Panic-buying lightbulbs....

[Taybha]

...And can't buy a Tilley Lamp for love nor money anywhere according to the Mail. I am so angry I could just explode with fury at the EU.

Still have 2 brass tillies that work as good today as they did when i purchased them in the 70s,you do see them now and then at car boot sales and ebay but they get snapped up mighty quick,a quality bit of kit that has now been replaced by sub standard wannabe lamps.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Anybody who 'panic-buy's anything anytime ever is just a victim really. I'm guessing they have been put on earth to make everybody else feel a litle beter about hemselves aye?

 

[beorhthelm]

Not sure which ones I've been buying but they last far far longer than the conventional ones.

well its a hard thing to compare - ive had incandesant bulbs last 5 yerars+ while ive had to change 3 or 4 fluorescent bulbs in the last 3 years. but it certianly indicate they are as long lasting as we were told. I think its down to quality to be honest, ive not changed a kitchen striplight in 10 years, and they normally only need changing because they get dim. I think alot of the cheaper fluorescent bulbs are crap and the starters burn out from being constantly turned on and off.

 

[Acker79]

At work we get our lightbulbs from Welcome to Lyco Direct - 1000s of Light Bulbs LED Bulbs
they sent out an email on thursday announcing they have massive stocks of 100w light bulbs.

Not bothered about the ban, myself, I have no need for such bright bulbs.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

You don't have to switch to a "digital television", whatever that is. Just the equipment to receive a digital signal.

currently, the basic tv that households currently receive through the ariel will be stopped and you will have to have either a digital tv, a digital set top box or satellite dish to be able to receive anything after the analogue signal currently used is switched off in a couple of years time.

This means that tv's that previously were adequate to be able to watch tv, they will now no longer work without an additional electronic device (which uses more power than the old set on its own) or will have to be replaced with a set that is digitally enabled (also house have several sets, each will need to be upgraded too to continue working) - It also takes more power to transmit the digital signal too.

Either fully functioning redundant equipment will be disposed of and new digitally ready tv's will be purchased, or set top boxes will be added to existing sets, using more power. Digital signals take more power to transform into images too that the analogue signal, so bad news all round and hardly green, and worse still the Government are forcing this through, and means there is no choice in the matter when the old signal is cut off.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Not sure which ones I've been buying but they last far far longer than the conventional ones.

convetional bulbs can last a very long time, eg. http://www.centennialbulb.org/facts.htm - is an energy saving bulb really gonna last the five times longer or more that is claimed by some?

ok, this is a bit extreme, but surely just encouraging people to turn off lights when not in use is a far better choice, than forcing people to use the "energy saving" bulbs which are far from as green as we are lead to believe.

 

[Cian]

This whole green issue is starting to sound like a big con to me, aimed at getting people to happily pay a higher price for something, and also to generate more tax income for the Government. It also sounds like a way to get people to go out and spend money on things that they really don't need to replace, maybe it is being done just to try to stimulate sales in the retail industry (especially as the economy is stuttering)

It means the Goverment can tax what they like and argue that it is being done to save the planet, which means that everyone accepts what they say as being true and don't question it.

For example - If the Government were so worried about global warning and damage to the environment then why are they going to force everyone to switch to digital TV's etc, which use upto 20 times the power of the traditional analogue systems currently used. - due to the switch over by 2012. and what happens to all the old redundant equipment too?

No, they don't. A modern IDTV is likely to be an LCD unit which uses far less power than a conventional CRT TV. And you don't need to replace the TV either, just add an STB which uses at most a few watts.

The power required to transmit DTT signals is far, far less than analogue TV too; so there is a huge offset here - when analogue goes there will be much less power consumed by broadcasting.

 

[csider]

What a superb thread.........

 

[Guy Fawkes]

No, they don't. A modern IDTV is likely to be an LCD unit which uses far less power than a conventional CRT TV. And you don't need to replace the TV either, just add an STB which uses at most a few watts.

The power required to transmit DTT signals is far, far less than analogue TV too; so there is a huge offset here - when analogue goes there will be much less power consumed by broadcasting.

how many have a modern IDTV? - either the old sets will get replaced, causing waste or a second deviceed added to it, which means extra power is used because you now have more than one machine.

The transmitting power usage debate depends on what articles you read, There was a recent article that stated that digital tv, including everything from broadcast, to display requires 20 times more power than the basic analogue set up we have now (New Scientist article i believe)

 

[clapham_gull]

currently, the basic tv that households currently receive through the ariel will be stopped and you will have to have either a digital tv, a digital set top box or satellite dish to be able to receive anything after the analogue signal currently used is switched off in a couple of years time.

This means that tv's that previously were adequate to be able to watch tv, they will now no longer work without an additional electronic device (which uses more power than the old set on its own) or will have to be replaced with a set that is digitally enabled (also house have several sets, each will need to be upgraded too to continue working) - It also takes more power to transmit the digital signal too.

Either fully functioning redundant equipment will be disposed of and new digitally ready tv's will be purchased, or set top boxes will be added to existing sets, using more power. Digital signals take more power to transform into images too that the analogue signal, so bad news all round and hardly green, and worse still the Government are forcing this through, and means there is no choice in the matter when the old signal is cut off.

I worked in the TV industry all my working life.

You say the Government are driving it through, well to a point but it's being driven by consumer demand for more forms of entertainment and not just on their television set. It has to be done at some point.

You implied you will need to throw your existing set away, which on the whole won't be true.

On the whole, I think the whole issue has been badly explained and too a point I agree on the equipment. You could feasibly be forced to replace your freeview box every few years, but I suspect they will become so small soon (some are tiny now) and cheap that it won't be a major issue for most households.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

I worked in the TV industry all my working life.

You say the Government are driving it through, well to a point but it's being driven by consumer demand for more forms of entertainment and not just on their television set. It has to be done at some point.

From Digital UK - Home
Why is it happening?
The digital TV switchover is Government policy. It will mean that almost everyone will be able to receive digital TV through an aerial (Freeview).

To keep your TV service, you will need to convert your TVs to digital before your area’s switchover date.

You implied you will need to throw your existing set away, which on the whole won't be true.

Some people will choose buy a set which has digital built in rather than just buy the set top box, something they wouldn't do if there wasn't the need to adapt to the change.

On the whole, I think the whole issue has been badly explained and too a point I agree on the equipment. You could feasibly be forced to replace your freeview box every few years, but I suspect they will become so small soon (some are tiny now) and cheap that it won't be a major issue for most households.

A second device will still use power reguardless of size, - also, coupled with the current trend of having a large number of electronic devices plugged in by a tv (DVD player, TV, Consoles etc) this could lead to overloading of sockets and increase fire risks. Especially as before it was not needed, people will have to have the device just if they only want to watch the few channels they do now)

How many channels are broadcast that don't get viewers to justify it, many freeview channels have cut their broadcast hours to save money, meaning why do we need several hundred channels, when they aer not likely to be used / watched etc...

Also, some areas still do not receive a freeview signal through their ariel. (some areas around Eastbourne for example) so either the broadcasters have to erect / adapt the current system to allow it (mainly blocked out by the landscape rather than anything else) or have to have satellite dishes, something they may not have wanted, and will have to pay for too.

 

[clapham_gull]

From Digital UK - Home
Why is it happening?
The digital TV switchover is Government policy. It will mean that almost everyone will be able to receive digital TV through an aerial (Freeview).

To keep your TV service, you will need to convert your TVs to digital before your area’s switchover date.


Some people will choose buy a set which has digital built in rather than just buy the set top box, something they wouldn't do if there wasn't the need to adapt to the change.



A second device will still use power reguardless of size, - also, coupled with the current trend of having a large number of electronic devices plugged in by a tv (DVD player, TV, Consoles etc) this could lead to overloading of sockets and increase fire risks. Especially as before it was not needed, people will have to have the device just if they only want to watch the few channels they do now)

How many channels are broadcast that don't get viewers to justify it, many freeview channels have cut their broadcast hours to save money, meaning why do we need several hundred channels, when they aer not likely to be used / watched etc...

Also, some areas still do not receive a freeview signal through their ariel. (some areas around Eastbourne for example) so either the broadcasters have to erect / adapt the current system to allow it (mainly blocked out by the landscape rather than anything else) or have to have satellite dishes, something they may not have wanted, and will have to pay for too.

Of course it's Government policy but they are just reacting the reality.

As I said it's badly explained - you don't need to "convert your TV to digital", that is particularly badly worded.

I'm sorry but these days there are so many things plugged into the mains that the addition of a Freeview box is hardly going to make a difference.

Yes a few people will need to invest in a dish which is cheaper than a television itself.

You already have to spend money to watch television.

1) Televisions aren't free

2) Aerials aren't free

3) .. and of course there is the licence fee.

I respect your point of view, but it's really saying I'm quite happy with 4 channels and one other that possibly I can't pick up very well.

Unfortunately you are very much in the minority and there is also the demand for High Definition television which eventually will become the norm, just like colour.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

The current freeview boxes will be obsolete with the introduction of HD channels and also a new compression method to improve signal strength and quality with regular SD channels on Freeview. IDTV's will also need to a set top box after the switchover to continue to receive the Freeview channels.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

I'm sorry but these days there are so many things plugged into the mains that the addition of a Freeview box is hardly going to make a difference.

Yes a few people will need to invest in a dish which is cheaper than a television itself.

But it is going to be more than just a few people who are going to have to change their existing set up to be able to recieve digital, especially when the old system was working fine, and is there really a high demand for these extra channels? - most channels will be almost there just to make up numbers rather than demand for what they will show, eg, freeview has a approx 100 channels (inc radio) and i'd be surprised if most people used more than 7 or 8 of them, most of it is rubbish people can live with out, do we really need even more channels of rubbish?

I respect your point of view, but it's really saying I'm quite happy with 4 channels and one other that possibly I can't pick up very well.

Unfortunately you are very much in the minority and there is also the demand for High Definition television which eventually will become the norm, just like colour.

the original point of this being raised was that it is being forced onto people who may not want it, and more than likely don't need it, and will lead into extra electricity being used to run.

energy saving lightbulbs, there will be no choice again, and if the reason for the forced change over is to protect the environment as claimed (despite proven health risks increasing, etc) then why is a policy being forced through (digital) which will have the opposite effect.

The real answer is money, stimuting the economy and filling Government coffers by making people buy things that they really don't need, achieved basically by conning people into agreeing to unnessessary changes because they are lead to believe they are saving the planet by doing so, when it will have little or no impact what so ever, as any savings will be cancelled out by things like the introduction of digital only tv.

The whole question on the environment, and green issues is based on flawed information, because it is based on such a short time frame, and any trends that there have been have had the causes guessed at, in the recent case, carbons been blamed, but the computer models based on emissions and the effects on the planet don't hold up

the whole thing is akin to taking a dictionary, opening it at a random page, reading a line and then claiming to be able to define the meaning and spelling of every word in the English language as a result of looking at the one page.

People in authority all through history have always looked at ways of getting the people to follow blindly, and to be willing to be taxed, be it religion, (do what we say you should or go to hell) to politicians, who use any means they can to achieve their aims, eg, In Ameruica, they used the fear of terrorism to frighten the citizens to pay more in tax, and to support a war that was aimed at meeting the politicians own agenda, the green arguement is the same thing, basically making people willing to pay more tax.

a current tv campaign asks for £2 a monthy to save polar bears from the melting ice caps, but how will that money actually reduce / prevent the ice caps from melting? or another campaign is by the NSPCC, asking for money to stop cruelty to children ( a worthy aim) but did/would it stop the tradegy that befell Baby P or the many other similar cases that occur? - not really, shouldn't the question be, why arn't social services able to reduce / stop / prevent this type of cruelty and save children at risk, rather than rely on a charity to have to look out for the at risk in society instead? surely thats part of the reason social services exist in the first place?

 

[Couldn't Be Hyypia]

Digital TV is not being introduced as a green measure as I understand it. It's to allow more channels and better signal quality. Never been touted as green.

 

[Mr deez]

I've seen the new ones at various places at 5 for a quid? 20x as much is nonsense.

 

[London Calling]

ikea knock them out as cheap as a normal light bulb. they last longer, modern science over 100 years old technology.

Better for the environment. cheaper to run,

if you want to help things, stop driving your car, recycle more, buy less plastic, stop collecting carrier bags etc

 

[beorhthelm]

ikea knock them out as cheap as a normal light bulb. they last longer, modern science over 100 years old technology.

but they dont last any longer. i thnk its the ikea ones that keep failing too, which might explain it.

quick look on tesco shows the energy ones are about £1-2 while the incandescent ones are £1.20 for 6. frankly a couple of quid for a bulb once or twice a year isnt really much, for me its the lie that they are everlasting is whats annoying me.

 

[Marc]

I mentioned this before Xmas, but Councils are pushing people to be Green by using so called Energy Saving Lightbulbs etc etc etc......yet they turn on the crappy Xmas Lights midway through NOVEMBER and they must use enough power to supply a house or 5!!

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Digital TV is not being introduced as a green measure as I understand it. It's to allow more channels and better signal quality. Never been touted as green.

thats the point, if things are so bad for the envirionment that we have to be forced to change our habits to use only energy saving bulbs, why are other areas not being treated in the same way, and the point about digital is that it will increase energy use not cut it