The European Empire has admitted, just one day before the ban on proper light bulbs comes into force, that energy saving bulb manufacturers are "exaggerating" their claims about equivalence.
The British government, its Energy Saving Trust quango, the European Empire, bulb manufacturers and environmental extremists have been telling us that the energy saving bulbs will save us money. They usually quote the magic figure of £37 per year invented by the British government's Energy Saving Trust quango based on replacing a 60W incandescent bulb with an 15W energy saving bulb and a 100W incandescent bulb with a 20W energy saving bulb.
The Daily Telegraph has today published the results of its own tests on energy saving bulbs which found that an 11W energy saving bulb which claims to be equivalent to a 60W incandescent bulb, even after a 10 minute warm-up period, produced only 58% of the light given off by the incandescent bulb. It would take a 20W energy saving bulb - almost double the power consumption - to get the same amount of light from an energy saving bulb as you get from a 60W incandescent bulb which will pretty much wipe out any supposed cost saving from replacing your bulbs.
This won't exactly be news to anyone who has experienced the joys of blundering around in half light after changing their proper bulbs to energy saving bulbs but it shows how fundamentally dishonest the European Empire, British government and green lobby is. The European Empire has only today - one day before proper light bulbs are banned - admitted that the claims of equivalence are false, that the energy saving potential from replacing bulbs is false and that the cost savings are a big fat lie. One day before the ban, too late to do anything about it.
Monday, 31 August 2009
wonkotsane is an author at Bloggers4UKIP.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
It is the goal of the government to take care of the people, so the government has planned to ban the Incandescent light bulbs. The government has ordered to use fluorescent light bulbs which give very less heat, very natural light and very low energy consumption.
Energy saving bulbs produce less heat (not necessarily a good thing as it increases heating costs in the winter), they certainly don't produce natural light (it's a very limited spectrum and harsh in comparison to the more natural light given off by incandescent bulbs) and the low energy consumption is nowhere near as good as it's claimed to be because the energy saving claims are based on "equivalent" bulbs which give half the light of the incandescent bulb the manufacturers and Energy Saving Trust, as the the quango responsible for certifying the outrageous false claims, claim are equivalent.
wonkotsane, most people choose not to use lightbulbs to heat their homes.
North Sea gas and oil are in decline and the UK is not investing nearly enough in the green industrial energy revolution.
With demand growing and supply declining, how would UKIP fill the gap without massive investment in energy conservation?
The Energy Saving Trust promotes efficiency, energy conservation, small-scale domestic energy generation and energy-saving products.
This, to me, seems like positive, forward-looking, valuable and uncontroversial work, which will help people save money and simultaneously do their bit to combat climate change.
How would UKIP reduce energy use in this country or is the coming energy shortfall not an issue for your party?
Those lightbulbs are a nightmare. They just give off a very dim glow. Also, they are poisonous if you drop them.
The poison that Michael McManus, UKIP, talks about is mercury.
According to the Energy Saving Trust, which is doing vital educational work cutting energy use in the UK, the amount of mercury in the bulbs is tiny; 'equivalent to a pellet smaller than the tip of a biro'.
If Michael McManus is genuinely concerned about mercury poisoning (and this is not a specious argument), then I hope he will join the Green Party in campaigning against new coal-fired power stations.
The biggest source of mercury in the air is the burning of fossil fuels like coal.
Michael McManus UKIP, according to this UKIP policy document, UKIP supports 'technologies and practice to improve energy conservation and efficiency'
http://www.ukip.org/content/the-ukip-view/227-ukips-energy-policy-backs-nuclear -bullet point 5
How many UKIP activists does it take to totally change a lightbulb policy?
What change in policy, Huw?
Sorry to miss your post, wonkotsane.
This is UKIP's energy policy: http://www.ukip.org/content/the-ukip-view/227-ukips-energy-policy-backs-nuclear
Scroll down to the key points in this paper and it says,
'Support technologies and practice to improve energy conservation and efficiency.'
Should UKIP's policy instead read 'Support technologies and practice to improve energy conservation and efficiency, as long as they are not energy-saving lightbulbs'?
Excellent Article. This great article is very important for those people who want to save energy.
Post a Comment