By Abby Dryden
Dutch lighting firm Lemnis Lighting bring the Pharox to the UK market place for the first time. Lemnis claim that it is the first low-energy bulb to give off the same light quality and brightness as a conventional 60-watt bulb. The bulb has an impressive potential 25 year life span.
Pharox a Dutch bulb with sparkle
The main difference between the new bulb and other energy-saving alternatives is the ability it has to reach full brightness the moment it is turned on. When illuminated the bulb stays cool to the touch and can be used outdoors in freezing temperatures.
The greatest environmental benefit in the construction of the bulb is that there is no mercury used.The bulb’s launch comes ahead of a European ban on conventional 60-watt incandescent bulbs, due to be introduced in 2011. Mercury is used in small amounts in the manufacture of other first generation energy-saving bulbs.
Environmental scientist Dr David Spurgeon when commenting on old style energy-saving bulbs said: ” these light bulbs contain small amounts of mercury, they could cause a problem if they are disposed of in a normal waste-bin.It is possible that the mercury they contain could be released either into the air or from land-fill when they are released into the wider environment”.
The Pharox bulb costs around costs 88p per year to run and lasts up to 25 years, each bulb used could reduce an average household electricity bill by around £9 a year.
The hefty £30 purchase price of the bulb could prove to only it’s only draw back. Lemnis say that despite its initial cost, each bulb will pay for itself in just three years.
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, even if energy and emissions 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…