Compact Fluorescent Bulbs: NOT a Bright Idea!

For those of you that really want to save energy, you should use this:

 

For those of you that really want to save energy, you should use this:

 

The rare earth elements used to make the phosphors in both fluorescent tubes and CFLs are incredibly polluting to mine. It takes a large quantity of energy to separate these rare earth elements from their ore, and the ore contains radioactive material which is released in a hazardous soluble form during the processing. In fact, the US environmental protection agency shut down the largest rare earth mine in America, at Mountain Pass, California, because of repeated spills of radioactive waste water. Now America has just exported all this pollution to China, just like everything else. A Chinese government investigation revealed: "Excessive rare earth mining has resulted in landslides, clogged rivers, environmental pollution emergencies, and major accidents and disasters, causing great harm to people's safety and health."

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tec...-versus-chinas-rare-earths-dominance-14977835

 

I really can't believe how far behind the times so many posters are.
My old fashioned bulbs were all gone years ago, as all but a couple of the 'new' CFLs have gone now.
LED is in my house and staying there.
Very low power consumption, cold running and a very nice light to read by; easy on the eyes.
My next generation will be solar powered, low voltage LEDs (when I build the new house). There will no no mains power for lighting at all.

Talk about cave men, and I though America was supposed to be the world's leader.

 

For anyone who cares about the light bulb issue, this music video is hilarious:

[video=youtube;xO5lGpFGcJY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xO5lGpFGcJY&feature=player_embedded#![/video]

 

Do you ever feel like your new energy efficient spiral bulbs are not as as bright as the old ones? Does it seem like you can barely see?
It might not be just you.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ergy-saving-light-bulbs-offer-dim-future.html

Even Angela Merkel (Germany's Chancellor) admited "Most of the bulbs in my apartment are energy-saving bulbs. They’re not yet quite bright enough. When I’m looking for something I’ve dropped on the carpet, I have a bit of a problem".

 

Here's a little quote just made in the Abortion section of this forum. I think it could also apply to people who think they have the right to ban light bulbs:

I hope these "pro-choicers" do not support light bulb bans.
It is one thing when the government just requires products to be a little more efficient. It is another thing when the government forces us to use a completely different type of light source with numerous potential drawbacks and an inferior quality of light.

Perhaps the government should impose "moral efficiency" requirements on women's reproductive options, requirements which an abortion would not be able to practically meet in most situations. This would not be an abortion "ban", of course. Abortions could still be allowed if new technologies were developed which were able to comply with the moral requirements. For example, 100% accurate lie detectors that could determine if the woman was actually raped against her will or not.

 

I would not be so against it if they just made a low-cost light bulb that put out the same light as a 100 watt bulb. That being said, their 70-72 watt "energy saving" halogen bulbs only give off as much light as a regular 90 watt bulb. In addition, the light is a little more whitish. Usually this is a good thing, but some people do prefer it a little more yellowish.

There are some fairly straightforward ways to increase incandescent efficiency - using krypton or xenon gas for example increases efficiency by 5-10%. Running the filament at a higher temperature can slightly increase efficiency, but reduces lifetime. Using a halogen capsule inside the bulb can compensate for this, making the filament last longer. There is also IR halogen technology, which would be more expensive but not hugely so. These are mostly just trade-offs with price. Another trade-off is that if the bulb incorporates more expensive technology, it becomes more economical to make the bulb last longer, but running the filament at a lower temperature reduces efficiency.

Using IR halogen with xenon, for example, an incandescent bulb could achieve an efficiency around 30 lumens per Watt. At that level, it would have the same lifespan as a 100 watt bulb but probably cost 3 US$ each after mass production. This still would not be enough to meet the 45 lumen per watt mandate that will come into affect in the USA in 2020. Obviously it would not be practical to try to get an incandescent bulb to meet this mandate. No one is going to buy expensive bulbs that burn out after only a few hours. There are a few other technologies out there, but no one is really sure if any of them are practical.

I think, at the very least, the legislation should be drawn back so that some technology of incandescent light will still be allowed, a technology which will not end up costing the consumer much more money, including any energy savings.

 

Well, it appears that the warm-up times on these CFL bulbs are so long that many people just end up keeping them on all the time.

What type of idiot would promote CFLs ?!? They just end up wasting more energy because so many people have to leave them on so they will be bright enough when they come back into the room.

If you want to save money, don't buy CFLs! Not unless you are planning to leave them on all the time anyway. If you are only turning them on for short times, the warm-up time is not worth it, and all the turning on and off will just prematurely burn them out anyway.

Ironically, many consumers who have some CFL bulbs in their home say they only use it in places they don't use very often, because they hate the bad lighting.

 

here is another story I found:

I was at Mama’s the other weekend for breakfast and watched in wonder as my parents divvied up their morning medications in a ritual now regular as meal grace.

I noticed it was tough to see all those little pills and vitamins in their little plastic containers and remarked, “That light’s too dim,” while looking up at the one over the table.

“We know,” I was told. “We just can’t get one any brighter. The store doesn’t carry 100-watt bulbs anymore.”

I assured them I would see about that, and imagine my surprise when I found they were correct.

Regular round, 100-watt bulbs have pretty much vanished from the common store shelves of America. Now I know why, too. I looked it up and found the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act is behind all this, trying to make things more energy-efficient.

Great.

But I’m not sure that will be the desired result. I advised my parents to get two lights instead of one so they can see better at the kitchen table.

 

Good news from America: CFL bulb sales falling fast

Sales of compact fluorescent light bulbs in the United States are down 25% from their peak in 2007. Even better, shipments of these hazardous light bulbs are down 49% from 2007. Apparently consumers are not happy about the poor quality of light.

Compact flourescent light bulbs cannot succeed on their merits. Government bans of incandescent light bulbs are the main source of damand for CFL bulbs. In addition, CFL bulbs have relied heavily on give-aways and subsidies. But even these measures aren’t working:

Incandescent light bulbs continue to be the first choice of most consumers because they have a much better quality of light, they have a low initial cost, they don't emit UV radiation, they don’t contain mercury, and it’s okay to throw them in the trash after they stop working.

Especially in colder climates, where people are inside their homes for much of the day. It begins to get dark very early in the winter evenings in northern lattitudes. Light quality is of critical importance. No one wants to be continuously exposed to UV, especially not in their own homes. Even for those who like being tanned, it hardly makes sense to just be exposing your face and hands. This is what you don't want, since you already get so much sun on them anyway. Any extra heat from "inefficient" incandescent bulbs is more than welcome.

 

It's because they last longer. In 2007 people were replacing all in their house, now, it's just replacement of the very few that have burned out. My buying of CFLs has slowed down in the past three years. Why? I'm not replacing them, I'm just using them.

 

Okay, point taken.

But it can be a double-edged sword. I have heard a number of different stories on the internet about people who bought a big case of CFLs that was being offered for a low price through a promotional offer from their local utility company. Then they realized that the light was absolutely awful and/or it took to long for the bulbs to warm up. In the mean time their CFLs were frustratingly dim when they walked into a room and turned on a light switch. I have read at least two separate occasions where consumers in the comment sections have wrote, "I can't wait for them to burn out, but I'm too thrifty to just throw them away".

The thing with CFLs and lifespans is that they do for the most part tend to last longer, but there are also many situations where they burn out faster. You can search on the internet and find all sorts of stories about people who have bought CFLs and they all burned out within six months, or certain fixtures in their home where CFLs burn out really fast, even though they have tried several different brands. It is a complicated issue. CFLs are not the appropriate solution for all situations.

Perhaps you should take a look at your own signature again:

 

I have never written in favor of the law requiring CFLS. I'm against using laws to force economic behavior (I'm also against seatbelt laws, but use them constantly). I use CFLs on their own merit. I find most of the general objections to them to be silly. Now, I do agree with some of the specific objections to them. That said, they work for me, and in my situation. I know they don't work for everybody, and aren't good for all situations. I started converting to them before the law was passed. I'm still in process of converting to them, and I will continue to convert until all my lights (except my wife's scentsy fixtures that need heat from light to work) are CFLs. I wouldn't do that if I lived outside of the Sunbelt (the excess heat that incandescents produce in the summer have to be eliminated by the A/C, so not only do I pay more for electricity for the light with ICs, but I also have to pay to get the excess heat pumped out).

 

This is an advertisement from a light bulb supplier, I thought it was funny:

 

The germans are not happy about their incandescent light bulbs being taken away:

[video=youtube;x0x3rbHFwQU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0x3rbHFwQU[/video]