs on and off as it reduces there life span possible by 85%. So 'they' say leave them swiched on.Very enviromentaly friendly. What a load of rubbish these things are.
Steve, Blackburn
|
Added:
Wednesday, 2 September, 2009, 14:36 GMT
15:36 UK
I can't agree with anyone who says low energy light bulbs are as good as incandescent - they are not... the light is a dimmer, colder light, they are sometimes noisey
pb, fleet
CFL bulbs come in a variety of "colour temperatures" expressed in kelvins, ranging from a cold white, as you say, to something that actually resembles sunlight. the noise you hear is the ballast under current. better quality CFLs don't have this problem, many even work with dimmer switches.
Daventerley Pasttime
|
Added:
Wednesday, 2 September, 2009, 14:32 GMT
15:32 UK
I prefer the old bulbs because I trust them. I don't trust the new ones, I keep thinking that if I stand under one for too long, I might catch skin cancer.
It's a depressing rule from the notoriously corrupt EU.
I might be wrong of course.
EnglandWotEngland?, London
|
Added:
Wednesday, 2 September, 2009, 14:32 GMT
15:32 UK
I actually agree with the banning of what I call 'normal' incandescent bulbs. But what I do not agree with is the banning of bulbs that use a filament (and so will be banned) but that have no low energy replacement. Take 'Pigmy' bulbs for display cases.
My house has now got low energy bulbs where it can. Recently bought 4 for a £1 in a well known national Poundstore. You wait maybe 30 seconds for full brightness but then in last year have saved over £65.00 in electricity from switching!
Rob, London
|
Added:
Wednesday, 2 September, 2009, 14:32 GMT
15:32 UK
This is a ridiculous development. It takes a minute or more before full light is thrown out by the low energy bulb. Surely that defeats the object of switching a light on ?
When you swich a light on it is to illuminate the room immediately...not 2 minutes later when you probably want to leave the room.
I think a lot more accidents will occur because of this and yes I am stockpiling 100w bulbs.
EricHopper, Chorley
|
Added:
Wednesday, 2 September, 2009, 14:30 GMT
15:30 UK
If they do cause problem for people with some conditions then maybe alternative arrangements need to be made.
Personally I dont mind them, have both types of bulbs in my house. Okay, the power savers take a few minutes to warm up and they dont last as long as the manufacturers claim, I've found they last more like 18 months with heavy use maybe longer in rooms that dont get used so much.
Some people dont like change, older members of my familly have stocked up on 100 watt bulbs but not me.
martyn, Derby
|
Added:
Wednesday, 2 September, 2009, 14:29 GMT
15:29 UK
Get used to them & quit your belly-achin'. The bulbs are here to wtay.
Tim Sullivan, Tarpon Springs
At last the voice of reason. The bulbs are here to wtay!
Pete, Wisconsin
|
Added:
Wednesday, 2 September, 2009, 14:29 GMT
15:29 UK
I am currently studying for a degree in architectural technology and have to do alot of technical drawings and work.
The new energy saving bulbs do not provide a suitable amount of light for the work that I am doing and find myself getting lamps pointing onto my work from every direction. Instead of using just one bulb over head I now use atleast 2 lamp bulbs because of shadows on my work from lamps and the overhead fluorescent bulb.
Mark Percival, Twickenham
|
Added:
Wednesday, 2 September, 2009, 14:29 GMT
15:29 UK
I believe that the legislation has been proven to be flawed as it only applies to bulbs sold for domestic use, so how is a retailer to determine what bulbs are used for. So hopefully we shall still be able to get hold of the superior and more environmentally product, given the toxic goo that is the energy-saving bulb
Duncan Jeffery, London, United Kingdom
|
Added:
Wednesday, 2 September, 2009, 14:25 GMT
15:25 UK
Energy Efficient lightbulbs use less energy and save money.
Stop moaning!
David, Leeds
Because theyre rubbish and dont give out enough light, whats the point in buying, correction, being forced to buy something that doesnt do the job its intended for.
Valkyrie woody, Burton on Trent, United Kingdom
|
Added:
Wednesday, 2 September, 2009, 14:25 GMT
15:25 UK
The new bulbs don't cost any more on start up than the old bulbs. That is a myth which probably arises becauses they take so long to warm up! The new ones are more energy efficient and last longer which makes them cheaper. There are drawbacks in that they don't dim very easily (or at all in some cases) and seem to be dimmer. I don't see the problem in the world being a little darker (no pun intended) if we get a bit more mileage out of the rapidly dimishing fuel sources we have now.
Ashley, Haslemere
|
Added:
Wednesday, 2 September, 2009, 14:24 GMT
15:24 UK
I think it's diabolical. Whilst I understand the need.... the actual bulbs are hideous and produce such low light it's surely bad for ones eyes?
We should have the choice....isn't it odd that they don't ban cigarettes then?
Give us a better alternative or make it a choice.
Mia Williams, London
|
Added:
Wednesday, 2 September, 2009, 14:23 GMT
15:23 UK
Energy save lights are ban in america if they contain mercury so the ones you buy here are likely to because there is no ban here - mercury a is very environmentally unfriendly substance.
Still lack of research for those who suffer from lupus epilesy and labyrinthitis.
Depoite, sidmouth
|
Added:
Wednesday, 2 September, 2009, 14:22 GMT
15:22 UK
I'd like to know who's going to pay to replae all the light fittings in my house so they are compatible with the CFL's Most of my light fittings are enclosed, which are not suitable for the CFL's. We did try them anyway and got 2-3 weeks life out of them before they failed.
Also who's going to fund somebody checking the contents of every bin to ensure that people don't incorrectly put the failed CFL's in the normal waste and thus contaminate landfill with mercury?
Oliver Keeling, Nottingham
|
|
This Have Your Say is
CLOSED
DEBATE STATUS
Total comments: 2338
Published comments: 2125
Rejected comments: 213
From Have Your Say
|
News and analysis
