Topic: Energy-saving LEDs 'will not save energy', say boffins

[Clive]

Federal boffins in the States say that the brave new future in which today's 'leccy-guzzling lights are replaced by efficient LEDs may not, in fact, usher in massive energy savings.

This is because, according to the scientists' research, people are likely to use much more lighting as soon as this becomes practical. The greater scope for cheap illumination offered by LEDs will simply mean that people have more lights and leave them on for longer.

FULL STORY

[Rik]

I think they are right.

[Clive]

I would for certain!   

[GillE]

In five years we probably won't have sufficient electricity to run any lights unless we get a move on building power stations.

[Clive]

The government seems to be prevaricating on atomic power stations yet again.  Thankfully our atomic hero has returned to the forum!   

[Rodders]

If they'd lower the price of beer I'd be more than happy to achieve a significant increase in Methane production.

[GillE]

Did you know that all the methane cows produce comes out of their mouths?  I'd have thought it would have been the other end.

Okay, comedians... there's the open goal!

 

[sam]

I'm not sure I believe them. It's all very hand wavy.. no numbers really or proper stats, hard to trust. The "people will use more lighting" argument is simply flawed. If people had the same lighting and moved to LEDs then indeed they would save energy, lets not mix to issues together - darn sensationalism.

[Simon]

Gill, only Rik is worthy of shooting into your open goal.  I certainly wouldn't lower myself into doing a fart joke. 

[Rik]

Of course not. 

[Rodders]

Yes indeedy.