SA Footy

From this week you will not be able to purchase incandescent globes at retail stores.

While this seems to be good thing for the environment, I have found that the energy saver replacements are 5-10 times dearer and don't last any longer, even though it is claimed that they do, so there is definitely no cost saving I can see, rather the opposite. So it seems we are paying a high premium to reduce energy use.

Why does the cynic in me suggest that a bit of opportunistic profiteering might be happening? Let's see if the cost drops over time as it should.

Is it just me?

The price of those new globes is outrageous IMO (not knowing how they are made or why they cost so much). We have bought 3 so far for lamps. One globe failed almost immediately but the others are still going.

The cynic in me agrees with you dedja. At face value it looks like profiteering by someone.

But maybe it's legit? Anyone in the industry able to explain the high cost? Is it justifiable?

Im hoping cheap as chips or some dicey market stall will still sell em- I'll load up.

The new globes are NO better. End of story.

MatteeG wrote:Im hoping cheap as chips or some dicey market stall will still sell em- I'll load up.

The new globes are NO better. End of story.

There is a place that is adversting on fiveeaa with heaps of the old globes

Cheers Thiele- will keep an ear out!

Can't buy em anymore, anywhere.

Lets all think, save our planet....

dedja wrote:From this week you will not be able to purchase incandescent globes at retail stores.

While this seems to be good thing for the environment, I have found that the energy saver replacements are 5-10 times dearer and don't last any longer, even though it is claimed that they do, so there is definitely no cost saving I can see, rather the opposite. So it seems we are paying a high premium to reduce energy use.

Why does the cynic in me suggest that a bit of opportunistic profiteering might be happening? Let's see if the cost drops over time as it should.

Is it just me?

I changed all my bulbs to the energy saving type about 12 years ago cos I was able to "acquire" them from work and haven't had to replace one yet. Also saw an ad in the tv listings mag a couple of weeks ago for some new ones that give off light closer to natural day light...I'll try and find out the make.

Regards
JAS

I'ved been using the energy saver globes since they first came on the market and have a bit of experience with them - they were about $30 each in the early days.

I've noticed shops are now offering Halogen substitutes in traditional globe shape - I would expect their heat output to guarantee short lives.
In theory fluorescent substitutes should last longer, but there is a made to a price - and profit margin - issue.
In my experience all Mirabella globes, pushed by the supermarkets, are short-lived.
Phillips and Crompton cost more but last well - and you can get a replacement under warranty of the odd dud.
Nelson, which tend to be stocked by hardware stores, seem to give less light per nominal watt and not last quite as well as the premium brands.

There are a range of colours - Daylight, Cool White, Warm White, Tungsten.
Again the supermarkets tend to stock less of the first two.

JAS wrote:

dedja wrote:From this week you will not be able to purchase incandescent globes at retail stores.

While this seems to be good thing for the environment, I have found that the energy saver replacements are 5-10 times dearer and don't last any longer, even though it is claimed that they do, so there is definitely no cost saving I can see, rather the opposite. So it seems we are paying a high premium to reduce energy use.

Why does the cynic in me suggest that a bit of opportunistic profiteering might be happening? Let's see if the cost drops over time as it should.

Is it just me?

I changed all my bulbs to the energy saving type about 12 years ago cos I was able to "acquire" them from work and haven't had to replace one yet. Also saw an ad in the tv listings mag a couple of weeks ago for some new ones that give off light closer to natural day light...I'll try and find out the make.

Regards
JAS

ERII would like to know about this?

Booney wrote:

JAS wrote:

dedja wrote:From this week you will not be able to purchase incandescent globes at retail stores.

While this seems to be good thing for the environment, I have found that the energy saver replacements are 5-10 times dearer and don't last any longer, even though it is claimed that they do, so there is definitely no cost saving I can see, rather the opposite. So it seems we are paying a high premium to reduce energy use.

Why does the cynic in me suggest that a bit of opportunistic profiteering might be happening? Let's see if the cost drops over time as it should.

Is it just me?

I changed all my bulbs to the energy saving type about 12 years ago cos I was able to "acquire" them from work and haven't had to replace one yet. Also saw an ad in the tv listings mag a couple of weeks ago for some new ones that give off light closer to natural day light...I'll try and find out the make.

Regards
JAS

ERII would like to know about this?

haaah....you think she pays for hers???

Anyway the bastards wouldn't let us invade somewhere worth invading like Mauritius or the Seychelles...oooooh no we had to go to the Falklands...so got to have some perks

Regards
JAS

JAS wrote: ...Anyway the bastards wouldn't let us invade somewhere worth invading like Mauritius or the Seychelles...oooooh no we had to go to the Falklands...so got to have some perks
Regards
JAS

Is the rumour true that troops went to that cold climate with ineffective [and inflammable] acrylic socks?

hondo71 wrote:The price of those new globes is outrageous IMO (not knowing how they are made or why they cost so much). We have bought 3 so far for lamps. One globe failed almost immediately but the others are still going.

The cynic in me agrees with you dedja. At face value it looks like profiteering by someone.

But maybe it's legit? Anyone in the industry able to explain the high cost? Is it justifiable?

I work in the electrical industry, and the whole thing is a bit of a con.

Incandescent globes stopped being imported into Australia last November, so the stocks of them have been running low for quite a while. I was told by someone from one the lighting companies that the actual law to outlaw the sale of them was never actually passed - it is not needed because it is illegal to import them, and the last factory that made them here closed about 10 years ago.

The stupid thing is that you can get a halogen-type equivalent quite legally, which is actually much more inefficient than an incandescent lamp anyway.

As for the fluoro-type globes, a reasonable quality one should cost around $4. Stick to a known brand like Osram, Phillips, Sylvania or GE and you should be right, even though they are all produced in China.

Psyber wrote:

JAS wrote: ...Anyway the bastards wouldn't let us invade somewhere worth invading like Mauritius or the Seychelles...oooooh no we had to go to the Falklands...so got to have some perks
Regards
JAS

Is the rumour true that troops went to that cold climate with ineffective [and inflammable] acrylic socks?

errrrr...the troops get acrylic socks anyway...only officers got wool or cotton socks...and maybe special forces. Most troops choose to buy their own anyway...especially when it comes to cold weather gear....but obviously not the camo stuff.

Regards
JAS

JAS wrote:

Psyber wrote: Is the rumour true that troops went to that cold climate with ineffective [and inflammable] acrylic socks?

errrrr...the troops get acrylic socks anyway...only officers got wool or cotton socks...and maybe special forces. Most troops choose to buy their own anyway...especially when it comes to cold weather gear....but obviously not the camo stuff.

Regards
JAS

Jeez, I found it hard to believe. Acrylic clothing isn't good at insulating and bursts into flame easily.
My wife had a friend whose acrylic jumper went up when she went too near a barbecue and melted into her skin...