# Do energy saving bulbs make a difference?



## gailey (24 Dec 2008)

After a shocking esb bill recently we have changed our usage habits  switching off lights, cut back on dryer and dishwasher. Today we also changed all the light bulbs to low energy ones. Our esb bill has increased significantly each month and so I am tryng to find ways of reducing future bills. I am desperate to reduce the bill as it is taking me longer to pay off each bill each month and is getting to the stage that I have just cleared a bill when the next one arrives...
I was just wondering if anyone else has recently changed all of there bulbs have you seen a difference in your esb bill and was it by much?


----------



## rmelly (24 Dec 2008)

Try this, it might give you a better idea of where your money is going:

[broken link removed]

Also don't forget the impact that estimates as opposed to actual meter readings has if you are comparing one bill to another, plus the time period of the bill can differ.

Probably the most obvious question is how do you heat your home?


----------



## Padraigb (24 Dec 2008)

rmelly said:


> Probably the most obvious question is how do you heat your home?



Yes.

The next questions are also about heat: water-heating, cooking, and using clothes driers. All big users of electricity.


----------



## gailey (24 Dec 2008)

I have looked at the calculator but was just wondering did anyone see an actual difference after changing over to energy saving bulbs.
I have oil heating which is set on timer, an open fire lit every day in winter months, I have an electric hob/oven but I plan on changing in January to dual cooker because oven is not working properly which may also add to cost of esb. I have dishwasher dryer and washmachine which are AAA graded and I use economy setting. We have two showers one is electric and the other is heated by immersion so we have stopped using immersion completely and only use electric shower. Two tvs on every evening and one computer used regulary. Tried cutting back in every way even just using a lamp in sitting room instead of main light and switching all lights off. Dont use outside lights this month.


----------



## dub_nerd (24 Dec 2008)

Hi gailey, I changed most of my bulbs to energy saver ones, but it doesn't have a huge impact on the bill. To figure out the savings you need to know how many units you are using for running lights. For instance, A 60 watt bulb uses one unit (that is, 1 kilowatt-hour, or kWh) in 16 hrs. Let's suppose a unit costs 15c. You will save up to seven eighths of the cost with an energy saver bulb.

So, let's suppose you replaced eight 60 watt bulbs with energy savers. Let's say on average you have all those bulbs going four hours per day (quite a lot). The cost per two-monthly bill with incandescent bulbs is only around twenty euros. With energy-saving CFLs you might get this down to two or three. A worthwhile saving of 16-17 euro but not earth-shattering. If you do the figures, you will see that your lights are unlikely to be a huge share of your bill. Using a lamp instead of your sitting room light will not make you rich.

The big energy users are always going to be those appliances that convert a lot of electricity into heat, that is, electric radiators, immersion heaters, electric showers, clothes dryers, ovens, hobs. A very easy way to save electricity is to use your microwave more. A six-minute blast of a potato in a 900W microwave costs about 1c. To bake it in your oven you could be spending 8c just to warm the oven up BEFORE you start cooking. Ok, you can't cook _everything_ in a microwave, but there's a surprising amount you _can_. When cooking on a hob, save money by making sure you always have a lid on saucepans.

Here is a handy device:

http://www.electrisave.ie/

It tells you how much electricity you are using at any point in time. You can easily install it yourself -- it involves wrapping a clamp around the incoming wires at your electricity meter, but there are no actual electrical connections to make. It can show you energy usage in watts, cents, or grammes of CO2 ... once you configure it correctly. Unfortunately it's not cheap -- I can't remember exactly what I paid but I'm pretty sure it's something over 100 euro.

See if you can share the cost with someone... you don't need this thing running forever... after a week or two it will have mostly done its job. It's main benefit is that you can measure the real-world power consumption of each of your appliances by switching them on in isolation and watching the meter. I found it was sensitive to approximately 30 watts accuracy... not enough to reliably measure a single energy saver light bulb, but good for the big energy users. I could see that my dryer was by far the biggest culprit on the ESB bill. One immediate saving was I noticed that my oven and hob consume about 90 watts on stand by... switching off the red isolation switch saved money. I was also able to measure the efficiency of the lagging jacket on my immersion tank ... once heated fully the immersion comes on at 2kW for about three or four minutes per hour, so it averages about 100 watts. (Remember that appliances with thermostats don't always use full power all the time -- when measuring your oven, say, you have to watch how often it comes on and for how long, not just how many watts it draws when it _is_ on). I am out of the house for 4 days a week -- it was interesting to note that leaving my cooker on standby was about the same energy usage as leaving the immersion on all the time!

If you can't justify splashing out on the electrisave, watch the big energy items: the dryer etc. Btw, a condensing dryer will be less efficient than a vented one no matter how good its rating. On the other hand, don't throw away "waste" heat in winter or any time you are running your heating... if you fill a sink with hot water, let it stand until it goes cold: you paid to heat it -- why throw it down the plug hole? Same goes for your condenser dryer if you have one ... if it's in a separate utility room leave the door open (assuming you don't have a problem with humidity).


----------



## gipimann (24 Dec 2008)

I switched to low energy bulbs but didn't notice a huge difference in the bill (although there was a reduction).

However I found that I saved quite a bit by switching off the TV, DVD, stereo, printer etc, rather than leave them on standby (yes, I know, it's a bit of an ad cliché, but it worked!).

I bought a remote control power system (from Lidl, I think), which allows me to switch off the power for various items individually - very useful when the DVD & stereo don't have "off" switches and are always on standby if plugged in.


----------



## allthedoyles (24 Dec 2008)

No-one above mentions the electric kettle , which is a massive user of electricity.
Also ensure that all appliances are OFF , except for the ones you are using .
I believe that mobile phone chargers use electricity when just plugged in .


----------



## dub_nerd (4 Jan 2009)

The electric kettle, though, is more efficient than other ways of heating water such as the hob/saucepan. The trick is to boil no more than you need at any one time -- overfilling it is a waste.

Everything with a transformer that comes ahead of the power switch in the circuit will use electricity while plugged in. That's everything with a standby light, and everything powered by an external transformer including "wall warts" -- those bulky plugs with built-in transformers. Most smaller consumer electronics are like this. If you have lots of such devices try plugging them into switched 4-gang power strips (or multiple of these if, like me, you have dozens of gadgets) so that you can knock them all off together with a single flick. (With small devices you usually don't have to worry about exceeding the 13 Amp fuse rating, even if you have many devices cascaded off a single socket).


----------



## ClubMan (4 Jan 2009)

Don't forget that _CFL _bulbs are toxic waste and cannot be safely disposed of in landfill as regular filament/incandescent bulbs can be. Of course we won't have a choice soon since the latter will no longer be legally available for purchase. If you break a _CFL _or fluorescent bulb then be careful cleaning up to mitigate the health risks of the mercury that they contain.


----------



## Stapeler (4 Jan 2009)

I second the Electrisave above or the equivalent that Dub_Nerd mentioned. There's a few on ebay for around €40-€50. They help educate everybody on current usage and show reduced consumption even by powering off one light bulb.  
Another suggestion is to challange the kids, take an average esb bill, suggest to the kids that for ever bill lower you'll split the savings between them. When they receive a few euro when the bill arrives it will encourage them to power off lights, games etc. and make them more consious of enery consumption. It worked in our house!!


----------



## bond-007 (4 Jan 2009)

Any savings are usually offset by the high cost of the CFL to start with.


----------



## Orga (4 Jan 2009)

ClubMan said:


> Don't forget that _CFL _bulbs are toxic waste and cannot be safely disposed of in landfill as regular filament/incandescent bulbs can be. Of course we won't have a choice soon since the latter will no longer be legally available for purchase. If you break a _CFL _or fluorescent bulb then be careful cleaning up to mitigate the health risks of the mercury that they contain.



Glad you made this point. Personally have strong feelings about the toxic nature - to mitigate the potential risk keep some sulfur powder in the house then sprinkle it on any broken CFL glass and leave for a few hours. Mercury is a cumulative toxin with very serious side effects. I'm surprised that a risk assessment hasn't been done to tie in with the implementation of the REACH directives.


----------



## Padraigb (4 Jan 2009)

bond-007 said:


> Any savings are usually offset by the high cost of the CFL to start with.



That may or may not be true, as it depends on the average life of a CFL and how it compares with what it is replacing. It is my opinion that estimates of the life of CFLs err on the high side (this is not based on careful measurement, but the cumulative impression gained from using CFLs for a few years).

There is another consideration than my energy bill, and it weighs with me: on balance, I judge that by using CFLs (and disposing of them correctly) I have a little less impact on the environment.


----------



## MacTheKnife1 (5 Jan 2009)

I bought my house in 1998 and noticed at the time there was a CFL bulb in one of the rooms. I replaced it last year when it blew. Point is - it lasted at least 9 years and possibly more as the bulb may have been in the house for a couple of years. It was in a bathroom that had no windows so the light was left on for many hours a day. They DO LAST A LONG TIME.

Later I replaced most of the bulbs in the house with CFLs (except kids bedside lights - they tend to get knocked over and broken). The results were most impressive. Even as energy prices ramped my electriciy bill either stayed the same or decreased.

I also put in place other things - tried to get kids to take shorter showers; we used a  kettle which showed exactly how many cups of water were to be boiled. Also after boiling kettle and using the boiled water we added a cup of cold to it immediately - it absorbs the residual heat of the kettle and is already warmed up for the next boil. We did not put up Xmas lights all over the house and we turned off TVs fully. We enabled energy saving features of our PC and we turned it fully off. We did not have the immersion on unless absolutely necessary. We used an electric shower rather than the bath. We bought A rated wash-mach and drier and dish washer.

I kept an excel spreadsheet of our energy use and you could see the number of units used annually plummetting. 

My feeling: CFLs are excellent particularly in rooms where the lights is switched on for much of the time. Cutting your bill is worthwhile - but it does not happen overnight, and requires a little bit of work and thought.


----------



## ClubMan (5 Jan 2009)

I've had quite a few (big brand name) _CFLs _fail a lot sooner than some of the regular bulbs that I've used.

As mentioned earlier in most cases the chances are that lighting is a tiny fraction of a household's overally energy usage so there are other areas which will probably yield bigger bang for your buck. Stocking up on _CFLs_ when the attic remains inadequately insulated makes little sense for example.


----------



## Chocks away (5 Jan 2009)

To my purse? I do not think so. If anything they are an expensive PC directive.


----------



## Herbie (5 Jan 2009)

I've bought a few Bosch ones - they all have one thing in common - after about a year's use, they emit a lot less light than they did when new.


----------



## mathepac (5 Jan 2009)

I seem to remember the ESB shops were selling CFL's with a 5-year warranty (not much use now I'm afraid), but can't remember which brand.

I agree with Herbie - some brands seem to lose luminence very fast.

All my exterior enclosed lights (porches, garden shed) are regular filament/incandescent bulbs, as are the enclosed bathroom ceiling lights. What can I replace these with when Gormley's directive comes in?


----------



## Orga (5 Jan 2009)

mathepac said:


> All my exterior enclosed lights (porches, garden shed) are regular filament/incandescent bulbs, as are the enclosed bathroom ceiling lights. What can I replace these with when Gormley's directive comes in?



The simple answer is: new fittings. Yes, they will cost. The whole idea of replacing the bulbs is laudable for its aspiration but the practical implementation simply will be problematic. Of course, because it's a green issue anyone who would dare to raise a head above the parapet against it would be shot down as anti-Earth and in favour of destroying the planet. The car parking tax for anyone whose employer in the major cities provides a parking space is another example of a green move, make people walk or cycle to work. Has anyone looked at the number of Green TDs who are from the country compared with those from Dublin?


----------



## sparkeee (6 Jan 2009)

they use less electricity which is good for the environment,but they cost a lot so the savings to you on the electricity are negated by the initial cost.


----------



## j26 (6 Jan 2009)

sparkeee said:


> they use less electricity which is good for the environment,but they cost a lot so the savings to you on the electricity are negated by the initial cost.



Assuming you use the light for an average of 4 hours a day (not unrealistic in a hall or even a living room), a 100 watt bulb would use 146 units of electricity over a year at a cost of 18.6c per unit or a total cost of €27.15.  A cfl bulb would be roughly 1/5 of that or €5.43, saving €21.72.

Given that they cost €5-10, if the cfl is used for an average of 1-2 hours it makes back the cost in a year.


----------



## Bronte (6 Jan 2009)

There is one big advantage to the long life bulb, it's great in places that are awkward to reach. Also good for rooms that you have the light on for a long time. I cannot judge their cost effectiveness, but I do know that lights in general use very little electricity and dryers and electric heaters are tremendous users of electricity. That's where you will make savings. Is the dryer on needlessly, can you dry clothes in a spare room/shed etc. To give you an idea of how much they use electricity turn off everything in the house and put on the dryer and see the meter spin.


----------



## Towger (6 Jan 2009)

j26 said:


> Given that they cost €5-10, if the cfl is used for an average of 1-2 hours it makes back the cost in a year.


 
When working out the efficiency of CFL's vs Filament bulbs you also have to take into account the heat give out by both. 'In theory' during winter months the heat from a filament bulb, will help reduce the energy required by your heating system bring a room to it's required temperature. As this is much harder value to quantify, most calculations don’t it into account, so the savings over all are not as great as they first seem.


----------



## ClubMan (6 Jan 2009)

j26 said:


> Assuming you use the light for an average of 4 hours a day (not unrealistic in a hall or even a living room), a 100 watt bulb would use 146 units of electricity over a year at a cost of 18.6c per unit or a total cost of €27.15.


You presuppose that people will use a 100W bulb. Many people would find that too bright/harsh even for common areas like halls and landings.


----------



## wigster (6 Jan 2009)

I have replaced 5 megaman 11 watt Gu 10's in 2 years. Just in hall and landing area and not on a grat deal. At 12euro a pop they are expensive. Have I got the value from them. Probably not!


----------



## minkydog (6 Jan 2009)

wigster said:


> At 12euro a pop they are expensive. Have I got the value from them. Probably not!


 
We have a place in Florida, and boy do they know how to charge for electricity over there. Anyway, done an energy audit over there in September and replaced all the bulbs with CFL's. Can by a 6 pack of GE CFL's 23watt=100 for about $12 in Wal-Mart, and of course there made in the same place as we buy ours over here, China. Another case of Rip-off Republic.


----------



## ClubMan (6 Jan 2009)

minkydog said:


> We have a place in Florida, and boy do they know how to charge for electricity over there.
> 
> ...
> 
> Another case of Rip-off Republic.


You mean the high energy costs in the _USA_?


----------



## j26 (7 Jan 2009)

ClubMan said:


> You presuppose that people will use a 100W bulb. Many people would find that too bright/harsh even for common areas like halls and landings.



Feel free to recalculate on lower wattages - the 5-1 ratio will still hold approximately true, so the payback period will be longer, but for bulbs that are used for a long time every day (e.g. a table lamp in a living room running a 11w cfl vs a 60w incandescent) it will still be relatively short.

I have some cfl's going back about 7 years - they've paid for themselves many times over.


----------



## dub_nerd (7 Jan 2009)

I think CFLs are worth it overall. (I haven't had any bad experiences with shorter-than-advertised lifetimes). To the poster who asked about exterior enclosed lights and bathroom ceiling lights -- don't know about yours but behind the removable glass bowls/covers all of my lights in those areas have normal sockets and bulbs. I changed them all for CFLs _where appropriate_. That is, I wouldn't dream of ever putting a CFL in a bathroom -- my guests don't want to fumble around in the half-dark for the half minute or so it takes them to brighten acceptably. I'll change them the minute someone invents the "instantly on" CFL (and I certainly won't thank any politician who makes me do it _before _then).

In hallways, porches etc. I have switched completely to CFLs. I don't care how long they take to come on -- I just leave them on most of the time. Yes, bit of a waste, but the cost of electricity for lighting just isn't that much ... now I can have them on for 20hrs a day (and I do) for the cost of 4 hrs! Bottom line is that domestic electric lighting is just not that big a user of power.

Yes, we've all heard those stories about how the energy saved from CFLs could light thousands of homes for a year, just like switching off your standby devices. Quite apart from the "for a year" bit makes no sense because you are then comparing power with energy, it just goes to show how utterly tiny a few thousand homes is compared to our overall energy consumption. The latest I see is Sky claiming (on the "Welcome to Sky channel") that the new auto-standby feature on their boxes will save enough power to light Birmingham. Woo hoo! ... more utterly devious meaningless numbers.

My other favourite is "Black Google" ... the "about" text claims a potential global saving of "750 Megawatt hours per year". Woo hoo x 10!!! So let's convert that from perverse power units (MWh/year !) into more normal ones: it's 85 kilowatts... in other words if only every last person on the planet could be persuaded to use this software application (and its assumption about computer display technology are correct) we could save enough to power, oh, maybe forty energy-conscious households. That's a whopping 0.000004% of global electricity demand. On the other hand, since 99% of people will never hear of Black Google, it's grossly over-generous.

Call me cynical.


----------



## MacTheKnife1 (7 Jan 2009)

>> Call me cynical.

You're so cynical!


>> My other favourite is "Black Google"

Seriously this is the best thing I have seen in a while. I love it! Great for the eyes.


----------



## minkydog (7 Jan 2009)

ClubMan said:


> You mean the high energy costs in the _USA_?


 
No, I should of made myself more clear. I meant the price of CFL's over here in Ireland....a complete rip-off, and yes the cost of electricity in Florida is very expensive.


----------



## Padraigb (7 Jan 2009)

minkydog said:


> No, I should of made myself more clear. I meant the price of CFL's over here in Ireland....a complete rip-off, and yes the cost of electricity in Florida is very expensive.



You need more CFLs. It is obvious that you do not see things clearly.


----------



## Leo (7 Jan 2009)

dub_nerd said:


> My other favourite is "Black Google" ... the "about" text claims a potential global saving of "750 Megawatt hours per year".


 
That might have been true a number of years ago, but as Google stated on their [broken link removed] during Earth Hour last year, it saves no energy; modern displays use the same amount of power regardless of what they display.
Leo


----------



## dub_nerd (7 Jan 2009)

Leo said:


> That might have been true a number of years ago, but as Google stated on their [broken link removed] during Earth Hour last year, it saves no energy; modern displays use the same amount of power regardless of what they display.
> Leo


 

That's what I suspected -- IIRC an LCD blocks out the backlight by changing polarisation of the pixels, not switching off the light, unless they've gotten a lot cleverer.

Anyway, even if they were right it's a derisory saving. Not to worry, Boussard's Polywell Fusor will be cracked soon and electricity will be free.


----------



## minkydog (8 Jan 2009)

Padraigb said:


> You need more CFLs. It is obvious that you do not see things clearly.


 
A very constructive comment indeed


----------



## AlbacoreA (8 Jan 2009)

minkydog said:


> A very constructive comment indeed


 
I thought it was funny. 

I've a few energy saving bulbs around the place. But don't like the light out of them and usually go with a normal bulb were we need decent light.


----------



## gailey (25 Jan 2009)

Thanks for all the replies. We have being very carefull with esb usage since the last bill.
We have replaced all light bulbs with low energy saving bulbs. Turned off anything not in use. We have also insulated the attic and I have put up heavy lined curtains in all rooms including over the front door and this has made a massive difference.

Today I received my esb bill. My last bill was 430 euro. ( you wonder why we have made so many changes)
Todays bill was for 350 euro but I realised it was an estimated bill so I went outside and read the meter. I rang esb with new figures and was told that a revised bill of 250 euro would be sent out. Can you believe 100 euro in the difference.
I am sure we have made some difference with cutting back.


----------



## MacTheKnife1 (25 Jan 2009)

gailey said:


> Todays bill was for 350 euro but I realised it was an estimated bill so I went outside and read the meter. I rang esb with new figures and was told that a revised bill of 250 euro would be sent out. Can you believe 100 euro in the difference.



Congrats! Thats 50 euro a month. But u will be surprised how much more you will save as you go along. Please keep us posted about your efforts and savings!


----------



## Chocks away (25 Jan 2009)

One of our's went last night. 18w and in place about 7 years. The only spare I had was a 60w ordinary one. This is much brighter.


----------



## mercman (25 Jan 2009)

gailey said:


> Today I received my esb bill. My last bill was 430 euro. ( you wonder why we have made so many changes)
> Todays bill was for 350 euro but I realised it was an estimated bill so I went outside and read the meter. I rang esb with new figures and was told that a revised bill of 250 euro would be sent out. Can you believe 100 euro in the difference.
> I am sure we have made some difference with cutting back.



That's a difference of near €200 (430 versus 250)


----------



## mercman (25 Jan 2009)

What are people that are unable to see properly with CFL bulbs meant to do. I find for outside use they are fine but for indoor use especially whilst reading they are a complete waste of time and money.


----------



## rmelly (25 Jan 2009)

MacTheKnife1 said:


> Congrats! Thats 50 euro a month. But u will be surprised how much more you will save as you go along. Please keep us posted about your efforts and savings!


 
I suspect you are reading too much into the estimated versus actual. I find there is NO correlation between the two for me, and estimated can be twice the actual figure. It's not clear how the estimated figure is derived, whether it is based on that addresses previous usage or previous/average usage in that area or for that residence type (apartment, 3 bed, 4 bed etc).


----------



## spurs4 (27 Mar 2009)

those bulbs must be very poor quality. there's better available now. i got some called earthmate from these guys http://wechangebulbs.com


----------



## Leo (27 Mar 2009)

spurs4 said:


> those bulbs must be very poor quality. there's better available now. i got some called earthmate from these guys http://wechangebulbs.com


 
Hi Spurs4, welcome to AAM. In accordance with the posting guidelines, could you confirm whether you have any association with the above company other than being a satisfied customer?
Leo


----------

