Banning the Bulb

I've been using CFL's for over ten years. Two of the original ones (with the long tubes sticking out of them) blew after about 6-7 years but I had them out in the garage where it was 120 degrees in the summer and 30 in the winter - well outside their operating range. I've had one regular twisty that hummed a little so I put it in an outside fixture. One flood that I bought recently didnt want to 'start' unless I tapped it, so it had a manufacturing issue.

I've had a heck of a lot of incandescent bulbs blow the first time I turned them on, or have the "jingle of death" when I took them out of the box.
 
Put CFL's in the new house in 2005. One of the 12 outdoor floods failed within 6 months, less than 50 hours of use. Replacement has been fine.
 
The electric clock type timers are ok with the CFL's, they have a mechanical switch inside to control the power. You should be fine.

The electronic timers have solidstate components that switch the power and many require a connection to ground through the filament of a light bulb to work. The CFL's apparently don't look like a light bulb to the electronic timers so nothing happens when they switch on.
Thanks, that's what I was guessing but it's good to know for sure since that CFL will be on a timer for the next 5 weeks!
 
Mythbusters found this result: The startup energy for a CFL is negligible.

I think their conclusion is correct, but (as usual), their methodology is very questionable. They used fancy high tech equipment that looks impressive on TV to measure the instantaneous changes in current. What they needed to do, for a true cost comparison, is to use a standard electric company power meter. It mostly likely responds to those transients a bit differently.

The mercury argument is another red herring.

Well, I googled a bit and it does seem that the health risks from dropping a single bulb are pretty minimal - so I agree there. But the overall mercury argument is not a red herring. It is great that a CFL in a high use socket will more than offset the mercury generated from the coal plant, and hopefully we get really good compliance in the recycling, which will contain the mercury. But I'm still concerned that a mandate means we process more mercury to put a bulb in a closet, which may never be offset.

Here's a mandate I could accept:
A new building code. Something like, say, 80% of the lumens provided by 'high use' sockets (would need definition, but would exclude closets, attics and such) must be a minimum of XX% efficiency. That would at least target the right areas, and leave some flexibility.

And as long as we are talking mandates - how about putting those things in packaging that doesn't make me feel like I'm likely to break two of them trying to get one out? What kind of cruel joke is that anyway? Maybe they should look to the egg industry for some packaging tips. Boy scouts will need to go to little old ladies houses to help them open their light bulb package.


The electric clock type timers are ok with the CFL's, they have a mechanical switch inside to control the power. You should be fine.

The electronic timers have solidstate components that switch the power and many require a connection to ground through the filament of a light bulb to work. The CFL's apparently don't look like a light bulb to the electronic timers so nothing happens when they switch on.

Correct. I had this problem with the electronic timer on my porch lights. I got around it by replacing one of the lights with a low wattage standard bulb. That provided the return path for the electronic timer. But an electronic timer on a single bulb would be a problem.

Has anyone else noticed that CFL's don't actually last as long as everyone says they do? I put some in about 18 months ago and I've already replaced a couple.

I've had some blow out in weeks or months, but most of them have lasted years. The original old clunky, flicker-y, bad color ones on my porch running every day for a decade or more, subject to hot and cold, plus a few of the newer ones running for a few years.

I was at Costco yesterday and they had 10 packs of 60-watt-equivalent twisties for $1.49 after PG&E instant rebates taken at the register.

Of course, you paid for the instant rebate. There is no free lunch, there is a hidden cost. It's not a 'bargain', it is an incentive. It actually increases the overall cost of the CFLs.

-ERD50
 
Also, LED lights are coming along as well...they are energy efficient and last longer than CFL's, I believe. The cost of those is high right now, but they may be the next type of light bulb to take over the market once the price drops as usage increases. Also, I don't think they have any problem with the mercury.

The LEDs do last a long time, but at present they don't have quite the efficiency of a florescent bulb (hard to believe, but true.) In fact, the newer tube-style florescent bulbs are considerably more efficient than CFLs.

From a previous CFL thread: ( http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f27/cfls-30866-2.html

"On a note related to CFLs: I was surprised to learn that CFLs are much more energy efficient than LEDs. Present generation LEDs available for home lighting give approx 20 lumens/watt, a CFL gives 45-60 lumens per watt. Want to save the earth? Replace your fixtures: the frumpy T-8 4' tubular fluorescents give 85-95 lumens/watt. For comparison, a 100W incandescent bulb gives 17 lumens/watt.

I'm sure LED-based lighting will improve, but right now it costs much more than CFLs, is less energy efficient, and the light quality (color rendering) is worse. At least at present the LED-based lights seem to be a good bet only as long-lasting energy-efficient replacements for incandescent/halogen lights in highly directional applications."
 
I have had CFLs in all my hard to get to and high use applications for years. Since they do dim with time I move the high use bulbs to low use areas after they dim enough to be aggravating. This is allowing me to slowly replace even low use bulbs. I don't get all the savings since I'm putting higher wattage (but dimmed) CFLs in places I could get by with low wattage CFLs but they are still less than 1/2 the wattage of the ILB. I always save the used but still good ILB, wasn't sure why till the new law. I figure they will be worth a fortune after they are outlawed. :) Should give retirement income a bump.

Jeb
 
Did you see the news about the town that replaced their outdoor lights with LED's. Squirrels destroyed them. Seems like there was enough power in the older lines to keep the squirrels from gnawing on the lines. Not so in the low powered LEDs. They just chewed through the DC lines and destroyed the strings.
 
By the way, the usage element is a red herring. If you dont use the CFL often, it'll last practically forever, and its aggregate usage and savings vs an incandescent bulb in that 8-20 years will be identical to a high use bulb in a shorter time period..


But... I have some incandescents in my house that are over 20 years old... they were there when I bought the house and they are still going... they are 'nude' ones over the mirror in the half bath, which I use every day when at home...

I don't think that a CFL would be much better..
 
...........................

Of course, you paid for the instant rebate. There is no free lunch, there is a hidden cost. It's not a 'bargain', it is an incentive. It actually increases the overall cost of the CFLs.

-ERD50


Oh great Bunny. Now look what you did!
 
The mercury argument is another red herring. There is roughly 100 times more mercury in a household themometer as in a CFL. So if you break a couple of themometer in your life you've add as much mercury as a lifetime supply of CFLs. (It isn't exactly a apples to apples comparison, but the bottom line is the mercury in CFL is small enough they aren't a health hazard)

I have not replaced all the CFL in my house but as bulbs burn out I do.
When I was about 12 I had a small bottle of mercury. I used to roll balls of it around in my hand. Is that why I suffer from CRS today?
 
But... I have some incandescents in my house that are over 20 years old... they were there when I bought the house and they are still going... they are 'nude' ones over the mirror in the half bath, which I use every day when at home...

I don't think that a CFL would be much better..

If you use it every day? Really? You'd be using 75% less electricity for every minute of use had you replaced those with CFL's. Replace them now and you'll knock 75% off for the next 20 years or more.

If you move, take them with you like I did!
 
Oh great Bunny. Now look what you did!

Yeah, I know. I quit trying to negotiate my way through the logic of users who have their mind made up and arent interested in any facts that dont suit the predetermined answer.

Its just wrong for the government to try to press people to do the right thing, cfl's are probably made with tiny tracking devices in them that watch our every move, they're preloaded with a tiny spatial vortex that holds 50 pounds of highly radioactive toxins designed to spray down any hapless human within 5 miles upon breakage, etc.

But...the good news is that Windows had fewer exploits in 2007 than OS X.

» Mac versus Windows vulnerability stats for 2007 | Zero Day | ZDNet.com
 
most chinese compact cfl's are very poor. not only do they draw way more electricity than stated but the lumens output falls short. lamp life on many is crap.

the best we found are ge,sylvania and philips for the majors, tcp ,greenlite ,maxlite on the non majors
 
Yeah, I know. I quit trying to negotiate my way through the logic of users who have their mind made up and arent interested in any facts that dont suit the predetermined answer.
I'm not against learning. I'm glad to know that the startup power draw of CFLs is much lower than I thought. That changes some of my objections.

I still think there are too many installations where CFLs don't work well, like in cold, with timers, dimmers, etc. As I said in another thread, I've got two wall sconces I'd love to put CFLs in but they just don't work. I'm going to give it another try next week.

So I don't think they should ban the sale of the old bulbs. I wouldn't object to a "guzzler tax" on them. That would bring the CFL initial cost more in line.
 
If you use it every day? Really? You'd be using 75% less electricity for every minute of use had you replaced those with CFL's. Replace them now and you'll knock 75% off for the next 20 years or more.

If you move, take them with you like I did!


Actually.. yes, it is my main 'rest room'... did a quick calc and it appears that they are in the 2,500 to 3,000 hour of use range.... I don't even know their wattage... maybe 40... times 4 lights

So a CFL would last me up to 80 years.... but I doubt they would go that long..


Now I bet all 4 go out in the next week....
 
Uh oh, I think I used to play with mercury when I was a kid too.

Maybe mercury leads to early retirement?
 
I started using CFL's in the late 90's. My experience has been that about half have worked great and about half have been faulty (failed after a few months, annoying flickering, etc). I tend to have earlier bulbs, and have less experience with newer products. The "good ones" from ten years ago are still doing their job. The bad ones were replaced long ago.

The key to using less electricity is not through forced CFL's. This is a feel good cop-out approach that will have limited, if any, broad-based benefit. It is likely to have a negative benefit. The key to using less energy is to, well, use less energy. Turn it off when it's not in use. It really is that simple.

My electricity usage is about 1/10 of the average American (1/100 of a certain ex vice president). Same with my lighting costs. There is nothing special about the way I live. While I live alone, most of my electricity is from "base usage" (e.g., refrigerator) that is mostly invariant of the number of occupants in a house. My low usage has little to do with CFL's. It has everything to do with turning off and/or unplugging devices that are not in use. You don't need laws to do this.

CFL's should not be used in environments where they are on for less than a few minutes (e.g., 15 minutes). This can shorten their lifespan to that of incandescents. This greatly increases their cost and their environmental impact. Now, I suppose CFL's are the way to go for people who like to leave on all the lights in their house. They'll save a little electricity over incandescents (and likely feel smug and self-righteous about it), although overall, they will not be very energy efficient. In fact, they may be less efficient because they'll be more likely to leave the lights on. To really save, you need to change the paradigm. That paradigm is to get people to turn off lights and other devices that are not in use. In this paradigm, a mix of CFL's and incandescents is the best approach. CFL's for the living room and other long-term areas, incandescents for those spots that get little or short-term use.

The two approaches are: 1) take steps to reduce household electricity consumption by 10-20% through mandated CFL's; 2) take steps to reduce household electricity consumption by 70-90% through education, awareness, and other means (electric rates).

The CFL versus coal plant argument is a red herring. First, all electricity doesn't come from coal (and perhaps less in the future). Second, coal powered plants are being mandated to significantly reduce their mercury and other emissions over the next 10-20 years (granted, CFL manufacturers are also reducing mercury content). The government can easily regulate these plants. The government cannot easily regulate what individuals do with CFL's.
 
Oh....Thank God......

Another decision that the government has made FOR ME as I'm way too stupid to ever figure this kinda thing out for myself.....:rant:
 
All Apple fans to their battle stations!!
Can we talk about something non-confrontational--like organic milk, or maybe abortion?

Oh, CFB has thrown out a few of those taunts in the past few days.

I'd bite if it was really a battlefield I was coming to, even an unlevel one. But it's just a brick wall, so no point really. If CFB wants to base all his future OS decisions on the dot-0 release of OSX (6 years and 5 revs ago), he can go right ahead. I suspect most other people are more computer savvy and open-minded than that.

Speaking of milk.... I'm getting my wife a cheese-making kit and book for the holidays. Turns out that much of the milk in the stores may actually be ultra-pasteurized, but it isn't labeled as such (technically, it exceeds the limits, so no need to identify it). Turns out UP can be detrimental to the cheese-making process - I may have to get some of that local Yuppie 'organic' milk after all.

-ERD50
 
PS - this isn't quite as much fun to say, now that CFB isn't around, but since the last time I mentioned it, another few months have been tacked on to the years that Mac users have been free of this cr@p!

So what you're saying is that it isnt fun anymore?

I just hope that people understand that paying extra for a different computer doesnt make it invulnerable.

Anyone want to talk about politics?
 
I want to talk about playing with mercury as a kid. I also did that and have casually wondered about effects.
 
Back
Top Bottom