It's quite a strong measure to take, and one that the general public would see as being a punishment given that most people in the UK regard CFL bulbs as inconvenient (slow to get going, expensive and bulky) and LED bulbs as unworkable (needing dedicated supplies and fittings and producing inadequate and strange coloured light).

I have top say I feel that information and education would help more than tax measures - most consumers have no idea how much money they're losing each and every day by using incandescent bulbs, or worst of all, that kitchen packed with halogen downlighters. If you give people that basic information so that they understand it, then they will both take up the newer, more energy efficient technologies, and increase the demand for further (much needed) investment and research.

Just to throw a spanner in the works, I have heard that some incandescent bulb manufacturers are playing with coatings that might make the old fashioned light bulb around four times more efficient. Given the fantastically low embodied energy in a modern bulb compared with a CFL, this might tip the balance back towards incandescents, just as the governments are called to ban them.

They are being phased out by 2011 anyway so whilst I would like it to happen sooner the issue has actually been dealt with.

tonyEducation is not working

That's a very sweeping statement. Do you mean people aren't changing their behaviour despite being educated, or that people aren't understanding the concepts being explained to them?

In the case of car use if you look at the fuel escalator, car tax increases and other rising costs you could make a very good case that taxation absolutely does not work when people care about convenience and ease of use. Why should lightbulbs be any different from cars?

I'm for a tax on all light bulbs based on the wattage. That way you don't have to pick winners from the technologies available. 1 pence per watt should do it. Easy to collect at the wholesale level and it would just appear to the consumer that low energy bulbs have suddenly become relatively cheaper compared to incandescents.

Leave the VAT rates alone, the tax system is complicated enough, a single rate on everything would make life much simpler.

Posted By: Chris Wardlea tax on all light bulbs based on the wattage

Nice one. Accompanying that, each bulb would have to state its lumen output, incl. any upward/downward ratio, also colour, in a way that's easy to understand, The 'equivalent to a 60W standard bulb' formula long applied to compact fluorescents (CFLs) is seriously flawed - everyone knows that the supposed CFL equivalent is much 'dimmer', subjectively, than the standard (incandescent) bulb, even if technically its lumen output is the same.

Its the halogen down lights that need banning. I was in a mates new house(2 years old) last week, 8 fitted in the kitchen, 6 in the living room all 50w That's 700watts at least 600watts wasted... very pleasing aesthetically though
tom

I cant see this "agreement" working. Lets wait til 2011 and see if it does shall we?

Hi Everyone,

Tony wrote 'Education is not working'.......this is so true. I fit cfl's, filament lamps and leds and anything else the market wishes to throw at us.

It is so difficult to alter the mindset of the consumer, give them the option of GU10 or a low energy lamp and they go with the GU10 everytime. Even when you explain in pounds and pence the difference between the two.

Recently my customer had a summer room built measuring 3x4metres. I offered various alternatives, she opted for 10 GU10 halogen single spotlights, she was not interested in saving money on elec bill. The effect of the GU10's was impressive and for equivalent cost no cfl or led could match that.

There is always a place for filament type lamp.......It is common knowledge within the industry that fluorescent type tubes lose their efficiency very quickly. Not sure on the figures but businesses(offices,factories) find it cheaper to replace all fluor lamps in their light fittings all in one go even though many of them are still ok incl the starters. Just because a few lamps/starters have packed in and/or lost their efficiency. Now i think a filament type lamp in this situation maybe out performs the fluorescent tube, it is still operating at 100% like when it was first installed maybe several years later. Also put a low energy lamp in an external light fitting and notice how poor the light output is, i have filament lamps(60 or 100watt) in all my outside lights, esp when the light is operated by a pir and only on for a short time. I think incandescent is the only answer in this situation, also when you consider that switching cfl's frequently reduces the life of them, this does not happen so much with filament lamps.

But dont criticise me for saying that incandescents are acceptable. I think that there is a place for low energy lamps, incandescents and led. I have cfl's in my main rooms where the light will be on for longer periods and filament lamps for the light fittings where the lamp will not be on for very long(2-3mins).

I also think that people need to be educated in larger current consuming items....like showers, cookers, elec heating, tumble driers etc. Consumers are much more interested when you tell them how much a 20 or 30 minute shower costs them, esp when you multiply this for a family of 4. So lets get things in order for instance people do not realise that a 8.5kilowatt shower is equivalent to 772 low energy lamps rated at 11watts. So who wants to leave 772 lights on all at once?

I hope this explains it a little, this is just a little of my knowledge based on my experience from within the industry.