Post by: Desertdog on July 09, 2007, 02:47:45 PM
Light-bulb ban craze exceeds disposal plans
Facts about CFLs, heir to incandescents, downplayed in government-enviro push
By Joseph Farah
WASHINGTON As state and foreign governments enact forced phase-outs of incandescent light bulbs, consumers are being kept in the dark about the many downsides of compact fluorescent lamps, replacements being billed as an environmental and energy-savings panacea.
Across the U.S., schoolchildren are being urged to replace incandescent light bulbs in their homes, state legislatures are following the leads of foreign governments in banning the sale of the bulbs in the future and the federal Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency are highly recommending the switch to CFLs. Businesses like Wal-Mart are also pushing CFLs hard, as are environmental groups. But safe disposal plans and recycling centers for the mercury-laden compact fluorescent lamps, seen as the future, lag behind the hype.
So, too, does the truth about what will become mandatory, fine-imposed handling requirements for CFLs by homeowners and businesses.
While CFLs arguably use less energy and last longer than incandescents, there is one serious environmental drawback the presence of small amounts of highly toxic mercury in each and every bulb. This poses problems for consumers when breakage occurs and for disposal when bulbs eventually do burn out.
Most consumers, even those already using the CFLs, do not realize the long-term dangers the bulbs pose to the environment and the health of human beings.
While the EPA is on the CFL bandwagon as a means of reducing carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere, which it believes contributes to global warming, it also quietly offers advice on cleanup of broken bulbs that might give consumers pause to consider dumping those incandescents any time soon.
When a CFL breaks, the EPA cautions consumers to open a window and leave the room immediately for at least 15 minutes because of the mercury threat. The agency suggests removing all materials by scooping fragments and powder using cardboard or stiff paper. Sticky tape is suggested as a way to get smaller particles. The EPA says vacuum cleaners and bare hands should never be used in such cleanups.
After final cleanup with a damp paper towel, the agency warns consumers to place all materials in a plastic bag.
"Seal and dispose of properly," says the EPA. "Wash hands."
But disposing of properly might be a tough thing to do, because CFLs should never be thrown in the trash like their old-fashioned incandescent predecessors. They need to be turned into recycling centers, which are few and far between.
When laws banning incandescent bulbs take effect, so do the mandatory fines on consumers and businesses that dispose of the new CFLs improperly.
Though the amount of mercury in each bulb is small about 4 milligrams the potential environmental hazard created by the mass introduction of billions of CFLs with few disposal sites and a public unfamiliar with the risks is great.
To address the concern, Wal-Mart announced earlier this month that its suppliers mainly in China have agreed to reduce the amount of mercury in the bulbs. Yet the announcement itself came as something of a shock to many consumers who were blindsided about the risks of mercury.
Mercury is probably best-known for its effects on the nervous system. It can also damage the kidneys and liver, and in sufficient quantities can cause death.
With an estimated 150 million CFLs sold in the United States in 2006 and with Wal-Mart alone projecting sales of 100 million this year, some scientists and environmentalists are worried far too many will wind up in garbage dumps.
When sufficient mercury accumulates in a landfill, it can be emitted into the air and water in the form of vaporous methyl-mercury. From there, it can easily get into the food chain.
"Disposal of any mercury-contaminated material in landfills is absolutely alarming to me," says Steve Lindberg, emeritus fellow of the U.S. Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
The answer, of course, would be recycling and disposal centers. However, it is questionable whether consumers can be counted upon to bring their burned out and broken bulbs to special collection centers voluntarily. That's why most of the laws banning incandescents also include fines for improper disposal of CFLs.
Those provisions in the new laws may be as hard to find for consumers as the fine print on CFL packaging warning them not to breathe the dust from broken bulbs. LampRecycle.org offers a good sampling of existing regulations.
Many waste centers that are set up to accept CFL recycling currently have only one collection day per year.
Consumers are discovering other downsides of CFLs besides convenience and safety issues:
Most do not work with dimmer switches
They are available in only a few sizes
Some emit a bluish light
Some people say they get headaches while working or reading under them
They cannot be used in recessed lighting enclosures or enclosed globes
Fires are seen as a slight possibility
When CFLs do burn out, they often create some smoke, which consumers have found alarming. This is a result of the plastic on the bulb's ballast melting and turning black. CFL manufacturers dismiss safety concerns.
Despite the drawbacks, Australia, Canada and the European Union have all moved to ban incandescent bulbs. California, Connecticut, North Carolina and Rhode Island, are all in the process of legislating an end to Edison's greatest invention. Even local towns and cities are getting into the act.
But the craze didn't start in Europe of Australia or Canada. It started in Fidel Castro's Cuba. His action in banning the incandescent bulb was followed up quickly by Hugo Chavez's Venezuela. Only then did the trend continue in the industrialized western nations.
Recycling experts say the solutions are at least five years away. Meanwhile, millions of consumers and green activists are being persuaded to make the switch now.
Governments may indeed be promoting a kind of lighting that is itself nearly obsolete. Fluorescent lights are nothing new. They've been around for a long time. And while they may save money, some say the public hasn't chosen them for good reasons including, but not limited to, the mercury issue.
Some experts predict the next generation of lighting, though, is LED lights. They are made from semiconductor materials that emit light when an electrical current flows through them. When this form of light takes over, all bulbs will be obsolete. Your wall tiles can light up. Curtains and drapes can light up. Even your dining room table could be made to light up at exactly the level you want. And the best news is no toxic waste.
That's what is ahead in the next decade, according to some in the industry.
Nobody promoted CFLs as aggressively as IKEA. Not only does the retailer sell them, it also provides one of the very few recycling centers for the burned out bulbs. But even with a plethora of recycling centers, how will the public view the prospect of saving up dead bulbs and transporting them to recycling centers? And how about the danger of breakage in that process?
"The industry is currently aiming at totally mercury-free CFL lighting, but this is still five to 10 years away," admits IKEA.
Those who really care about this problem right now are those involved in the waste industry.
"Most agree more energy-efficient light bulbs can significantly curb air pollution, but fewer people are talking about how to deal with them at the end of their lives," explained a page 1 story in the April 2 issue of Waste News. It goes on to explain "there is no plan to address air and water pollution concerns that could develop if consumers improperly dispose of the mercury-containing devices."
Post by: Thor on July 09, 2007, 03:11:33 PM
Since I am stuck with changing them out all the time, I'd rather them last longer so I don't have to grab a ladder so often. I can often find them pretty cheap. Disposal is the biggest problem. Another advantage/ sometimes a drawback is that they don't put off much heat, so in winter, the incandescents will actually warm up a room. The CFLs won't. They also take a bit longer to "warm up" when it's cold outside. I'm not head over heels in love with CFLs, but I like them, on the whole.
Post by: Gewehr98 on July 09, 2007, 04:12:01 PM
I enjoy the freedom to choose incandescent, fluorescent, or LED lighting at my whim.
The topic was previously discussed at length here:
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=5853.0
As for the mercury contamination scare, there's some junk science on both sides of that argument. Think along the line of swill promulgated by the carbon credit gang.
Typical CF bulbs have approximately 5 milligrams of mercury. I'd be more worried about canned tuna.
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=7254.msg117466#msg117466
Post by: Jamisjockey on July 09, 2007, 04:16:12 PM
I've noticed a considerable difference in my energy bill since switching over to CFLs.
I've noticed they keep a room cooler than traditional bulbs, too.
Post by: stevelyn on July 09, 2007, 04:34:34 PM
The only drawback I've found is if you need light at -40 F, be prepared to stand in the dark for a minute.
Once LED technology progresses a little more and costs come down, I may switch over to those.
Post by: K Frame on July 09, 2007, 06:10:20 PM
Say what?
That's news to me.
I have at least a dozen at my home and my parent's home, many of which are in recessed or enclosed globe fixtures.
I like the things.
A lot.
I'm slowly switching more and more of my lights over to CFLs.
New CFLs are far better than the old ones at giving realistic colors.
Three 100-watt equivalent CFLs in the chandalier light my parents large dining room FAR better than 5 60-watt incandescents. I had 5 100-watt equiv. CFLs in the chandalier earlier, but it was simply too frigging bright.
The recycling issue is, however, a major concern.
And, CFLs are now available in sizes equivalent to 200 watts, I believe.
Post by: Bigjake on July 09, 2007, 06:18:15 PM
otherwise, not so much interested.
Post by: Thor on July 09, 2007, 07:05:18 PM
Post by: Ben on July 09, 2007, 07:16:59 PM
Quote
"They cannot be used in recessed lighting enclosures or enclosed globes"
Say what?
Say what?
I have no idea what makes a CFL okay in an enclosed fixture and what doesn't, but the packages on ones I've bought clearly state "safe for enclosed fixtures" or "not for use in enclosed fixtures". I can't see a discernible physical difference in the bulbs though.
Post by: Standing Wolf on July 09, 2007, 07:33:03 PM
Post by: Silver Bullet on July 09, 2007, 07:52:33 PM
I had to replace a 40-watt bulb in a small lamp, but the lamp shade is designed to clamp onto the standard round bulb.
I can't use it to replace the small bulbs in my chandeliers, or the Christmas-size bulbs in my automatic night lights.
Won't replace the halogen bulbs in my halogen lamps.
But, I think it's a good idea.
Post by: Nitrogen on July 09, 2007, 10:31:07 PM
Philips invented them recently, but everyone's got them if you look.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00013VM58
They also make "Three Way" CFL's for lamps, too.
Home Depot sells 'em both.
Also, about the light color shade, the brand sold at Home Depot shows you what "temperature" of light color they emit.
I don't mean how much heat the bulbs give off, but wether they give off a "warm" light, like a candle, fireplace, or regular incandescent, or a "cold" light, like normal flourescents, the sun, etc.
Colors around 3200K are "warm" and more pleasing to people who are used to regular incandescent lights. 5500K lights are "colder" and can annoy people; like me.
All my CFL's are in the 3200K reigon, and they work great. My wife loves 'em. I love the lower power bill.
Post by: ilbob on July 10, 2007, 04:44:25 AM
Ironically, the ones that seem to have lasted the longest are the ones I bought about seven years ago. they are still working. The newer ones are much cheaper, and they jsut do not last. I had one that got so hot that the glass broke on the bulb.
Post by: K Frame on July 10, 2007, 04:53:25 AM
I have three in fixtures outside my home.
The two in front have been in the fixtures for 3 years each, had burn an average of 8 hours a day, every day.
The one on the back patio has been in the fixture for 5 years, and has been on 24x7x365.
"Many have failed within a few days."
I've never had one fail after a few days; far from it.
You may wish to see if you have issues with your power supply or grounding.
Post by: Thor on July 10, 2007, 05:02:13 AM
Post by: Gewehr98 on July 10, 2007, 05:50:17 AM
Post by: K Frame on July 10, 2007, 06:02:58 AM
And that's a surpise?
All of my CFs are either Phillips or GE. I'm not at all a fan of Sylvania.
Post by: Gewehr98 on July 10, 2007, 06:10:28 AM
When I moved from Florida to Wisconsin last year, I brought my Philips CFLs with me.
Post by: K Frame on July 10, 2007, 06:17:48 AM
The one thing that does sometimes sort of bother me about CFLs is that they have a warm up period to get to full output.
That's not such an issue in my bathroom, where the lower light output at first is a little easier on the eyes, but it's more of an issue in the den or the family room.
Over the next few months I'm going to be renovating my basement and I'll be replacing the surface mount fluroescents with recessed cans.
Post by: Manedwolf on July 10, 2007, 07:09:39 AM
Quote
Word on the street is that the cheaper versions (like what you find at Dollar Store) will go Tango Uniform more quickly than others. I bought a really cheap 4-pack at Harbor Freight a while ago, and lost one so far - but its ballast was loud to begin with. I still have the receipt somewhere, I should take it back for a refund/replacement.
IMO, buying things at a dollar store that use a high-voltage ballast and close-quarters circuitry constantly connected to 120v AC is a good way to be awakened by fire engines.
Cheap extension cords from dollar stores cause thousands of fires every year, and I wouldn't be surprised if the no-name CFs from "Xinhua Ultimate Quality Industry" or whatever assembled in a sweatshop in some forsaken Chinese province also might overheat and burn.
Post by: Bogie on July 10, 2007, 07:16:44 AM
Post by: K Frame on July 10, 2007, 07:17:15 AM
Not to mention toothpaste.
Apparently a bunch of counterfeit Crest toothpaste came in from China and was just loaded with bacteria.
Post by: Manedwolf on July 10, 2007, 07:20:16 AM
"buying things at a dollar store..."
Not to mention toothpaste.
Apparently a bunch of counterfeit Crest toothpaste came in from China and was just loaded with bacteria.
Not to mention toothpaste.
Apparently a bunch of counterfeit Crest toothpaste came in from China and was just loaded with bacteria.
Colgate as well.
It also contained diethylene glycol. Yummy antifreeze in toothpaste! I guess they figured "Hey, it tastes sweet, it's cheaper..."
Post by: K Frame on July 10, 2007, 07:21:52 AM
Actually, I'll very likely be putting these in my Mom's basement.
It's simply too damned dark down there.
Post by: K Frame on July 10, 2007, 07:22:46 AM
A Simpsons episode springs to mind...
Post by: Firethorn on July 10, 2007, 08:29:10 AM
Cleanup isn't as bad as what they state, and with the longer lifespans I figure fewer will get dropped on average.
ilbob, I second the recommendation to have your power checked out. Computer equipment actually tends to be more forgiving than many other pieces of equipment of 'dirty' power. A multimeter capable of measuring AC voltage and hertz would be a basic test, but higher level equipment would be needed to test beyond that.
When you use incandescent lighting, does it last as long as they say, or frequently fail quickly? Have you had problems with the motor in your washer/dryer/dishwasher/vacuum?
It might even be limited to a specific phase/circuit, thus giving you long lasting bulbs that have 'good' power, while you keep replacing the bulbs in the 'bad' power. I'd suggest trying a swap. Move old bulb to socket that's had failed bulbs in it, and new bulb in old socket.
Post by: charby on July 10, 2007, 09:08:28 AM
"It also contained diethylene glycol."
A Simpsons episode springs to mind...
A Simpsons episode springs to mind...
Vino diethylene glycol
Post by: ilbob on July 10, 2007, 09:12:51 AM
"My beef with them is that the claimed life expectancy is seriously overrated."
I have three in fixtures outside my home.
The two in front have been in the fixtures for 3 years each, had burn an average of 8 hours a day, every day.
The one on the back patio has been in the fixture for 5 years, and has been on 24x7x365.
"Many have failed within a few days."
I've never had one fail after a few days; far from it.
You may wish to see if you have issues with your power supply or grounding.
I have a couple in outside fixtures that have been there for 3 or 4 years. They don't get left on 8 hours a day, but they have lasted a long time.I have three in fixtures outside my home.
The two in front have been in the fixtures for 3 years each, had burn an average of 8 hours a day, every day.
The one on the back patio has been in the fixture for 5 years, and has been on 24x7x365.
"Many have failed within a few days."
I've never had one fail after a few days; far from it.
You may wish to see if you have issues with your power supply or grounding.
I doubt there is anything wrong with my power. I never had any issues with normal bulbs and I have fixtures with multiple bulbs in them where one bulb has been there for 4 or 5 years and another failed in a few days.
BTW, grounding is not a solution to power quality problems, and in fact has nothing to do with it at all.
Post by: K Frame on July 10, 2007, 09:21:14 AM
Note that I said power supply OR grounding. Two separate issues.
While it's unlikely, a grounding issue could possibly cause problems with the electronics in these bulbs.
Post by: ilbob on July 10, 2007, 09:52:56 AM
"BTW, grounding is not a solution to power quality problems, and in fact has nothing to do with it at all."
Note that I said power supply OR grounding. Two separate issues.
While it's unlikely, a grounding issue could possibly cause problems with the electronics in these bulbs.
Note that I said power supply OR grounding. Two separate issues.
While it's unlikely, a grounding issue could possibly cause problems with the electronics in these bulbs.
What possible grounding issue could cause a CFL to fail?
Post by: Bogie on July 10, 2007, 09:54:35 AM
Can LED lights generally be dimmed? I've gotta coupla ornamental lights outside my garage that come on whether I want 'em to or not when it gets dark. I can either leave 'em burned out, or replace them with something efficient.
If I want REAL light, I fire up the big halogen...
Post by: K Frame on July 10, 2007, 10:04:24 AM
"BTW, grounding is not a solution to power quality problems, and in fact has nothing to do with it at all."
Note that I said power supply OR grounding. Two separate issues.
While it's unlikely, a grounding issue could possibly cause problems with the electronics in these bulbs.
Note that I said power supply OR grounding. Two separate issues.
While it's unlikely, a grounding issue could possibly cause problems with the electronics in these bulbs.
What possible grounding issue could cause a CFL to fail?
A bad ground won't let the electron demons escape. When they build up, they get together and cast evil incantations designed to bring darkness into the universe.
Since their universe is the CFL, they get their wish.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on July 10, 2007, 11:50:36 AM
The thought of being forced by government to use them is abhorrent.
Post by: K Frame on July 10, 2007, 12:13:37 PM
A common complaint with fluorescent bulbs of years past, and one that is addressed by choosing the correct color spectrum for the task at hand.
"don't save a meaningful amount of money on your electric bill"
I disagree immensely. It takes time for the savings to be realized, though, and most people are far too impatient to recognize that.
"They cost too much"
Yes, they're more expensive than incandescents, but the price has dropped markedly over the past decade or so. As more people continue to use them, the price will drop even more.
As with the money savings, it's an incidental, subjective thing that it's hard for people to see. It's rough to shell out as much as $7 or more dollars at one clip for a light bulb, but a LOT easier to shell out $1.95 for a box of 4 incandescents. Then another $1.95 for the next four, then $2.35 for the four after that because the price has gone up...
"they're actually worse for the environment than incandescents"
Yeah, well, that's the inconvenient truth.
Post by: Bogie on July 10, 2007, 12:20:22 PM
My kitchen's ceiling fixture holds four bulbs.
$2 replacement cost, with incandescents...
HOWEVER...
I figure that eventually I'm gonna fall off the damn ladder.
$15 for four CF bulbs at Home Depot is considerably less than my $50 emergency room copay.
Post by: Gewehr98 on July 10, 2007, 12:54:21 PM
Quote
I hate CFLs. They're all hype and no substance. Their light is harsh and thin, they cost too much and don't save a meaningful amount of money on your electric bill, they're actually worse for the environment than incandescents...
Says you.
Want to see the fictional change in my electric bill before and after switching over to CFLs? Want to see the non-meaningful amount of money in my savings account from that lower utility bill? You might have extra money coming out of your posterior orifice, but I don't.
CFLs also generate less heat than incandescents, and the ones in my living spaces are all selected for warm color temperatures. They do offer that selection these days, you know. I even have a warm white 3-way CFL bulb for one of my big living room fixtures.
The ones in the vaulted ceiling of my kitchen have yet to need changing, I understand they've been there for about 5 years so far. That's great, because I hate changing those particular bulbs out.
4 milligrams of mercury per CFL fixture. Wow. How many milligrams of mercury in that can of tuna you ate earlier? As if county and city municipalities don't already have programs in place to properly dispose of your used fluorescent tubes, car batteries, antifreeze, engine oil, ex-wives, refrigerators, appliances, paint, tires, etc. The last three communities I lived in had those services. Maybe Podunk doesn't yet, but it will, trust me - landfill space is a finite resource. We even have a swap board to keep stuff out of the landfill and recycle it for good use:
www.madisonstuffexchange.com
Mandating a ban on incandescents is not a Good Thing, that I agree. Folks with more money than brains will want to fan themselves with their kilowatt meters 'till the cows come home, and that's entirely their prerogative. I keep a few incandescents in certain locations because it gets down to -20 or worse here in the winter, so the garage, front porch, and back deck lights stay with the old convert power to heat and light via glowing filament route. But I am quite happy with my savings in heat, longevity, and power consumption. Unless you're calling Mike, Bogie, myself, and others liars...
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on July 10, 2007, 01:15:18 PM
Replacing the bulbs in my home would cost me roughly $130. I'll have to suffer these miserable CFL bulbs for 5 years before I even break even. It is soooo not worth it.
I'll pamper myself and spend the extra two bucks a month for real light bulbs. Call me gluttonous if you want.
Post by: Marnoot on July 10, 2007, 01:18:14 PM
I've run the math. Burning incandescents turns my electric meter to the tune of about $3.02 per month. Equivalent CFLs would burn $0.80 per month.
Replacing the bulbs in my home would cost me roughly $130. I'll have to suffer these miserable CFL bulbs for 5 years before I even break even. It is soooo not worth it.
I'll pamper myself and spend the extra two bucks a month for real light bulbs. Call me gluttonous if you want.
Replacing the bulbs in my home would cost me roughly $130. I'll have to suffer these miserable CFL bulbs for 5 years before I even break even. It is soooo not worth it.
I'll pamper myself and spend the extra two bucks a month for real light bulbs. Call me gluttonous if you want.
I'm currently indifferent to using one or the other, but I'm curious whether you included the more-frequent-replacement cost of incandescents in your break-even calculation?
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on July 10, 2007, 01:26:41 PM
So, umm... <grabs calculator> ...looks like it'll only take me 4 years to break even, not 5.
Still not worth it. Not even close.
Post by: Bogie on July 10, 2007, 01:27:33 PM
Not pretty. Not pretty at all...
Frankly, I can't tell the difference between a _quality_ CF bulb's light, and a _quality_ incandescent light.
BTW, just put in a four-T8 6500 fixture in my basement office, and I think I may have to tone it down a little... I think it's gonna go in the laundry room, and get replaced by a two-tuber...
Post by: onions! on July 10, 2007, 01:33:10 PM
I put CFLs in my kitchen,bath,& living room because they were on sale & I wanted to see what the fuss was about.
The only filament bulbs I've replaced in,say,the last 8-9 years are those stupid candle flame shaped things in the dining room chandelier.Oh yeah,& in the drop light.>shrug<
I like the bright,yellow tinged glow that five 13w bulbs puts out.Easy to shave by.
Post by: Bogie on July 10, 2007, 01:47:56 PM
Sam's sells decent 60 watt eq bulbs for about $15 for an 8-pack.
Just how many light bulbs do you have in your house?
Let's see...
my upstairs office: 2
Housepest room: 6 (which are never used... 5 of them belong to ugly lamps I have not thrown out, and one in the ceiling)
Bedroom: 5 (three in the ceiling fixture, two lamps)
Master Bath: 3
Housepest Bath: 4
Kitchen: 6 (and a 4' tuber I put over the sink)
Living room: 6 (4 in the ceiling fan, two lamps)
Stairs downstairs 1 (incandescent on a dim circuit)
Downstairs bath: 4 (1 incandescent on a dim circuit)
Laundry: 2
Hallway, storage, panel room: 3
Bad Teenager Room: 3 (all in the ceiling)
Bunker: 4 CF in ceiling, 4 tuber above my desk, 2 lamps on desk and bookshelves, 2 flanking movie screen, 2 on bar
Garage: 2 CFLs, 5 track lights with CFLs, and two 2 tuber shoplights
Outside: 1 in porch light, 2 HD inc bulbs in garage lights, 2 inc floods in the back yard
So, let's add it up - I think I've got in the area of 60ish...
So, yeah, you're about right on the cost. But then again, I didn't really do it all at once either.
I think I've had a couple croak on me in the past four years (and most of my lamps, and some "bare" bulbs came from my old apartment - I replaced them with el-cheapos when I moved out), so some of these things do have some time on 'em...
So, let's say that I was running incandescents, and they last an average of a year each... I'd be buying 15 4-packs a year. At $2 each, that's $30/year.
Over four years, that's $120.
Merely on replacement alone, I think I'm ahead, just for the "avoidance of hassle" factor.
Post by: Sindawe on July 10, 2007, 02:09:18 PM
Quote
As if county and city municipalities don't already have programs in place to properly dispose of your used fluorescent tubes, car batteries, antifreeze, engine oil, ex-wives, refrigerators, appliances, paint, tires, etc.
Hey Gewehr98, if I send my ex-wife in your direction, could you dispose of her for me?
The four CF bulbs I've put in the main bath and downstairs powder room are great. Since they take a few minutes to come to full brightness, I no longer get a nuclear blast of light in they eyes when I use the head before dawn.
The only place I have incandescents left are those lights on dimmers (dinning room chandelier and spot light over the upstairs landing). All else are CF and it has cut my electricity use a fair bit.
Post by: Firethorn on July 10, 2007, 06:28:00 PM
While it's unlikely, a grounding issue could possibly cause problems with the electronics in these bulbs.
I figured you might be talking about the building ground, which indeed can have quite an effect on the power quality in the building, especially if the circuits aren't particularly balanced as far as load goes.
Quote
I doubt there is anything wrong with my power. I never had any issues with normal bulbs and I have fixtures with multiple bulbs in them where one bulb has been there for 4 or 5 years and another failed in a few days.
Your power could still be quite 'dirty', as long as the average voltage stays in the correct range or below a standard lightbulb won't care. It's a simple resistance device, after all. It'd be perfectly happy with 110V of DC.
On the other hand, a CFL(or tube flouro) has electronics to include a transformer designed to step up the voltage and frequency*. Dirty power, especially combined with cheap electronics can result in quick failure. That's why I asked about things with motors. Computer power supplies, especially auto-voltage ones that come with things like laptops are actually very resistant to power fluctuations, even though they have some of the same electronics as a CFL(they also step up the frequency). It has to do with the capaciters, rectifiers and regulators in a good power supply.
*high frequency makes stepping up the voltage easier and also has the effect of eliminating/reducing flicker. Some people can see 60HZ flicker, nobody can see 6khz flicker.
Post by: K Frame on July 10, 2007, 08:21:55 PM
Most peoples' utility bills would be similar to mine if they weren't paying for heating and A/C. Take away the heating and cooling and there isn't much power usage left in the average home. Trying to save money on the little stuff, like CFLs and suchlike, isn't going to be very productive. I could leave on every light in my apartment 24/7, and it would only increase my monthly bill by some $25 a month. Trying to save money on that is a waste of time, because there simply isn't much money there to be saved. It's the heating and cooling that matter, not the lighting."
Hum...
You never mentioned the size of your apartment before, Headless.
Somehow I think that that might have a HUGE bearing on the savings you'll see.
Unlike you, I have a moderately sized home that had quite a few incandescent bulbs on three levels.
Living room, dining room, two rooms in the basement, kitchen, front and back entrances, master bedroom, two and 1/2 baths, den, spare bedroom...
All had incandescent bulbs. Almost all have been slowly replaced with CFLs.
My electric bill has gone down by about 15% a month over the past several years.
That's nothing to sneeze at.
Post by: HankB on July 11, 2007, 03:36:48 AM
60 watt incadescents aren't very bright, and the cheap fluorescent replacements do have some serious color rendering issues. Maybe that's not an issue for something like a hallway light, but for reading, or for a lady applying makeup, they're not so good. Bulbs with higher output, better color rendering, and dimming capability are are available, but carry a higher price tag, which changes the economics considerably.
My front yard light (on a photocell) is a compact fluorescent - it cost considerably more than today's overhyped cheapies, but it lasts around 3 - 3 1/2 years.
So while there is a place for them, it's not in every place.
Post by: K Frame on July 11, 2007, 03:53:53 AM
Actually, I contend that it largely doesn't. Yes, the better bulbs are more expensive. But as we've seen indicated here, they tend to last FAR longer than the cheapies.
Several years ago I spearheaded putting CFL floodlights into my community for pathway lighting. We have a number of walkways where post lamps were simply too expensive an option, and prone to vandalism, so we attached floodlight heads to the houses.
We at first used incandescent bulbs, but we were always running up and down the ladders to replace them. It wasn't uncommon to have to replace half of the bulbs (we had, at the time, 10 I believe) every 4 to 6 months. I finally managed to convince everyone that simply from a maintenance stand point it would be FAR wiser to get the CFL floodlight heads (at something like $30 a pop) than to either keep replacing the stupid bulbs ourselves or hiring our electrican to do a complete bulb change out every 6 months (at nearly $150) and live with the bulbs that would burn out in the interim.
That was almost 7 years ago. At least two of the bulbs are still the original ones, and are working just fine. All of the others have been replaced, most only once, a couple twice.
Buy quality and you'll get good results and long life, which dramatically affects the cost analysis.
If someone insists on buying cheap CFLs stamped "Made at the People's Slave Labor Factory No. 927, Bejing" and sold under the Lighty McBright Light brand name, then they're going to be sorely disappointed.
But that's disappointment without merit.
Post by: Manedwolf on July 11, 2007, 04:23:33 AM
"That's in a smallish apartment without A/C and with heating paid for by the landlord.
Most peoples' utility bills would be similar to mine if they weren't paying for heating and A/C. Take away the heating and cooling and there isn't much power usage left in the average home.
Most peoples' utility bills would be similar to mine if they weren't paying for heating and A/C. Take away the heating and cooling and there isn't much power usage left in the average home.
Unless they have a plasma TV they leave on a lot. Unlike LCDs, those things devour electricity, up to three times as much as a tube TV, even.
The biggest power suck I've seen in reports, though, is hideously inefficient window A/C units. A good, efficient central A/C will actually use far less power than several window units in different rooms, since it's only powering one compressor, one fan, and has a far more efficient and bigger evaporator coil array.
Post by: Bogie on July 11, 2007, 06:09:37 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on July 11, 2007, 06:11:57 AM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on July 11, 2007, 10:27:29 AM
Hum...
You never mentioned the size of your apartment before, Headless.
Somehow I think that that might have a HUGE bearing on the savings you'll see.
Unlike you, I have a moderately sized home that had quite a few incandescent bulbs on three levels.
Living room, dining room, two rooms in the basement, kitchen, front and back entrances, master bedroom, two and 1/2 baths, den, spare bedroom...
All had incandescent bulbs. Almost all have been slowly replaced with CFLs.
My electric bill has gone down by about 15% a month over the past several years.
That's nothing to sneeze at.
Actually, the size of the dwelling shouldn't have much bearing on your lighting bill. The factors at play are the number of people that live in the home and their conscientiousness about turning off the lights when they leave a room. A person generally only needs light in the room he occupies, thus the size of the rest of the dwelling becomes unimportant. Extra rooms don't contribute to the lighting bill if you if you remember to keep their lights off.You never mentioned the size of your apartment before, Headless.
Somehow I think that that might have a HUGE bearing on the savings you'll see.
Unlike you, I have a moderately sized home that had quite a few incandescent bulbs on three levels.
Living room, dining room, two rooms in the basement, kitchen, front and back entrances, master bedroom, two and 1/2 baths, den, spare bedroom...
All had incandescent bulbs. Almost all have been slowly replaced with CFLs.
My electric bill has gone down by about 15% a month over the past several years.
That's nothing to sneeze at.
I live alone and I remember to turn off the bulbs I'm not using. That contributes far more to my electric bill savings than CFLs ever could.
Also consider that if I lived in a ginormous mansion it would cost a whole lot more to replace all of my incandescent bulbs with CFLs, thus making them even less economically sensible.
Post by: K Frame on July 11, 2007, 10:42:48 AM
The larger the room, the less viable that is.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on July 11, 2007, 10:54:21 AM
The rooms in my apartment are large, but I only have three of them. They aren't dimly lit by any means (I usually use half a dozen 60W incandescents in a 16'x16' room). But since I only have one room lit at a time, my power consumption for lighting remains quite low.
By contrast, if you have a home with 10 rooms, each of which requires "ambient lighting" (say 1 or 2 60W bulbs) at all times, then you're gonna burn more power than me before you even begin to light the occupied rooms at full strength.
If you wanna save money forget the CFLs and learn to live without the ambient lighting.
Post by: Bogie on July 11, 2007, 10:58:47 AM
I've got 60ish bulbs in this house. In my old 800 square foot apartment, I had maybe 10-15. Electric bill there was around $75ish, since St. Louis weather sucks, except for the week we have spring, and the week we have fall...
Post by: K Frame on July 11, 2007, 11:10:31 AM
Outside post lamp - 1
Outside wall lamp - 1
Entry hall - 3
Far end of entry hall - 1
Dining room - 4
Kitchen - 4
Living room - 8
Half bath - 4
Back patio - 1
Upstairs
Hall - 2
Hall Bath - 4
Master Bath - 4
Master Bedroom - 4
Guest room 1 - 3
Guest room 2/office - 3
Basement - 1 (many of the lights n the basement were already fluorescents when I moved in).
That's 47 incandescent lights in an average sized town home, about 1,500 to 2K square feet.
I didn't bother to count the incandescents in the pantry, several closets, or the attic. Those are used so infrequently that it makes absolutely no sense to put a CFL in those fixtures.
Over the past few years I've replaced nearly 3/4ths of those incandescents with fluorescents. In many cases I replaced a single, multi-bulb incandescent fixture with a single bulb fluorescent fixture that not only provides more usable light, it does it with far less energy consumption.
I'm not kidding when I said in an earlier post that I've reduced my energy consumption by about 15% over the past few years. Lighting is the only thing I've changed. I did put in a new fridge a few months ago, and that's also showing a marked improvement on the amount of electric I use.
Post by: Gewehr98 on July 11, 2007, 11:13:10 AM
I'm thinking HTG could economize even more if he just walked around with a solitary candle or oil lamp at night. That's all he really needs...
Post by: K Frame on July 11, 2007, 11:15:31 AM
If he's HEADLESS, why does he need light anyway?
Post by: Gewehr98 on July 11, 2007, 11:32:52 AM
A grizzled old hairwine addict once told me, "Put yo' brain in a turtle's haid, he peck his ass out!"
That's about where we're going as we all try to explain our electrical savings with compact fluorescents to HTG.
Post by: K Frame on July 11, 2007, 11:38:41 AM
I think CFLs actually wasted 10 times more energy than they're claimed to save. It's a plot by those pesky Al Queda to get us to use up all our oil and fall into an economic malaise.
And, you know, I'm pretty sure I saw a CFL beating a hooker some years ago.
Those things really ARE bad!
Post by: Bogie on July 11, 2007, 12:13:28 PM
Gitcherself a cheapo computer UPS on sale sometime. Plug it in next to your circuit breaker box, and plug a small lamp with a small CFL in it, and just leave it on.
I still can't find a flashlight when I need one, but now I don't need to find one...
Post by: Paddy on July 11, 2007, 12:14:01 PM
Quote
I'm thinking HTG could economize even more if he just walked around with a solitary candle or oil lamp at night. That's all he really needs..
How about one of these? He wouldn't have to worry about buying lightbulbs. And it's water resistant down to 100ft!
Post by: Gewehr98 on July 11, 2007, 12:22:17 PM
Quote
Oh, and a moderately expensive, but worth every penny when you need it tip...
Gitcherself a cheapo computer UPS on sale sometime. Plug it in next to your circuit breaker box, and plug a small lamp with a small CFL in it, and just leave it on.
Gitcherself a cheapo computer UPS on sale sometime. Plug it in next to your circuit breaker box, and plug a small lamp with a small CFL in it, and just leave it on.
That's a darned good idea! I'm always grabbing a flashlight when the power goes out at night, and there are UPS units all over this house. Matter of fact, I just re-batteried a big APC 800RT UPS to keep my CPAP going when the power fails, and plugged the cordless phone base, clock radio, and NOAA weather radio into it as well.
There's a small UPS powering the commo rack in my laundry room, and it's right next to the circuit breaker box. I've got a spare candelabra-type CFL bulb and light fixture sitting around somewhere...
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on July 11, 2007, 07:40:16 PM
I've been playing with numbers on a calculator (long car ride, nothing better to do). It turns out that it is possible for CFLs to reduce your electric bill by 15% as Mike claims...
...but only if your home was using 6.3 times more electric lighting than the typical American home.
Rereading the thread, it seems that Bogie claims 60+ bulbs in his home. Mike claims 47 in a "craptastic" tiny condo (perhaps he should come check out my apartment, it would give him a new appreciation for craptastic and tiny. Only 13 lightbulbs in Casa de Roland and still perfectly comfortable and well-lit. But I digress.)
I'm out of town right now, staying with my mother in her new condo. 2400 SF, 3 stories, nice and big and luxurious. The light bulb count here 36. And the only reason it's that high is because my mother has lots and lots of lamps and desklights and such. Ya see, she needs gobs of extra] light because she has really bad eyesight. This place is lit up so brightly that you could see it from low orbit. And still only 33 bulbs. Honestly, I don't think I could stuff Bogie's 60+ lightbulbs into this house if I tried. There simply isn't anywhere useful to put them.
Anyway, coming back to my original point. You do save some wattage by using CFLs. But that savings is utterly trumped by the fact that you guys seem to be using so gawdawful much light. Instead of switching to CFLs, simply cutting back to the American average usage would have saved you 50% more than your switch to CFLs saved you.
But hey, what do I know? CFLs rule!
Post by: Bogie on July 12, 2007, 06:12:51 AM
Quote
my upstairs office: 2
Housepest room: 6 (which are never used... 5 of them belong to ugly lamps I have not thrown out, and one in the ceiling)
Bedroom: 5 (three in the ceiling fixture, two lamps)
Master Bath: 3
Housepest Bath: 4
Kitchen: 6 (and a 4' tuber I put over the sink)
Living room: 6 (4 in the ceiling fan, two lamps)
Stairs downstairs 1 (incandescent on a dim circuit)
Downstairs bath: 4 (1 incandescent on a dim circuit)
Laundry: 2
Hallway, storage, panel room: 3
Bad Teenager Room: 3 (all in the ceiling)
Bunker: 4 CF in ceiling, 4 tuber above my desk, 2 lamps on desk and bookshelves, 2 flanking movie screen, 2 on bar
Garage: 2 CFLs, 5 track lights with CFLs, and two 2 tuber shoplights
Outside: 1 in porch light, 2 HD inc bulbs in garage lights, 2 inc floods in the back yard
Housepest room: 6 (which are never used... 5 of them belong to ugly lamps I have not thrown out, and one in the ceiling)
Bedroom: 5 (three in the ceiling fixture, two lamps)
Master Bath: 3
Housepest Bath: 4
Kitchen: 6 (and a 4' tuber I put over the sink)
Living room: 6 (4 in the ceiling fan, two lamps)
Stairs downstairs 1 (incandescent on a dim circuit)
Downstairs bath: 4 (1 incandescent on a dim circuit)
Laundry: 2
Hallway, storage, panel room: 3
Bad Teenager Room: 3 (all in the ceiling)
Bunker: 4 CF in ceiling, 4 tuber above my desk, 2 lamps on desk and bookshelves, 2 flanking movie screen, 2 on bar
Garage: 2 CFLs, 5 track lights with CFLs, and two 2 tuber shoplights
Outside: 1 in porch light, 2 HD inc bulbs in garage lights, 2 inc floods in the back yard
Are you sure you counted everything?
Or just lamps?
Casa Bogus is 1500 feet on the first floor, with equivalent area in the basement. The Bunker is approx. 17x34 in size.
My upstairs office has a ceiling light, and a desk light.
We're gonna leave the housepest room out of it - one bulb in a ceiling light, but it's got a few lamps in it, since it's sorta storage.
The ceiling fixture in the master bedroom holds three bulbs, and there's a lamp on each side of the bed.
The master bathroom has three bulbs above the sink.
The housepest bathroom has four.
The kitchen has a pair of three bulb fixtures.
The living room has four in the ceiling fan (floods), and two lamps.
There's a light for the stairs down to The Bunker.
The downstairs bath has three above the sink, and one in the ceiling at the end of a short hallway.
The laundry room has two ceiling fixtures. There's also a big fluorescent trouble light hanging in there that I use sometimes.
There's a hallway next to the Bad Teenager room - light in it, and it goes to the Storage Under The Stairs, lit by one bulb, and the electric panel, lit by another.
The bad teenager room has a 3 bulb fixture in the ceiling.
The Bunker has four CFLs in ceiling fixtures, along with a four-tuber. There are two lamps on the desk and credenza, and two lamps flanking the screen. Two others are on the bar.
The garage has a 5-can track light, two CFLs, and a pair of two tuber shop lights.
Outside, I've got two lights flanking the garage, one over the porch, and two floods in the rear over the deck.
Now, go back and count again.
Post by: K Frame on July 12, 2007, 06:44:33 AM
I never claimed that my townhouse (not a condo) is tiny.
I distinctly said it is AVERAGE sized.
Also, in my home, 15% energy consuption is roughly 150 to 190 kwhr a month. I have no conceptual clue how you arrived at your estimation that I'd have to use over 6.3 times the average electrical consumption of the average home.
Based on my previous list, I added up the wattages of the incandescents I replaced, 1,440 watts, as compared to the CFLs that took their place, 344 total watts.
I've also watched, very closely, my average electrical bills over the several years in which I've replaced these bulbs.
Heating system is the same. Until recently, the TV and refrigerator were the same. My usage patterns are roughly the same. And yet, I've pared approximately 15% off my average monthly electrical usage, and the ONLY thing that has changed to any great deal are my light bulbs.
So, I'm still not certain what your big stick in the ass is about CFLs and your apparent belief that they are evil incarnate.
Oh, by the way, regarding payback periods...
I just bought a new refrigerator that uses about 560 Kwhr a year.
The old one used just shy of 150 kwhr a MONTH.
Based on price I pay for power, it's going to take about 4 years for the new fridge to repay the investment.
I guess that was a really stupid thing to do, right?
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on July 12, 2007, 10:35:03 AM
I think saving power is a good idea, all else being equal, and best I can tell I'm an order of magnitude better at that than you are. Not sure where you got the idea that I think saving electricityit would be stupid. Targeting an inefficient refrigerator for energy savings would actually be a pretty sensible, far more so than switching to CFLs.
I find it peculiar that you seem to be so conscientious about your utility bill, while at the same time you appear to use an awful lot of power for lighting your home. I really don't care how much electricity you use or how you use it. It's simply an inconsistency that piqued my interest at a time when didn't have much else to occupy myself with.
I dispute the fact that the average American home will save a meaningful amount of electricity by switching to CFLs. The numbers just don't justify those claims. CFLs do provide some savings, perhaps a few bucks a month. But a few bucks a month is nothing to write home about, especially when it costs a couple hundred dollars to switch a house over to CFLs.
It takes perhaps 3 to 5 years to break even on CFLs, depending on your electric rates and your bulb selection. It's entirely possible that, if you were to switch to CFLS today, those CFLs would be obsoleted by better technology (LEDs, perhaps) before you've managed to recoup their initial expense.
Y'all have been going on about the wonders of CFLs as if they're some sort of miracle invention. Sorry, fellas, they ain't.
Post by: Bogie on July 12, 2007, 12:54:36 PM
My newer CFLs are coming up on 3 years, with the rest being older.
(BTW, very few are on all the time...).
I think most of them cost around $15/6 or $15/8... Let's just call it $2.50 a pop...
Let's give 60 watt 840 lumen incandescent bulbs a theoretical life of one thousand hours. And a cost of $0.90 (per Office Depot for GE Soft White 60 watters - first web site I clicked). Works out to 9 cents per hundred hours, just for the bulb.
A GE Energy Smart bulb goes 900 lumens, and lasts 10,000 hours. Runs on 15 watts.
So we say that it costs $2.50 for the bulb, or $0.025 per hundred hours.
Lets say you've got a ceiling fixture in your living room. It's on 4 hours/day. In 25 days, that's 100 hours. In 250 days, you've got a burnout incandescent. After 750 days (3 incandescents at $0.90 each = $2.70), or about two years, you're ahead on the CF bulb cost. Not counting the electricity, which is about 1/4 of the incandescent.
Post by: Gewehr98 on July 12, 2007, 05:52:45 PM
You intrigued me with that "average American home" statement, so I went to the DOE website to research it further.
I was surprised to find the Home Energy Saver calculator page, so I plugged in my home's square footage, number of windows, number of refrigerators, and number of adults living there.
http://hes.lbl.gov/
DOE says I should expect to pay $1,700/year, or $141/month, for what I consume. That's the so-called American Average, for where I live and what lives here. That doesn't even take into account the fact I have two shift workers in the house, 6 computers, a 42" plasma, 3 32" CRT televisions, and a reloading bench, hobby machine shop, and graphics/vinyl business running in the garage.
By switching over to CFL in all those places, I've reduced my electric bill a couple hundred kilowatt/hours per month. Throttling back the plasma TV and setting the computers to Standby or Hibernate netted additional gains, to the point that I've reduced my monthly kilowatt/hours from 1450 to 1100. That shaved about $35.00/month off my utility bill, and I'm not done yet with my tweaking of lighting and the solar/electric off-grid supplementing.
So no, it's not a "light fetish". It's a reality of living and existing, because I can't stuff 4 adults, 2 big dogs, and a home business into an efficiency apartment and give each person a flashlight, nor would I want to.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on July 12, 2007, 07:34:57 PM
It estimates that Mom spends $94 a year on lighting. This is reasonable. At $.07 per kWh that's about 3.7 kWh per day. Mom could burn a dozen 60W bulbs for 5 hours a day. Lighting her home costs $8 per month.
Let's say she replaced her incandescents with CFLs. That'd cut the energy usage down to about $24 a year, or $2 per month. Monthly savings would be $6.
I am understandably unimpressed.
Post by: Firethorn on July 12, 2007, 08:51:21 PM
I am understandably unimpressed.
Like what others have been stating, there are reasons to use CFLs besides energy savings. I personally love that I've never had to replace the suckers.
Sure, I've moved some around for balancing (too much light here, not enough there), but when I was using incandescent I was constantly having to replace bulbs.
Besides, $6/month savings from using CFL pays for a bulb each month. Then you figure that each CFL will, on average, last through 10 long life* incandescent lights.
It's certainly nothing to run to the store and replace all your running incandescents, but merely picking up a pack of flourescents rather than a new pack of filiment bulbs will result in energy savings and eventually fewer bulb changes. At least for the vast majority of people.
If you're bugged by the light, try some different 'colors'. They have soft, warm, daylight**, premium color ones, etc...
*Trivia point: Long life bulbs are less energy efficient than standard bulbs, unless you want to increase the cost of making them.
**I work shift a lot, I like my daylight bulbs.
Post by: Bogie on July 12, 2007, 08:57:21 PM
After two years, if you're buying the things in the minibulk packs, they're free.