It could be the breakthrough that finally has consumers warming to the energy-saving light bulb.
A version that brightens up instantly, costs just 88p a year to run and lasts up to 25 years has gone on sale in Britain for the first time.
The only catch is that the new LED bulb will cost £30.
Manufacturers claim the Pharox is the first low-energy bulb to give off the same light quality and brightness as a conventional 60-watt traditional bulb.
They say that, despite its initial cost, each bulb will pay for itself in just three years.
After that, each one used could shave around £9 a year off a typical household electricity bill.
Unlike most of the current energy-saving bulbs, which are compact fluorescent, the Pharox can be used with dimmer switches, reaches full brightness the moment it is turned on and contains no toxic mercury.
It also looks similar to a traditional bulb, works well in freezing conditions outside and stays cool when switched on, making it ideal for children's bedside lights.
The bulb's launch comes ahead of a European ban on conventional 60-watt incandescent bulbs, due to be introduced in 2011.
James Shortridge, owner of the Ryness lighting chain, said: 'The original bulb was a 1901 design, while the compact fluorescent is a design from the 1980s that has never been perfected.
'Many people just don't like the compact fluorescents and they don't like the old bulbs being banned before a good replacement is available. But we are finally starting to get decent low energy bulbs that have the same light quality as the old variety.
'My main problem as a retailer, however, is that it lasts for more than 25 years.'
LED bulbs that produce as much light as 100-watt ones are due to go on sale at the end of next year.
full article
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Always good to see new developments
but people can choose them for themselves...
The arrival of the transistor didn't mean more energy using radio valves were banned.
Energy efficiency regulations
(banning light bulbs, cars, buildings etc based on efficiency)
are wrong anyway, also if energy and emissions banning arguments are accepted.
It might sound good to 'ban inefficient products'
But light bulbs, cars,
buildings, dishwashers etc that use more energy have performance, appearance,
construction and/or price advantages as shown on http://www.ceolas.net/#cc2x
Any energy and emission problems can be dealt with directly, and
as seen for many reasons the supposed savings don't hold up
Even if bans were seen to be warranted,
then efficiency TAX on light bulbs, cars, dishwashers etc -unlike
bans- gives significant government income on reduced sales (currently
2 billion bulbs per year, in EU like in USA for example) while people keep a choice
- and efficient products can have
less tax than today.
Post a Comment