Compact Fluorescent Bulbs: NOT a Bright Idea!

Do CFL spiral bulbs really last as long as the manufacturers claim? No, virtually all of them do not.
In fact, in some situations CFL bulbs barely last 8 months. This means that CFL bulbs save far less money than is claimed, or can even wind up being more expensive.

Several people left interesting personal experiences down in the comment section below this article:
http://consumerist.com/2011/01/do-compact-flourescent-bulbs-really-last-10-years.html
The phasing out of incandescent bulbs has been a disaster. CFL bulbs are just not appropriate replacements for incandescent bulbs in all applications.

 

It seems you are right.
http://sendyourlightbulbstowashingt...1/16/light-bulb-phaseout-worse-than-reported/

I don't like the idea of the government telling people what type of light bulbs they can use in their own homes, but I will be very happy when the government bans all those awful flourescent lights everywhere, in work places, schools, and supermarkets. But I wonder how everyone will respond when they have to pay 40 dollars for a single light bulb. I doubt LED prices will come down much by then. No doubt there will be a public outcry. Will these bulbs actually pay for themselves, as the manufacturers claim? Well that depends on whether they really last 15 years and are as bright as the manufacturers claim. I doubt consumers will be very happy when they realise they actually need to buy two LED lamps to replace the brightness of a single incandesent bulb, or when they realise their LED light slowly becomes dimmer over time, giving off 30 percent less light after ten years of its life span.

 

When $2 halogen bulbs appeared in every grocery store, the public outcry fizzled to nothing. The LightBulbLiberty Brigade predicted LightBulbDoom, and got it totally wrong in round 1. That discourages people from trusting their predictions about round 2.

 

Even with regular incandescents dissappearing from store shelves, halogen bulbs are still not readily available in all places. Many stores do not sell them, and for some people they can be nearly impossible to find.

Halogen bulbs will not be able to meet the "45 lumen per Watt" mandate that will come into effect within 8 years, so unless something is done to change the current law the halogen bulbs will essentially be banned. This is too bad, because halogen bulbs give off nearly the same type of light as normal bulbs (they both have an incandescent filament), while being 20 percent more efficient (at producing light at least).

The phase out of normal light bulbs would not be nearly so bad if halogen bulbs were going to be allowed, but as it is, both CFL's and LED's each have their own unique problems/disadvantages, and are not appropriate replacements for normal bulbs in all applications.

 

Here is another link explaining why CFL's are not a bright idea:
http://www.greenmuze.com/blogs/guest-bloggers/1031-the-dark-side-of-cfls.html


Canada Bans mercury in consumer products, but not CFL's!

Canada’s federal government has announced it is to ban many products that contain mercury, including thermometers. This is the same federal government that banned the incandescent light bulb in favor of compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFL’s).

One of the few products to escape the new mercury ban is CFL light bulbs. To ban mercury in most products while legislating every home in Canada must use mercury-laden CFL’s is the kind of logic only a government could love.

 

One more thing: CFL's, which are all manufactured in China, are sold in plastic blisterpacks, whereas an Edison incandescent bulb that was manufactured in Ohio is sold in a recycled cardboard box. So how does a CFL come out more "environmentally friendly" again?

And just in case you were wondering, there are long-life incandescent bulbs available that last 10 time longer - longer even than a CFL under ideal conditions. Although your CFL may likely burn out long before the 5 years the packaging claims.

 

Banning regular light bulbs is not going to help them. The additional heat incandescent bulbs put out is not a waste in colder climates. For people who are cold at night, incandescents are actually 100% efficient!

 

Bingo. The fact that CANADA has banned incandescents tells you that it is not about energy efficiency. It is about forcing people to pay for exorbitantly expensive and inferior patented products rather than cheaper and better ones that are in the public domain. There is no place in Canada where people heat their homes less than half the year. Most Canadians live in the southern part of the country, and heat their homes 7-8 months of the year. In the north they heat their homes ALL year. And people turn their lights on at NIGHT, which is exactly when they are also turning the heat on. The ban on incandescents is nothing but blatant proof of government corruption.

 

Canada has delayed a ban by at least 2 years

By the way there were some amusing campaigns there too see Ontario videos and photos



View attachment 14558
Then Liberal Environment Minister Laurel Broten
introduces Ontario's $500,000.00 contribution to the
"Flick Off" campaign (April 25, 2007). The campaign website's
homepage read: "We need you to FLICK OFF, and tell
everyone you know to FLICK OFF. The more you do it,
the cooler it gets. The planet, that is."
The Liberals defended their half-million dollar expenditure on the campaign:
"It's a suitable website for youth" said Broten.

 

USA Canada Europe Australia regulations
and 10 US state anti-ban bills (legislated Texas June 2011)
http://ceolas.net/#li01inx

Also, why bans in Canada and similar regions particularly unjustified
- not just the heat issue!

 

We have had CFLs in all our house lights since 2004 (with the exception of specialisty bulbs such as for the stove, refrigerator). All have been replaced at least twice. Every outdoor bulb has been replaced at least 4 times over the past 8 years. Bulbs which get turned on/off a lot (bathrooms) get replaced very frequently. No CFL has lasted anywhere close to its claimed life expectantcy.

It makes me nervous having to change these mercury ladden bulbs so frequently. I've only broken one so far, but if you follow the EPA guidelines for CFL cleanup its a multi-hour long process.

Think about this - they Greenies can't even get light bulbs right, yet they are going to transform the worlds energy industry and save us from global warming. I feel so safe.

 

cleanup its a multi-hour long process

I charge averagely $90 per hour for my work. I have at least 10 broken every year in work lights, in close compartments right into my face. You beat records. I have replaced all 6 in my 3 garages at least once during last 2.5 years. I wonder if you can guess how many millions of dead CFLs have been properly displaced during these years. HAS IT BEEN MORE MERCURY OR LESS RELEASED FROM CFLS RIGHT AT THE GROUNDS THAN FROM ALL COAL BURNING STACKS UP IN THE AIR?

 

Your post is so riddled with misinformation it makes me wonder if you were just typing this stuff straight off the TV as you watched it from Fox News.

A couple points:

1. There is no ban on incandescent bulbs. Say it with me, there is no ban. Here is what there is:

"However, these new standards do not ban incandescent bulbs, merely raise the standards for these bulbs, which may naturally phase them out of the current market if they cannot meet the new standards."

This quote is from YOUR wiki source. And please don't focus on just the end of that sentence, read the whole sentence. Incandescents can stay if they can meet the efficiency standards laid out by the law. There you have it. So no ban, just higher efficiency standards which need to be met. I know this will only make you believe what you believe even more, but try once to see reality instead of what you want reality to be.

2. The mercury China connection is semi-legitimate but you take it too far. Yes, China pollutes some to make the bulbs, but you failed to mention how much energy and pollution goes into making an incandescent bulb. Just because they lack mercury doesn't mean they are good for the envrionment. And as someone who appears to support the free market, why wouldn't you support China choosing to make the bulbs there to exchange their ecosystem for money? In all, they are being very capitalisitic and you are opposing it. This is what happens when you let belief trump reason and logic. Essentially, flourescents let us shift the impact overseas. At the same time, we reducing pollution by not using incandescents. It's a win win. We are outsourcing the problem, Mitt would be proud, why aren't you?

3. Your experience and reality aren't necessarily the same thing, let's get that out of the way right up front. The longevity of flourescents is exaggerated on the box. Guess what, so is the longevity of incandescents! That's called marketing and those lifespans are based on very specific conditions that are printed right on the box. So you are correct in that sense. But so far, all you have proven is they cost 3 times as much, and in your experience, last 3 times as long. Basically, you just proved that we are outsourcing pollution of making them, producing less pollution by using them, and it's costing us nothing more to do so. Whose side are you on?

4. OK, this has to be the best thing I have ever heard. You are taking two facts and trying to link them together with incorrect conclusions. First of all, while it is true that incandescents are 100% efficient if you consider the heat they give off, the heat is not a benefit for a LIGHT bulb. Only light is. So yes, if you change how you measure efficiency, you can make anything efficient, I will agree with that. As for people using light bulbs to heat their homes, the amount of heat generated by the bulb is nothing compared to the amount needed to heat a home. 100 watt light bulbs in a 2100 square foot home with 8.5 foot ceilings would provide no more than 0.5 a degree per hour assuming they run continuously during that hour. Why do this? Natural gas can heat the home much more efficiently, as in faster because it doesn't rely on simple convection to hear the volume of air, and cheaper because it's a cheaper form of energy than having to convert something to electricity. Hence why no one would ever consider their light bulbs as part of their heating system. Plus, what would you do in the summer? Just because more areas of the US spend more on heat than air conditioning, doesn't mean they don't spend money on air conditioning. In fact, some of those same areas that spend a lot on heat spend MORE on air conditioning. THink the mid-Atlantic and eastern sea board. So during the summer, they just live in the dark?

Again, you almost used logic and reason, but failed because you were married to your beliefs that fail to align with reality. I'm sure you believe them now more than even in the light of these simple facts that I was able to google in about five minutes while writing this posting.

 

Why do you wonder these things when you can easily google them?

CFLS have 5 mg of mercury vapor in them. That's just enough to coat a ball point pin. So you have disposed of 18x5mg or 90 mg of mercury.

Coal emits 50 tons of mercury per year in the US. 1 mg equals 1.10231x10-9 US ton. So that means we emit 45,359,237,000 mg of mercury every year from coal alone. That's 9,071,847,400 cfls each year's worth of mercury. Do you really think we are throwing away that many? Not even a little bit. 9 billion light blubs a year is not in the realm of feasibility to be discarded each year. Given that Wal-mart in 2006 was aiming to sell 100 million, and given the lack of a press release failed to do so in that year, AND given that was before the peak of CFL sales in 2007 which have since declined about 30% or so, there is NO way we are close to discarding 9 billion CFLS thus proving for sure that coal emits much more mercury than BROKEN CFLS. Please note, they have to break in order for it to be emitted. Not 100% are broken in such a manner, so my numbers are even more conservative.

I'm sure you have facts and figures to refute this...no? Just another rhetorical question? I see...

 

Ah, but you forget that much of the mercury pollution from CFL's comes from their manufacture in China.

http://www.politicalforum.com/envir...uffer-mercury-poisoning-cfl-bulb-factory.html

Not only is much of this mercury allowed to vaporize off into the air, or sometimes even dumped into the environment, but it takes more energy to make a CFL bulb than an ordinary bulb; 60% of China's energy comes from coal (more than the USA), Chinese power plants are less efficient so have to burn more coal per kilowatt generated, and China's coal is much dirtier than the grade used in the USA.

So how much mercury is really released to make a CFL bulb ?
Probably no one really knows.

 

You do realise that only 38 percent of the United State's electricity is produced by coal?
And the EPA has effectively banned new coal power plants, so your environmental arguments cannot hold as much weight anymore.

And in many states/provinces, that percentage is far less. Why force a state that does not have any coal power plants to use CFL's ?
In British Columbia, for example, over 86% of the power comes from hydroelectric dams.
And in California, which has a population of 30 million people, only 1% of the state's power is generated by coal. So CFL's in California will only increase mercury pollution.

 

It was a rethorical question, sarcasm with the self evident answer. No need to google for the selfevident answer.

If you want to refute a point I made, start from trying to repeat and comprehend it. Then try to make your points if you are capable of producing any besides ad homs and insinuations. So far I have not seen a single troll AWGist capable of comprehending such simple operations, less attempting to perform them, less capable of expressing anything else than mindless personal insults.

1. After performing the act of Googling, you have submitted no credible measurements of 50 tons.
2. Calculating you only show that you can use a calculator; if you wanted to make a point you’d round number to be easy for an eye crasp.

3. You speculated about 9B. The easy way is to find out total production in the USA. Then if the production is not available, total sale. That would be the number needed to replace broken, dead ones in the estimate which would prove your point.

4.Let’s assume that all the lies are true. You have missed the point 100 %

Let me repeat and bold it read for you:
I quoted: cleanup its a multi-hour long process
And I commented and you quoted:
"I charge averagely $90 per hour for my work. I have at least 10 broken every year in work lights, in close compartments right into my face. You beat records. I have replaced all 6 in my 3 garages at least once during last 2.5 years. I wonder if you can guess how many millions of dead CFLs have been properly displaced during these years. HAS IT BEEN MORE MERCURY OR LESS RELEASED FROM CFLS RIGHT AT THE GROUNDS THAN FROM ALL COAL BURNING STACKS UP IN THE AIR?"



Let me try one more time:

-$90xmulti-hour => 83 gal of oil=?kg of coal have to be burned to make one proper disposal of CFLs on my end.

-The alleged 50 tons are released in a certain volume of the athmosphere at a certain hight and a certain T in combination with other substances capable of chemical reaction with it. 5 mg of mercury are released in close compartments right into my face RIGHT AT THE GROUNDS at different surrounding.

As I noticed 1 volcano in Europe releases more Hg than all its industries. With the present scrubbers and present level of Hg in the present state of it, coal Hg and coal itself represent no threat to me, when CFLS and all other green energy do.

NASA scientists using a calculator, that is a machine capable of performing basic arithmetic operations with high speed, and with their mathematical models consisting of basic arithmetic operations look like a bunch of proverbial monkeys trying to type a Shakespeare poem.








Ladies and gents, am I patient and gentle with subjects of my demonstrations or not ?

 

Incandescent bulbs will never be able to meet these standards. The only way to acheive higher efficiency is to heat the filament to a higher temperature, and there simply is not any conductive material that can operate at a higher temperature than the tungsten already used as the filament. In fact, the higher the filament is heated near the melting point, the faster the filament will burn out. So setting the efficiency standards so high is effectively no different than a ban on this type of light.

Either environmentalists are just ignorant about science, or they knew that the law would effectively ban incandescent light.

38% of Canadians use electric heaters as their primary means of heating their households, and many more use electric heaters. It makes absolutely no sense using an "energy efficient" bulb while you have your electric heater turned on. If the ammount of heat given off by incandescent light is so insignificant compared to a heating system, does that not imply that the ammount of electricity consumed by lighting is also insignificant?

Yes, in hot climates or warmer seasons, there may not be any benefit from the heat. But as a whole, in the USA and especially in Canada, more energy is spent on heating than air conditioning. I am just saying that as a whole, there is some net benefit to the heat given off by light bulbs. Incandescent light bulbs are a little more efficient than their light output would suggest because they will reduce the consumption of energy needed for heating.

When do people usually turn on their lights? In the night. Even in climates where it is not cold in the day time, it can still get cold at night. Especially in more inland areas, where the temperature difference between day and night is more pronounced. Have you ever camped in a desert? It might be hot in the day time but it can become very very cold at night.

 

In the NL companies are legally required to replace the bulb if it doesn't meet it's stated expectancy.

Go government regulation!

PS - I meant to dislike your post, sorry!

 

It's odd, because my bulbs are lasting a very very long period of time.

Perhaps US bulbs are sub-standard?

 

Mercury or no mercury, I do not think it is a good idea to have CFL bulbs turned on so close to your face. Some CFL bulbs can give off significant levels of UV radiation, that can cause severe skin irritation after long time exposures in sensitive people, and may also potentially increase the risk of skin cancer, although no such studies have yet been carried out.

[video=youtube;6CVLa_tRslY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CVLa_tRslY&feature=relmfu[/video]


Just in case some of you think this is all just unsubstantiated hype, I want to let you know that I too have moderate skin sensitivity problems with CFL lights.
For some reason the CFL lights seem to be significantly worse than traditional fluorescent tubes. After around 15 to 20 minutes near them, I begin to feel a sort of warmth that is slightly irritating on the side of my face or hands that is closest to the light. And the irritation continues after the light is turned off. There is no obvious observable effects on my skin, but it feels just a little sore. I believe this may be from some of the UV radiation. I do not typically have much problem with natural sunlight, so there must be some sort of particular type of UV given off by CFL's that is more intense than sunlight.

 

Yes, but what about all the other things that use mercury? All the other processes that vaporize mercury into the air? How much have they put out? And where to do CFL's rank compared to them? Just saying it does something doesn't mean it's worse than something else. Tungsten is used in the making of incandescents. It is also toxic in proper doses. Who knows how much has been emitted in the making of incandescent bulbs over the last 100 years or so? I mean, who knows? Sounds scary when you say who knows as opposed to actually knowing.

Again, one could take a good guess at how much mercury China could be emitting by looking at some data.

http://www.unep.org/hazardoussubsta...tations/updated/2_China_Coal_Presentation.pdf

In 2005, they emitted about 108 tons of Hg. Given Coal consumption accounts for 11% others, 5% chemical industry, and 13% of construction materials (the other two aren't likely to include any activities involving CFL production), it's arguable that CFL production is far from a leading cause of Hg emissions in China. Furthermore, it's arguable that given the many things China does manufacture, that it's a pretty negligable amount. You are correct, I can't derive a number with any great confidence, but it's clearly not a majority of their Hg emissions.

Production of CFL's is likely to only get more efficient as time goes on, just as it has for incandescents. It wasn't like they were as efficiently made when they were relatively new either. Process improvements come with time, so that means Hg vaporization will be even less of a concern going forward.

The real question becomes do the positives of CFL's outweigh the negatives. I don't see any way to answer that in the negative. Hg emissions aren't shown to be significant, increased energy costs to make the bulbs are offset by their relatively long life and relatively low power usage once made, and China is only improving it's pollution standards as time goes on so I can't see how any of this outweighs using CFLs.

 

I'm sorry, this makes no sense. Do you relaize that 50 tons comes from numbers from 2010? Do you really think they have changed significantly since then? They haven't in case you are wondering. They are down to 48 tons in 2011. Still no where near the Hg emissions from CFLs. My argument holds only 4% less weight and much more weight given how little Hg is used in CFLs.

Because Coal isn't the only thing that when you burn produces CO2. Everything else does. Everything, natural gas included. Using less energy makes sense. The less you spend on infrasturcture to produce energy, the more the economy can spend on other things. The price of necessities, energy being one in the US, typically the worse economic conditions are. Economic booms tend to happen when necessity costs are low, and since energy impacts the price of everything else, you want the least amount of energy costs. To acheive that, you increase efficiency. CFL's do that at least locally in the US. So there is a reasonable economic argument to using them coal or not.

The increase in Hg will be negligable. You have no numbers to back up your claims, and the ones I do show that California will be just fine. Remember all that CO2 that comes from gas fired plants? And are you counting the waste from nuclear plants? How about the economic impact of building dams? That has an impact as well. Are you so concerned about Hg? Do you eat fish? Do you have fillings? What about processing metals? Medical waste? Mining for gold? These are all sources of Hg. Why aren't you as concerned about them? California mines gold, they dispose of medical waste, probably much more than other states. Obviously, the miniscule amounts of Hg from CFL's isn't going to be high on the list any time soon.

Besides, CFL's aren't the only choice for energy efficient bulbs. There are other technologies. But I'm sure you have a problem with them too...If you think incandesencts are the way to go, great, but sadly, the vast majority disagree and that includes scienticsts, researchers, and people who have had their work reviewed countless times. So I don't know what else to say other than I admire the resolve of your beliefs.

 

I would disagree given that Google refuted it. Also, there are far less self-evident things in this world than you would like to believe. Just because Thomas Jefferson found one doesn't mean they are a dime a dozen.

So you can make proclimations of self-evidence but I have to submit mine? How convenient for you...

http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info:doi/10.1289/ehp.118-a198

This one too

http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf

And here:

http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/pollutioncontrols/overview_mercurycontrols.html

I prefer not to round. I don't like things to be easy, you see, I prefer how things are. Now granted I could have done that, but how does that make me more credible? To you, more credibility means more round numbers? OK, how about this, I will round Hg production from coal up from 50 to 100 tons. Still like rounding?

No I didn't, I calculated it. According to my source above from energy star, 272 million were sold in 2009. That number is not going to result in 9 billion disposed of each year. It's impossible. But please, tell me how I'm speculating by using basic logic.

I thought we were assuming 100% of all YOUR lies were true...?

Let me make you aware of something, YOUR NUMBERS DON'T MEAN CRAP. You are multiplying dollars to arrive at gallons of oil? How are you getting there? Is that the equipment you are running? I want to see every input that makes you arrive at that number, no need to round for my sake, I can understand complicated numbers.

I'm sorry, but 83 gallons of oil is insane and you need to find a better way if that number is anywhere accurate. Plus, if you follow the energystar guidelines for cleanup, which I'm sure you will tell me they are liars, then you will see that it should take you far less than 83 gallons of oil to clean up one CFL.

That is the most insane conclusion I have ever seen, and not that's not an attack, that's simply an observation. The reality is the amount of mercury put out by CFL's in your face is nothing compared to the amount put out by coal burning. If you can't be convinced of that, then you are hopeless because every source indicates that. You are worried about trees and missing the forest, but it's what you believe so again, I admire your faith in yourself.

Sigh. So your method of what's in front of your face is better than NASA? Please don't sit there and tell me you somehow know better than everyone at NASA. How can that be? If it were true, why don't they put you in charge? Call them up right now and I will demand they put you in the director's chair! This is an outrage.

Or, perhaps, just perhaps, you are simply wrong and choose to believe misinformation. Nah, I'm going with the first one. Despite what all the sources say, you must be right.

Let me know when you prove your 83 gallons an oil to dispose of one CFL bulb by the way, I'm sure NASA will want to look at it first but it would be great if I could take a peep. I will continue to rely on information from research until proven otherwise.

They don't care, trust me. You have no audience, just a bunch of incorrect information and poor conclusions.

 

The UV radition given off by a CFL is far less than your exposure in the sunlight at 1 foot or more. At a foot or closer, the exposure area is equal to a sunny day. There are other emitters of UV radiation such as bug lamps and of course the sun.

http://www.residentiallighting.com/health-concerns-cfls

That said, yes, they do emit some UV, but the amounts is negligable and you would have to be exposed to it for hours upon hours at very close contact to elevate your risk of skin cancer.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/10/cfl-bulb-uv-rays_n_1764892.html

That said, you probably shouldn't be that close to them. Again, the question becomes does this incredibly minute risk that is only a risk if someone is super close to them for hours upon hours for days on end really mean we shouldn't use them? I mean, couldn't you make that same argument against cars? Afterall, they kill far more people than CFL's. So I agree, CFL's are not perfect, but few claim they are. Environmental groups that support the bulbs admit they contain traces of hg and emit very small amounts of UV. Neither of which outweights their benefits.