Cammo says something vaguely relevant

[Mean Mr Mustard]

I feel that way about leds. In their light, no matter how bright it may be, I completely lose the ability to judge distance. This is weird and, since a lot of cyclists now use leds, dangerous.

For the cfls, one problem is that they throw out a much larger proportion of their light sideways than old-fashioned lightbulbs do. The usual type of lamps (standard lamps etc) are kind-of the wrong way round for this.

Also, cfls don't (usually) die, they just fade. We had a load for 6 years and it was only when we replaced some that died in a voltage surge that we realised how dim all the rest had become.

As if that wasn't enough, individuals' ability to see in not-perfectly-bright light fades with age. I've yet to hear someone in their 20s complaining about cfls being dimmer.

I like the flashing LED variety as that grabs my attention some way out, that I might react and slow down or carefully overtake the cyclist, as luminous tabards do in the daylight. I used to be a cyclist before I became a car addict. I sometimes try to protect them on country lanes by delaying my overtaking to deliberately slow traffic behind me.

Just found out about an ageing guy with night blindness symptoms. And a driving licence. Not for much longer, I hope.

[Mean Mr Mustard]

It's probably the peaky spectral irradiance of the CFLs that we are seeing. A bit like listening to music with only tweeters and woofers.

I expect you have a Bang and Olufsen or thereabouts? I have duff ears, a pair of Denon headphones, and three woofers, all rescues.

[RenewableCandy]

Just found out about an ageing guy with night blindness symptoms. And a driving licence. Not for much longer, I hope.

Perhaps he's waiting for a cataract op. It's amazing what a difference those can make (says a RenewableRel., not me).

But it's also depressing what crappy eyesight is considered roadworthy in these parts.

[kenneal - lagger]

We went entirely CFL in 1978 and are now thinking about going over to LEDs and we can still see and read, as can our children. And there are people who still want 100 year old technology. I suppose that you are still using the horse and cart because a car doesn't give you manure for the roses!! Why not use a gas lamp? That gives a nice warm light!!!

[woodburner]

I wonder how much you have spent replacing cfls that have failed much earlier than their over hyped life expectancy, and at what environmental cost in both production energy and toxic materials.

While you would benefit in the summer, the gains in winter re smaller as you have used more fuel elsewhere to replace he heat provided by filament lamps.

You cannot use cfls as cheap heaters, as you can filament lamps.

Local breweries still use horses for deliveries, it appeals to people, and it is economically justified.

Gas lamps are useful when camping, etc no heavy electrical storage to drag around, and it gives a bit of heat.

I use a scythe, far cheaper than a strimmer, quieter, provides exercise, doesn't make such a mess, and in many cases is no slower.

I use hand saws often. Use anywhere, cheaper, quieter.

I use a push mower (no motor). No slower than using a motor driven one for the bits I cut.

I use digging hoes from Chillington tools. More effective for small areas than rotovators.

There are many examples of technology that are more than 100 years old, and are more appropriate than current offerings.

[biffvernon]

Why not use a gas lamp? That gives a nice warm light!!!

My favourite pub is called the Gas Lamp Lounge. There's a clue in the name.

[Mean Mr Mustard]

Just found out about an ageing guy with night blindness symptoms. And a driving licence. Not for much longer, I hope.

Perhaps he's waiting for a cataract op. It's amazing what a difference those can make (says a RenewableRel., not me).

But it's also depressing what crappy eyesight is considered roadworthy in these parts.

Yes he is, and yes I agree...

[Tarrel]

I use hand saws often. Use anywhere, cheaper, quieter.

..and more accurate, especially for complex work.

[kenneal - lagger]

I wonder how much you have spent replacing cfls that have failed much earlier than their over hyped life expectancy, and at what environmental cost in both production energy and toxic materials.

I have had a few cfls fail over the years prematurely but usually the cheaper ones so I have stopped buying those. We keep our failed bulbs and take them to the recycling centre for proper disposal so minimal pollution. There have been several studies over the years to show that there is more mercury given off in the burning of coal to produce electricity than there is given off by the disposal of cfl bulbs.

While you would benefit in the summer, the gains in winter re smaller as you have used more fuel elsewhere to replace he heat provided by filament lamps.

You cannot use cfls as cheap heaters, as you can filament lamps.

Tungsten bulbs could never be said to be cheap heating! Have you seen the price of electricity? We have used wood for heating since 1978 as well, much of it collected ourselves so free, so we are better off saving electricity for heating and using wood as a replacement from both a cost and environmental point of view.

There are many examples of technology that are more than 100 years old, and are more appropriate than current offerings.

Yes, there are but tungsten bulbs cannot be said to be one of them.

[Little John]

That's the point about CFL's. if you want to make significant savings, then the cheap ones will give off crap light and not last as long as they are supposed to. Alternatively, if you buy one that gives of better light (though it's still pretty crap, in my experience) and lasts, then it will cost considerably more. Thus, significantly reducing any savings. Given that CFLs seem to me to be essentially just the old fluorescent strips curled up into a coil, I'd rather have a strip fluorescent mounted in a diffuser panel instead of a CFL. I'd also rather have an incandescent instead of either of them, at least in rooms like the lounge or bedroom.

[Tarrel]

I think with LEDs especially, a change of mind-set is needed. We are used to thinking of a bulb as a consumable item. Therefore a CFL is seen as a very expensive consumable item. Their erratic reliability doesn't help.

With LEDs and their particularly long life, maybe we need to start thinking of them as part of the fixtures and fittings of the house. A capital cost rather than an on-going consumable cost. Of course, they don't last forever, but neither does a fridge or cooker, and they are seen as capital items.

When we moved to Scotland, we were fortunate enough to release a reasonable sum of cash. Every now and then we take a decision to use some of it to invest in energy-saving (and other cost-saving) capital items. The decision process is usually to look at the financial saving per year that the item will yield as a percentage of the capital cost, and compare it with the interest that the cash would be earning in the bank. We've done this with the Rayburn, LED lighting and a solar PV installation that I'm considering building. The numbers all come out at well over 10% so far, and I think it will be a while before we get savings rates at that level. The other benefit, of course, is that it's inflation-proof.