[jambutty]

I'd also expect the Energy saving bulbs to be far more cost effective. Assuming that we leave both bulbs on for 10,000 hours, we'd need to buy 10 incandescant bulbs and one Energy saving bulb. Taking the price of an incandescant bulb to be 50p and an energy saving bulb to be £3.50 we've saved money already without even considering the electric bill!

Your argument would be right except for one tiny detail DeShark. Of all the LE bulbs that I have seen they all claim a lifespan of SIX TIMES that of a normal bulb not TEN TIMES as your example shows. Thus if you used both types for 60,000 hours you would need 60 normal bulbs at 50p = £30 or 10 LE bulbs at £3.50 = £35. So with regard to purchase price the LE is not as cost effective as you so eloquently put it, as their classical cousins. (Nice phrase that.) Undoubtedly the running costs will be about a tenth of those for a normal bulb and some of that would off set the purchase differential. Then you have to look at how many lights are on and for how long in the average household, if there is such a thing. In reality the overall saving per quarter would be negligible in the spring, summer and autumn months, because apart from the stairs light and a kid’s bedroom most lights would not be used and not very much during the winter time. So as far as the domestic lighting scene is concerned using LE bulbs will not a have much of an impact on saving electricity. There will be some, yes, but not as much as the hype would have us believe.