Compact Fluorescent Bulbs: NOT a Bright Idea!

Several countries in the world are currently in the process of making ordinary incandescent light bulbs illegal. The USA, Australia, and the UK, have all already had laws come into effect that limit the manufacture or sale of certain wattages of the bulbs. Argentina has already made the sale of incandescent bulbs illegal. In the USA, manufacture of the 100 and 70 watt bulbs are already illegal, and manufacture of both the 60 and 40 watts will, under the current law, be also be illegal in 2014.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_incandescent_light_bulbs


______ compact fluorescent bulb ______________ ordinary incandescent bulb _________________

The whole intention of these laws are to reduce the consumption of energy. But does this really make sense? There are, for example, other ways to reduce energy consumption, such as just taxing electricity.

The manufacture of the bulb itself consumes energy. It takes several times as much energy to produce a compact fluorescent bulb as an incandescent bulb. Furthermore, because of the use of potentially toxic mercury in fluorescent bulbs and the stringent environmental regulations, manufacturers in the USA are unnable to compete with Chinese manufacturers. So whereas around half the old incandescent bulbs are still produced in the USA, all of the new compact fluorescent lights are produced in China. The energy consumption for manufacturing in China is much more wasteful and less efficient than in the USA. The fact that the Chinese government subsidizes the prices of electric power does not help. 68.7% of the electric power in China is produced from coal power plants, which are often much less efficient more polluting than those in the USA. Indeed, China is the largest consumer of coal in the world. The coal power plants in China use bituminous coal which, while cheaper than other grades of coal, also has a much higher sulfur content leading to acid rain.

The mere production of the new compact fluorescent bulbs consumes 1.7 kiloWatts of power per bulb. This is not electric power from the USA, but rather electric power from China that results in much more pollution and carbon dioxide emissions. So the new laws are not only resulting in more pollution, but also the loss of more American jobs.

Then there is cost. A typical compact fluorescent bulb costs three times as much as an incandescent bulb. While suppossedly fluorescent bulbs can last 8 times longer than the old incandescent bulbs, in practice most of the compact fluorescent bulbs coming from China are of inferior quality, and it is my experience that they only tend to last between 1.5 to 3 times as long. Their rated lifespans will be reduced even more if put on a dimmer switch. If you go to the store and find that compact fluorescent bulbs are the same price as the old incandescent bulbs, it is not because they are actually cheaper. Rather, the taxpayers are indirectly subsidizing the difference of cost through grants to local utility companies. Compact fluorescent bulbs also are intended to be specially disposed of, because of their mercury content. Taking the trouble to properly recycle the bulbs and prevent the glass from breaking also adds cost, trouble, and indirectly consumes more energy.

Now to bring up the subject of energy efficiency. It is widely claimed that compact fluorescent bulbs use 70% less energy than ordinary incandescent bulbs. But this is only in terms of light output. It actuality, incandescent bulbs are essentially 100% efficient. It is just that most of the energy output is in the form of heat rather than light. Because of geographic distribution, most American households use more energy heating their homes than air conditioning. So it makes little sense to be using fluorescent lighting for most of these households. Why go to the trouble of trying to avoid electric power from being converted to heat in the lighting while simultaneously separately consuming electric power to generate heat? It makes no sense. Even in warmer locations, lights are typically used most in the night time, when it also happens to be colder. Even most homes in the "sun belt" have their heaters turned on at night in the winter. So compact fluroescent bulbs, in many situations, will not reduce the consumption of energy. They will produce less heat, and people will just turn up the setting on their heaters to compensate.

 

A person that wants less of a carbon footprint should be less of a consumer as opposed to mandating nonsense policies upon others. Much like the concept of rich people sponsoring the concept of paying more taxes. A person can ELECT to pay more taxes voluntarily. A government mandate isn't necessary unless the WAD wants others to foot the bill.

 

LEDs are worse.

They don't cost $35 each for nothing.

 

Actually the main reason I oppose compact fluorescent bulbs is the unpleasant light they give off, which makes it more difficult for me to concentrate under. The pinkish tint and glare are somewhat stress-inducing to me.

I do not really have any objection to the quality of light from LED lights. But LED lights are so EXPENSIVE. A 40-watt equivalent LED light costs 40 euros! At these prices, I just cannot afford them. But LED lighting does have very long life spans.

 

I just found this from a pro-CFL cite:

What a lame defense! Looks like they are really trying hard to counter the anti-CFL movement. Even if the effect truely is "negligible", one could logically argue that the potential energy saving themselves from CFL are also "negligible" compared to the energy consumption of the heating system. In any case, this does nothing to adress the original argument itself: that it is pointless to try to prevent electric power from being converted to heat while one is also using energy to heat the home at the same time. I suppose an argument could be made if only using a wood burning fireplace to heat the home (biofuel), but how many commonly people do that?

All heat tends to rise upward toward the ceilling. A heating system typically has a fan that pushes the air around. This movement of air will also push around the air that is already near the ceilling. And if the air near the ceilling is already warm, it will just prevent more of the warm air from the heater from also similarly rising and being "wasted".


Most Americans are against the current mandates:
http://www.homepagedaily.com/Pages/...ns-oppose-cfl-mandates--by-chris-baskind.aspx

 

85 percent of the compact fluorescent bulbs produced in the world are made in China. What about American jobs?

 

We can't have mercury in the workplace - safety regulations.....

I installed 2, 10 bulb fixtures in my master bathroom. I put 60W bulbs in each (1200W total). I since switched them out for CCFL's, and the first couple of time I turn the lights on I felt cold. My body had got used to the blast of infared, that it noticed the lack of it.

The right bulb will be the LED. Instant on (some of my CCFL's take 3+ minutes to reach full brightness), higher efficiency than all but high pressure sodium (for now, the theorical limit in 100% for LED's). They can be dimmed with no change in color, and by making white light with colored bulbs, can create any color light you want.

Unfortunately, LED's are hugely more expensive. Enough more, that their cost is not offset by their life span or power usasge compared to incanedscent. They have been around for 30+ years, so all the simple cost reductions have been realized.

The efficiency of the LED is related to it's temperature, that is why they incorporate aluminum fins ($$) to shed the heat.

 

Few CFLs have the service life of conventional fluorescents.

Cheap Chinese junk - forced on US consumers by the government.

 

All the 100 Watt normal incandescent light bulbs have already disappeared from the store shelves in California.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/lightbulbs/lightbulb_faqs.html

These laws are ignorant and intrussive. Just one more thing the government is telling us what we can and cannot do in our personal lives. I predict more people will soon begin to vote for libertarian candidates.

 

Oh nice. Start with a lie and proceed from there.

US regulations do not ban incandescents. They do set an efficiency standard for lighting in terms of lumens per watt. It's true many old incandescents can't meet that standard, but some newer incandescents can.

Are "around half the old incandescent bulbs are still produced in the USA"? Nope, you've been fibbing again. The last major US incandescent plant closed in 2010.

While it's true in an absolute sense that the energy used to make one CFL is greater than one incandescent, when you amortize over the life of the bulb the CFL comes out on top. In other words, if energy-of-manufacture is what you're worried about, CFLs win over the long haul, because you need to buy more incandescents. And that also neglects the fact that manufacturing energy amounts to only about 2% of the total energy used by the bulb in its lifetime. Disposal costs are even less than that, by a wide margin: in other words, trivial.

US manufacturers are unable to compete with China because of cost, not because of mercury.

Why should I trust your personal, anecdotal experience with CFL lifespan over that of Consumer Reports? They agree that CFLs last seven to ten times longer than incandescents. I put the first CFL in my home in 1988, and it lasted 15 years. I'm still working on the second CFL in that lamp after 9 years.

Most CFLs aren't dimmable, so if you're using a dimmer switch in the circuit, you're using it incorrectly. Try going to an LED instead: they're as efficient as a CFL but last even longer: 25,000 hours.

Regarding the heat of incandescents allegedly not being wasted: nice try, but it won't wash. The extra heat you get in the winter is more than offset by the extra cooling you need in the summer (because it's more efficient to heat a home than to cool it.)

 

If the environmentalists want to put a tax on each unit of carbon dioxide produced, they can do it. Then the electric utilities would pass on these costs to consumers.

But why is the government telling consumers what they can and cannot buy? Some consumers prefer the normal incandescent bulbs, and want a nice bright 100 Watt bulb to read with. Stop telling other people what to do! Why should I not be allowed to have just one 100 Watt normal light bulb turned on in my house, while someone else is allowed to leave on 15 incandescent "high efficiency" bulbs they are not even using in their house? Not to mention leaving a computer on, which takes 400 Watts. Perhaps the environmentalists should require all the computers to have automatic devices that shut the computer off if not being used longer than 20 minutes?

You people are ignorant and need to stop enforcing your well-intentioned but ridiculous regulations on everyone else.
Most of the pollution is coming from China. You should focus your efforts on trade regulations (and taxes or tariffs) that take pollution into account.

The 100-watt incandescent light bulb is already being eliminated this year, while the 75-watt bulb is terminated in 2013, soon followed by the 60-watt light bulb.

I am a supporter of environmentalism, but I am beginning to see more and more how the other side views the progressive's policies and intrussive and stupid.

 

US regulations do not ban incandescents. They do set an efficiency standard for lighting in terms of lumens per watt. It's true many old incandescents can't meet that standard, but some newer incandescents can.[/QUOTE]
The "newer ones" are halogen bulbs, and are more expensive with a different quality of light!



If the environmentalists want to put a tax on each unit of carbon dioxide produced, they can do it. Then the electric utilities would pass on these costs to consumers.

But why is the government telling consumers what they can and cannot buy? Some consumers prefer the normal incandescent bulbs, and want a nice bright 100 Watt bulb to read with. Stop telling other people what to do! Why should I not be allowed to have just one 100 Watt normal light bulb turned on in my house, while someone else is allowed to leave on 15 incandescent "high efficiency" bulbs they are not even using in their house? Not to mention leaving a computer on, which takes 400 Watts. Perhaps the environmentalists should require all the computers to have automatic devices that shut the computer off if not being used longer than 20 minutes?

You people are ignorant and need to stop enforcing your well-intentioned but ridiculous regulations on everyone else.
Most of the pollution is coming from China. You should focus your efforts on trade regulations (and taxes or tariffs) that take pollution into account.

The 100-watt incandescent light bulb is already being eliminated this year, while the 75-watt bulb is terminated in 2013, soon followed by the 60-watt light bulb.

I am a supporter of environmentalism, but I am beginning to see more and more how the other side views the progressive's policies and intrussive and stupid.

 

the environmentalists are fighting a war that has already been lost, as far as science is concerned the world is too damaged and the problem is systemic as long as humans are on-planet, short of terraforming this place at some future date when humanity has left for other worlds this planet cannot forever sustain the human race, the environmentalist is the modern scientific priesthood that people look to for hope that there lives are secure and life can be in harmony, recycle? sustainability? go green? catch phrases for an unattainable but quite inspiring philosophy.

 

Environmentalists keep talking about how humans are creating too much pollution, but do absolutely nothing about decreasing the human population.
The more people there are, the more everyone will be expected to conserve and ration. If there are too many humans for us all to use regular incandescent light bulbs, I say there are just too many humans.

 

I'd introduce progressive taxation on energy and water use. Then install meters which show cost in each kitchen, let people see what they're wasting and they'll stop.

 

Wow, you'd introduce taxation. That's a shock, isn't it? Is there anything you wouldn't raise taxes on?

Liberals believe the tax code exists to force you to behave the way they want. Of course, this tax increase wouldn't effect people like Al Gore who want my "carbon footprint" to be invisible while his...well, you know. So people with money could use all the energy and water they want and deadbeats can use all they want but working taxpayers will pay more.

A consideration. In our town, it wasn't water we were short of. It was treated water. And, all water going to a home was treated. You washed your car, flushed your toilet, watered you lawn all with treated water. I tried to put in a system so bath water would go to my lawn instead of to the wastwater treatment plant and was told it was illegal.

Compact floursescent bulbs aren't a bright idea but it's just so darned much fun to force people to do what you want that we can't help ourselves. I can remember when color telev8ision came out. The first color television I saw in the wild was when I went into the military and Walt Disney was in color and Ponderosa was in color. Gradually, more and more programs went to color and before long all televisions being sold were color. compare that to the move for digital. It's mandatory both on producers and consurmers and for the poor folks who can't afford the mandate, taxpayers will pay for their digital telvision pleasure. Force is how liberals function.

 

I see where the new DoE-approved LED 60 watt bulbs will cost $60 each.

The consumer gets shafted again.

 

i don't know how anyone can say that. I have LED lights and they are not long lived. I think maybe they might be under optimum conditions and that excludes normal every day wear and tear.

 

More progressive taxation on individuals.

What a surprise.

 

For the same reason the government tells you that you can't urinate in the river. There is an external cost associated with that action that the actor himself does not pay but everyone else does. It's amazing to me how many on the right just don't get basic economics.

But hey, if you promise to work with me to get a carbon tax passed that fairly represents the external cost of fossil fuel use, I promise to work with you to eliminate the lighting regulations after the carbon tax comes into effect. Fair?

 

That's meaningless, since a power figure tells us nothing about the energy required to produce a bulb. Power is kilowatts, while energy will be in kilowatt-hours (or joules, ergs, BTUs, electron volts, calories, or kilotons of TNT).

You guys could all stockpile thousands of old incandescent bulbs and sell 'em off for a killing later. But I think you all know that on some level that you'd end up stuck with obsolete crap that no one will want. Look at the current demand for 10 mpg cars. Darn that intrusive big government, forcing those automakers to improve mileage!

And a 1.5 watt LED bulb (40 watt equiv) runs US$18 now. Got one at Fry's a couple weeks back. I'll see how long it last, this being the trial run.

 

Thank you, I needed a good laugh. Though I hope you are wrong, as I will still be fighting to preserve our planet, even for those that don't want it preserved.

 

Taxation might not be the most ideal, but it is far better than government regulations that force me to use a certain type of bulb that gives of light I do not like. In some areas even the flow of water that comes through shower facets is regulated! I have tried taking a shower with a "low-flow" shower facet, designed to "conseve water", and it is not pleasant.
http://mises.org/daily/2007

 

This is simply not true!

Incandescent bulbs are already in the process of becoming banned. The law, already passed, will demand regular fixture light bulbs must meet at least 45 lumens per Watt. It is practically impossible for incandescent, even halogen hulbs to meet this. A quartz halogen bulb (high-efficiency incandescent) typically produces 24 lumens per Watt, while even the high temperature halogen bulbs (which are not commonly available) only reach 35 lumens per Watt. So regular incandescent bulbs are essentially being banned.

If you do not believe me, go to your store and try to find any 100 Watt normal incandescent light for sale. The 70 Watt incandescent bulbs are already dissappearing from the shelves, and soon the 45 Watt ones will be banned also.

I am not aware of the existence of any "higher-efficiency" incandescent light bulbs that will be allowed under the law. If you know where I can buy incandescent bulbs with an efficiency over 45 lumens/Watt, please tell us all where to find them.

I am tired of people falsely claiming the bulbs will not be banned. The exact language of the law is extremely complicated and misleading, and it does not specifically mention that incandescents will be banned, but that is the effect of the law.

there are no "higher-efficiency" incandescent bulbs that will be available. They are essentially being banned. You have failed show that these alleged bulbs even exist, much less where we can buy them.


The "Similar bulbs will still be allowed" deceit

Consumers are deceived in many ways with the light bulb policy they are told will be so good for them. However, one should particularly note the main defence tactic that will be employed by American politicians and agencies, exactly like in Europe and Australia, when the governments there were faced with concerned citizens...

"We don't wan't to have to use the dim unsafe mercury-containing squiggly bulbs with their unnatural light!"
"Don't worry! Energy efficient incandescent light bulbs, similar to ordinary incandescent light bulbs, will still be allowed!"

To begin with,
Replacement Halogens have a whiter light type and like all replacement incandescents have constructional differences with simple regular bulbs, apart from costing much more for relatively small energy savings, which is why neither consumers or governments like them, since they have been around for a while now without being sold much.

Thereby that in the USA, as in the EU, all currently known incandescent replacement bulbs, Halogen or otherwise, will only temporarily be allowed. Only if they become as energy efficient as CFLs and LEDs would they be allowed:
Not just unlikely, but if it did occur, it would involve constructional compromise and cost that made them even more different from simple regular bulbs - notwithstanding that any such lighting, like all lighting, would of course have its own advantage too.

 

exactly Anders
just stick your hand above a radiator... convection means heat circulates from above rather than below
And many bulbs are at lower side-lamp levels anyway
The researched heat effect of incandescents (US, Canadian, EU references) http://ceolas.net/#li6x