CFL's not a bright idea

[John Cuthber]

OK, so the auditor is overzealous.

The rest was largely drivel.

Did you notice, for example that, while they added on the mercury released during the manufacture of the CFL they didn't do that for the incandescent?

[swansont]

http://www.richsoil.com/CFL-fluorescent-light-bulbs.jsp

From the site you linke to

 

The new law coming out that bans incandescent light bulbs, doesn't exactly ban incandescent. It just bans lights that have the light per watt that a standard incandescent has. So it looks like the next generation of incandescent will be more efficient.

 

Funny that when I pointed this out you said "These are both essentially LIES !!!"

 

Why are you linking to a site that lies (according to you) in support of your position?

[Anders Hoveland]

I thought we have already settled this. While the law in the USA does not specifically mention incandescent bulbs, I don't think there is any doubt that it was designed to ban incandescent bulbs. The law will not allow any incandescent bulb currently in existence. And there is plenty of scientific reason to doubt that such a bulb will ever be available. Incandescent bulbs have been around for over 100 years, and have changed little since the start. If it was so easy to get better efficiency from them, then one wonders why there have been no real improvements after all these years. Even if scientists did manage to develop a such a drastically more efficient incandescent bulb, there is a good chance it may be ridiculously expensive.

 

And I still want to mention that an LED bulb that can replace the old 100 Watt bulbs with the same light output (behind a regular lampshade) is still not commercially available. There is only one brand being sold that can replace a 70 Watt bulb, and some consumers have complained that its quality of light leaves much to be desired, not to mention its very high price. LED bulbs may likely improve, and the prices may likely fall, but the question is how much? We cannot be entirely sure. And how long will all this take? Is it really a good idea to be banning the main alternative so soon?

 

 

You want to see what women think about the new energy saving bulbs already? Just read throught the comments section here: http://www.classiccasualhome.com/2011/03/changing-light-bulbs.html

 

Those "energy saving" replacement bulbs are just not the same, and have had numerous problems. If they were such an improvement and actually saved consumers money, the government would not have to ban the old alternative, would they? No, consumers have tried the new bulbs, and many have come to the conclusion that they just don't like them.

Edited November 8, 2012 by Anders Hoveland

[John Cuthber]

"The law will not allow any incandescent bulb currently in existence. And there is plenty of scientific reason to doubt that such a bulb will ever be available. "

Nope, halogen lamps are incandescent and available: and they are efficient enough to be legal.

The thing is that they are only marginally more efficient than ordinary tungsten lamps.

[Anders Hoveland]

Nope, halogen lamps are incandescent and available: and they are efficient enough to be legal.

 

The laws, which have already been made, are still in the process of phasing into effect. Those halogens will not be allowed under the law that will come into effect in 2020.

 

In addition, the light from replacement halogen bulbs is not quite the same as the ordinary incandescent bulbs. The light can feel a little more glaring. And there is also a unique safety hazard if the bulb breaks, because of the extremely hot inner capsule that could potentially explode, causing burns or potentially increasing the risk of fire. I remember some of the old exposed halogen floor lamps occasionally caused a fire hazard.

http://articles.latimes.com/2000/mar/27/local/me-13253

 

I just went to a sauna at a local gym, and (I could tell by the off-looking color) they were using CFL bulbs in the above fixture. The sauna is heated by electric resistance elements, so using "energy efficient" bulbs makes absolutely no sense. With all that heat in the sauna, the lifetime of those spiral bulbs are probably also compromised.

 

And remember, just because you read about some new better light bulb in the news does not mean it is actually going to become available any time soon. Here is a typical example: Right before one of the energy efficieny laws was to be voted on, GE made a big press release that they were going to make an incandescent bulb that was drastically more efficien, it was in the newspapers:

http://www.environmentalleader.com/2008/12/01/ge-suspends-development-of-high-efficiency-incandescent-bulbs/

But then GE eventually announced that they were going to abandon the project:

talleader.com/2008/12/01/ge-suspends-development-of-high-efficiency-incandescent-bulbs/

[Anders Hoveland]

Nope, halogen lamps are incandescent and available: and they are efficient enough to be legal.

 

The laws, which have already been made, are still in the process of phasing into effect. Those halogens will not be allowed under the law that will come into effect in 2020.

 

In addition, the light from replacement halogen bulbs is not quite the same as the ordinary incandescent bulbs. The light can feel a little more glaring. While the brilliant whiter color of halogens is often a good thing, there are some situations where someone may prefer the more yellowish warm relaxing feeling of the regular incandescents (I have tried a "warm white" colored LED, it is just not the same). And there is also a unique safety hazard if the halogen bulb breaks, because of the extremely hot inner capsule that could potentially explode, causing burns or potentially increasing the risk of fire. I remember some of the old exposed halogen floor lamps occasionally caused a fire hazard.

http://articles.lati.../local/me-13253

 

I just went to a sauna at a local gym, and (I could tell by the off-looking color) they were using CFL bulbs in the above fixture. The sauna is heated by electric resistance elements, so using "energy efficient" bulbs makes absolutely no sense. With all that heat in the sauna, the lifetime of those spiral bulbs are probably also compromised.

 

And remember, just because you read about some new better light bulb in the news does not mean it is actually going to become available any time soon. Here is a typical example: Right before one of the energy efficieny laws was to be voted on, GE made a big press release that they were going to make an incandescent bulb that was drastically more efficient, it was in the newspapers:

http://www.environme...ndescent-bulbs/

 

Many online newspapers and bloggs were citing these HEI bulbs (which didn't even exist yet) in their arguments in favor of the efficiency mandate.

Indeed, it seems that Edison still has some fight left in him, and not just with halogens. General Electric Co., which has a significant stake in the incandescent business, is working on a high-efficiency incandescent (HEI) lamp, aiming for an approximate doubling of average incandescent efficacy to 30 lumens/watt by late 2009 or early 2010, as Michael Petras, vice president of GE Consumer & Industrial, told Associated Press in December 2007. He added the HEI would reach 60 lumens per watt in the second generation.

http://www.ecmag.com...&articleID=8944

But then GE eventually announced that they were going to abandon the project:

http://www.treehugge...candescent.html

So much for that! Just goes to show you can't believe everything you hear about what the future holds.

Edited November 8, 2012 by Anders Hoveland

[John Cuthber]

"The light can feel a little more glaring."

Meanwhile, back in the world of science...

 

"I just went to a sauna at a local gym, and (I could tell by the off-looking color) they were using CFL bulbs in the above fixture. The sauna is heated by electric resistance elements, so using "energy efficient" bulbs makes absolutely no sense. With all that heat in the sauna, the lifetime of those spiral bulbs are probably also compromised."

Welcome to this week's episode of solving the wrong problem.

It's dumb to use electricity to heat things because it's inefficient.

If they heated the room sensibly then saving the electrical power wasted by a tungsten lamp would still be valid.

[swansont]

It's dumb to use electricity to heat things because it's inefficient.

If they heated the room sensibly then saving the electrical power wasted by a tungsten lamp would still be valid.

From a physics standpoint it isn't, but from an economic one that's true. Gas heating is generally cheaper than electric.

[Anders Hoveland]

It's dumb to use electricity to heat things because it's inefficient.

If they heated the room sensibly then saving the electrical power wasted by a tungsten lamp would still be valid.

While you may think that burning fuel to directly provide heat is more efficient, something to consider is that the smoke being vented off carries away much of the heat. Fuel-burning power plants can capture a larger percentage of the heat, although I am sure that factoring in the inefficiencies in generating and transmitting the electric power, burning the fuel where you need the heat is still more efficient.

 

But there are still many situations were it is more practical and efficient to use an electric heater. For example, less energy is used by a portable electric heater to heat just one room than turning on the gas heater that warms my entire house. An incandescent bulb is partly a radiant heater, making it in some ways somewhat more efficient than regular convection space heaters. It does not give off a large quantity of heat (my little portable electric heater is 5000 watts, for comparison, but any extra heat is more than welcome. It gets very cold here in the evenings, and I do not really turn on my lights any other time. As far as I am concerned in my house, my incandescent bulbs are 100% efficient. Even if the quality of LED light was exactly the same as incandescent, I still would not really see any reason to switch.

 

What I just can't understand is why incandescent light bulbs are being phased out in northern Europe and Canada. How much energy is this really going to save people?

More than 2,700 people are dying each year in England and Wales because they cannot afford to keep their homes warm, according to an official study:

http://www.dailymail...ting-bills.html

Edited November 8, 2012 by Anders Hoveland

[JohnB]

And my Dining room one has blown again....

[John Cuthber]

While you may think that burning fuel to directly provide heat is more efficient, something to consider is that the smoke being vented off carries away much of the heat.

 

Bluff

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condensing_boiler#Efficiency

[swansont]

The light bulb winter heating effect is a red herring. A 100 W incandescent dumps 100 W into the space. An alternative bulb that is twice as efficient dumps 50W, but if you want more heat you can turn on another bulb, or any other 50W source, and then you're back to 100 W.

[Anders Hoveland]

The light bulb winter heating effect is a red herring. A 100 W incandescent dumps 100 W into the space. An alternative bulb that is twice as efficient dumps 50W, but if you want more heat you can turn on another bulb, or any other 50W source, and then you're back to 100 W.

But there is not much point in switching if the evenings are cold most of the year. The CFLs can give off UV, which may be undesirable in many situations, and (most) CFLs give off an inferior quality of light. Again, the better quality of light, the more expensive it is.

 

This misguided notion that everyone switching to CFLs will reduce energy consumption is based on a number of false assumptions. The big 3 light bulb manufacturers were the ones pushing this, and all the gulible environmentalists jumped on board without asking questions.

 

There are quite a number of common situations where switching to CFL bulbs will result in more energy consumption, not less. An efficiency mandate was a terrible ill-thought out idea. But then again it was drafted to increase profits, not save the environment. The light bulb manufacturers essentially drafted the legislation. GE spent more money on political lobbying than they paid in taxes.

They are trying to go after China and Mexico because that is where all of these less expensive incandescent bulbs are made.The real secret to the light bulb phaseout is government sanctioned monopolies. Guess who holds the patents on LED technology? Yes, there are a number of very small companies (with limited research budgets) but none of them will be able to ramp up production anywhere near what the big 3 will.GE, Phillips, and Osram Sylvania stand to make enormous profits once they have succeeded in getting the government to take consumer's other options off the table.

Edited November 17, 2012 by Anders Hoveland

[swansont]

But there is not much point in switching if the evenings are cold most of the year.

Which isn't the case for almost all of the US, so this is moot.

 

GE spent more money on political lobbying than they paid in taxes.

No cite? I'm calling BS on this. There's a series of well-known stories about how they paid no federal income tax in 2010 (and/or thereabouts), but a) that's not all the tax they pay, b) it was due to write-offs from huge banking losses from the economic meltdown, and c) all of that was after the legislation passed, so it's moot. So show me how little GE paid in taxes in 2007. (Taxes, of course, means all taxes: including state and local tax, as well as payroll taxes.)

 

They paid around $20 million for all of their lobbying efforts that year.

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000125

[Anders Hoveland]

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

 

[John Cuthber]

OK, maybe it's poor translation but the German "expert" says that light is not bright, it's diffuse and that means the colour rendering is awful".

Brightness depends on the power as much as anything so, if it's not bright enough, use a brighter bulb. It will still not take as much power as an ordinary tungsten light.

Almost all the ordinary tungsten lights I have seen have had frosted glass bulbs because people prefer the diffused light. So she is citing, as a problem, something that was thought of as a solution before. That's clearly nonsense.

 

It's not the diffusion that gives poor colour rendering, it's the choice of phosphor.

Wouldn't it be better to get an "expert" who actually knows what they are talking about?

 

And that was just the first 32 seconds of a 28 minute video.

Is it worth me watching the rest of it?

 

On a final note, were all the Germans (who, btw, qualify for a capital letter) asked or is the video a reflection of what some fraction of them think?

Do we know what the majority view is?

Since Germany is notionally a democracy, if most Germans didn't want this, how did it happen?