Incandescent light bulbs to make a comeback?

[SteveyG]

"I think that the electronics should be separated from the bulb: "

Changing lighting fixture is far more expensive than changing light bulbs. That risk is amplified at time of changing and uncertain technology,like now. I for one don't think led lighting is mature enough, or perform well enough for me to replace my incandescent bulbs with year around.

The warm and soft glow of incandescent bulbs is just a pleasure to look at, especially in the winter.

Also the idea of "LED Replacements" is just flawed anyway. Purpose designed LED luminaries are great - they have adequate heatsinking, separate control gear and the diffuser or reflector is designed for the job. There are very few well implemented LED replacements as they generally all have some serious compromises which either affect the form, lifetime or light distribution.

[dannyf]

I don't understand the fixation on "efficiency ": if you live in a colder part of the world, incandescent bulbs are 100 efficient in that it gives out either light or heat, things you need in a house anyway.

If you are a radio liatener, the radio pollution from cfl or led bulbs is just too much to bear.

[tom66]

I don't understand the fixation on "efficiency ": if you live in a colder part of the world, incandescent bulbs are 100 efficient in that it gives out either light or heat, things you need in a house anyway.

Don't know how it works in other countries but in the UK gas is three times cheaper than electricity per kWh. So from that point of view it makes sense to use efficient electrical light sources and rely on gas to heat the home, provided the efficient lights don't cost more over their lifetime than the electricity savings, of course. 

[Mechanical Menace]

I don't understand the fixation on "efficiency ": if you live in a colder part of the world, incandescent bulbs are 100 efficient in that it gives out either light or heat, things you need in a house anyway.

Heating is for the weak. Put on a jumper. And TBH what use is heating the ceiling? I don't spend that much of my free time on the ceiling. And using electricity for heating is a massive waste of money.

If you are a radio liatener, the radio pollution from cfl or led bulbs is just too much to bear.

What's radio? 

Joking aside people who listen to radio are such a small niche now that's hardly a concern and the vast majority of that 0.5% of people who do listen to it use their DVB tuners or stream over the internet anyhows. At a push they may have a DAB radio.

[ciccio]

The cost of electricity and the cost of natural gas are fixed by political, not economical parameters.
Taxes and incentives for renewables are higher than the cost of the energy, be it gas or electricity.
If electricity could be produced by nuclear or hydroelectric or geothermal plants, and there were no added costs to finance inefficient wind turbines (like the ones I see here in Italy, which do not work because were installed in places where wind is very scarce, but were paid by my taxes) or (a little more efficient) photovoltaic cells, and the tax ratio is acceptable, then maybe it could be more economical to heat houses, especially in southern Europe, with electricity.
It could even  be safer: gas in a building is dangerous, a lot more than electricity, and there is the risk of carbon monoxide intoxication, which takes tens of lives every winter.

[Zero999]

The cost of electricity and the cost of natural gas are fixed by political, not economical parameters.
Taxes and incentives for renewables are higher than the cost of the energy, be it gas or electricity.
If electricity could be produced by nuclear or hydroelectric or geothermal plants, and there were no added costs to finance inefficient wind turbines (like the ones I see here in Italy, which do not work because were installed in places where wind is very scarce, but were paid by my taxes) or (a little more efficient) photovoltaic cells, and the tax ratio is acceptable, then maybe it could be more economical to heat houses, especially in southern Europe, with electricity.
It could even  be safer: gas in a building is dangerous, a lot more than electricity, and there is the risk of carbon monoxide intoxication, which takes tens of lives every winter.

Here in the UK a lot of our electricity is generated with natural gas and if you're going to be using it to heat your home, it's much more efficient and environmentally friendly to just burn the gas.

Carbon monoxide may be dangerous but so are nuclear reactors.

[IanB]

In the loft and the garage, I have 2x 56W fluorescent tubes. Very nice. I'm surprised that so many people don't seem to like the glare-free nature of lamps like this.

I like it. I have recently refreshed the lighting in my garage with some T12 dual 40 W fittings and some warm white Philips tubes. The electronic ballast is instant on with no flicker, and I really like the soft, even illumination. I particularly like that I can look directly at the tubes without being blinded or getting spots in my eyes. The large surface area of the T12 tube with low surface intensity is very pleasant.

[NiHaoMike]

I don't understand the fixation on "efficiency ": if you live in a colder part of the world, incandescent bulbs are 100 efficient in that it gives out either light or heat, things you need in a house anyway.

But a heat pump uses one third the power for the same amount of heat, even less if it's a particularly good one.

[coppice]

I don't understand the fixation on "efficiency ": if you live in a colder part of the world, incandescent bulbs are 100 efficient in that it gives out either light or heat, things you need in a house anyway.

But a heat pump uses one third the power for the same amount of heat, even less if it's a particularly good one.

Not just that, but only extreme climates use heating for much more than half the year. For the rest of the time the heat from a lamp is an unqualified waste even in cooler climates..

[johnwa]

I don't understand the fixation on "efficiency ": if you live in a colder part of the world, incandescent bulbs are 100 efficient in that it gives out either light or heat, things you need in a house anyway.

But a heat pump uses one third the power for the same amount of heat, even less if it's a particularly good one.

And, just because an incandescent light globe is calorimetrically equivalent to other forms of heating, that does not necessarily make it an effective form of heating. Even considering only resistive electric heating, a 100W electric blanket will keep you a good deal warmer than a 100W globe on the ceiling.

[coppice]

I don't understand the fixation on "efficiency ": if you live in a colder part of the world, incandescent bulbs are 100 efficient in that it gives out either light or heat, things you need in a house anyway.

But a heat pump uses one third the power for the same amount of heat, even less if it's a particularly good one.

And, just because an incandescent light globe is calorimetrically equivalent to other forms of heating, that does not necessarily make it an effective form of heating. Even considering only resistive electric heating, a 100W electric blanket will keep you a good deal warmer than a 100W globe on the ceiling.

Most of us wouldn't really consider electric blankets as suitable home heating. However, incandescent lamps are heating the wrong part of the room. Warm air rises, and most lamps are close to the ceiling. They also tend to be near the centre of the room. Heating needs to be near the floor against an outside wall, to achieve the most even temperature around the room, and the lowest energy consumption for good comfort.