Eco good value ?

[youngmafbog]

It appears that homeowners have forked out on average £45 for the 'free light bulb' giveaway so that suppliers can meet theri targets. Ofgem estimates and average houshold is forking out £84 in environment levies.

And all this because Red Labour failed to put a proper generator policy in place. If we had replaced our generators with Nuclear (or even more preferable so called renewable where possible) energy we would not be in this mess.

Another glowing accomlishment by labour ?

[jake-the-peg]

Here's the link

http://www.metro.co.u...ners-an-average-of-45

Seems a rather contrived argument !

From the way it's written you'd think that the only thing Cert does was to hand out free lightbulbs.

Trash journalism designed to appeal to the gullible

[Gromit]

here is a link to the story

http://www.telegraph....ng-bulbs-cost-45.html

[New Judge]

Yes it may be a bit of a contrived argument, Jake, and it may appeal to the more gullible of us, so let’s try this:

If “Cert” (and the associated “emissions” industry that goes along with it) did not exist energy customers would not be forced to pay the estimated levy of £84 on their energy bills, half of which goes to meet the aims of Cert.

Similarly, if Cert did not exist energy suppliers would not assist their customers to install energy saving measures (after all, apart from the water industry, how many businesses see it as their function in life as to ration their products?). They would therefore be unlikely to have provided these bulbs free of charge.

Therefore the Cert requirements force customers to pay a hefty levy and force suppliers to encourage their customers to save energy, and one way they have chosen to do this is to provide the bulbs. So whilst the bulbs do not cost each customer £84 the levy which virtually forces suppliers to provide them does. So in my view the argument voiced by the Metro, whilst not very well put, certainly has some merit.

Quite simply if the Cert requirements were never introduced a large part of the levy would not have been necessary. The energy companies would not have provided their unsolicited gifts (many of which finished up in the dustbin as they are not fit for purpose). Customers would have been happy, the companies would have been happy.

But we can’t have that, can we?

[New Judge]

By the way, I like the "glowing accomplishment" pun from youngmafbog (whether intended or not).

I tried one of the said bulbs once. I'm sure the room got darker when I switched it on and to describe it as "glowing" may contravene the Trades Descriptions Act.

[jake-the-peg]

Funny how they don't account for the consequential savings in energy usage in the calculations isn't it?

But then that would detract from the "eco-humbug" editorial line wouldn't it?

And we couldn't have that could we?

[New Judge]

But most people don't have any consequential savings as a result of these "free" gifts, Jake, and that's the whole point of the articles that have been mentioned.

They chucked the thing in the dustbin (not knowing how or where to recycle it due to its various noxious components) as it either did not fit into any of their lights or it did not do what it said on the tin or they had already tried one and it made them ill.

Even if they kept their gift their consequential savings are hardly mind-boggling. A (very rough) calculation (based on it allegedly consuming 10w instead of 100w) means it would have to be used for a little short of 6,000 hours to save £45, based on the price I pay for electricity (8.7p per KwH). That is, it needs to be used for eight hours a day every day for two years. (And this ignores the fact that two or three of the things would be necessary to illuminate a room to the same level as a civilisation-threatening tungsten bulb).

I think I’d sooner keep the forty five quid! Oh, but I forgot, I don’t have a choice!

[modeller]

I agree it will take a long time to recoup the money purely by the saving of energy but I have already saved money by not having to change the bulbs. So far I have not had to change a single bulb and being as some of them are outside and require a ladder each time, it has been a boon. Normally the outside ones had to be replaced 2/3 times each winter. I agree the lumen output is slightly lower and it is annoying to have to wait for it to warm up.

[jake-the-peg]

I return to my original point that the article falsely implies that the only thing that this initiative has done is to send people lightbulbs

The Government has not spent £800 million to send people lightbulbs

[New Judge]

No, Jake, the government has not spent such a sum, the taxpayer has. So just what has it been spent on then? And, more importantly, what tangible benefits are apparent from this largesse?

[youngmafbog]

Jake, I see you have also chosen to ignore my point that if the Government had invested in generators that did not generate carbon (if you believe all that clap trap) then non of this would be necessary.

The article is very valid, quite simply we are forced into paying for Red Labour mistakes and failing.

[modeller]

I don't think you can attribute all the blame for not having carbon free electricity on the right or the left. For many years there was as anti nuclear movement in Europe which included nuclear power stations. It is true that the Greens , the Liberals, and those on the left dominated the protest marches but many Tories also voiced support. Following the disaster in Chernobyl countries like Germany ande us stopped all nuclear power installations. It is only recently that the threat of climate disaster caused by CO2 and particulates emmitted by coal/oil powered power stations that has brought about a change of heart in the protest movement. As being the lesser of two evils.