[jambutty]

If these new low energy light bulbs cost 8 times a much and last 5 times as long then they cannot be cost effective.

If a hot filament bulb costs 40p and lasts for 1,000 hours 8 such bulbs costing £3.20 would last for 8,000 hours.
A new low energy bulb costs £3.20 and lasts for 5,000 hours.

However they do not give off 5 times as much light.

Some time ago some organisation or other sent all pensioners 2 of these new fangled bulbs and they were rated at 60w. Being a pensioner I got two and decided to try one in the table lamp sat on top of my telly.

I often use a solar powered calculator whilst sat at my computer and in the evenings with the curtains drawn and the light on top of the telly on, the light from it was sufficient to power my calculator. When I replaced the hot filament bulb with one of the low energy bulbs the light from it would not power my calculator unless I moved it at least two feet closer to the light. Ergo the new bulb did not produce the same amount of light as the hot filament one.

The other question I would ask is how much energy is consumed (and the carbon footprint that it produces) in making one low energy bulb compared to the amount of energy (and carbon footprint) used to make one hot filament bulb?

I would dare to suggest that if you took into account the cost, energy to make, the amount of light produced and the energy consumed in using each type of bulb, then there wouldn’t be a great deal of difference.

I will stick with hot filament bulbs until such times as they are no longer available.