Greenpeace petition for Ireland to ban inefficient lightbulbs

telecaster

I received an emailed newsletter from greenpeace today advising me off their online campaign encouraging Ireland to take a lead in banning inefficient lightbulbs.

I imagine most people on this forum will support it, so here's your chance:

LINK HERE

Antenna

Greenpeace page says: "Ireland currently has the highest energy consumption per household for lighting in the EU."

that's hardly much of a surprise considering our geographic position, having such a lack of daylight in the winter?

By all means encourage CFLs for applications where lighting is left on for long periods of time, but a total band on traditional bulbs is a nonsense?

One is better off using traditional bulbs for applications where lighting is only switched on for short periods of time - such as a storage area etc - A CFL's lifespan is greatly reduced by frequent switching - consider also the fact much more energy is required in producing CFLs compared to traditional bulbs - overall for some uses the benefits are outweighed by the drawbacks.

Some applications need immediate brightness (think of a doctor switching on a light to look at an X-ray), which CFLs, at present, do not provide.


The claimed energy saving of CFL use is effectively much less in countries of a colder climate (such as Ireland). Traditional bulbs use more energy, but all this extra energy is given off as heat. However with this heat source removed (by a change to CFLs) the central heating will be on more to maintain the status quo, the increased heating energy requirements will skew the figures greatly

Also unlike traditional bulbs, CFLs contain mercury - its bizarre that, whilst on the one hand the public is encouraged to use CFLs, there is at the same time no publicity about the vital need of appropriate disposal of these items.

Somnus

Wow... I was gonna sign it but this post ^ Has changed my mind...

Capt'n Midnight

I thought the Govt had already committed to phasing out incandescent light bulbs

slack

Hi,

I work for Greenpeace, and before I get into what CFL's are good or bad for, I wonna point out that the campaign is not about CFL lightbulbs. It's not even about incandescent lightbulbs. It's just about energy efficiency, which is about saving money and fighting climate change.

Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFL) are the most popular energy saving lightbulbs these days, but there's also LED and other technologies out there too. We're not advocating any technology in particular -- just high standards, so we don't waste energy.

The Wikipedia page on CFLs, and Greenpeace International's Lightbulbs Q&A page answer many of the concerns you've raised:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/climate-change/solutions/energy_efficiency/lightbulbs-q-and-a

Frankly, I think LED bulbs look much nicer and futuristic than the garden variety CFLs on the market... but there's even CFLs available in some shops already which come in all shapes and sizes and do all sorts of crazy stuff.

Waste management was been a headline issue in our discussions with the Irish government about making a lightbulbs law. CFLs do contain mercury, it's true, and so they need to be disposed of properly when they stop working. Same as mobile phones and all other electrical and electronic waste that contains heavy metals and other hazardous materials.

If the lightbulb law requires radical improvements in waste management and public awareness of toxics, then all the better! The environmental and public health movement will continue to campaign on both global warming and toxics.

Antenna wrote: »

Greenpeace page says: "Ireland currently has the highest energy consumption per household for lighting in the EU."

that's hardly much of a surprise considering our geographic position, having such a lack of daylight in the winter?

By all means encourage CFLs for applications where lighting is left on for long periods of time, but a total band on traditional bulbs is a nonsense?

One is better off using traditional bulbs for applications where lighting is only switched on for short periods of time - such as a storage area etc - A CFL's lifespan is greatly reduced by frequent switching - consider also the fact much more energy is required in producing CFLs compared to traditional bulbs - overall for some uses the benefits are outweighed by the drawbacks.

Some applications need immediate brightness (think of a doctor switching on a light to look at an X-ray), which CFLs, at present, do not provide.


The claimed energy saving of CFL use is effectively much less in countries of a colder climate (such as Ireland). Traditional bulbs use more energy, but all this extra energy is given off as heat. However with this heat source removed (by a change to CFLs) the central heating will be on more to maintain the status quo, the increased heating energy requirements will skew the figures greatly

Also unlike traditional bulbs, CFLs contain mercury - its bizarre that, whilst on the one hand the public is encouraged to use CFLs, there is at the same time no publicity about the vital need of appropriate disposal of these items.

Taildragon

I am leaning toward the opinion that a ban on incandescent lighting is an inappropriate way to address energy consumption.

As a (very) early adopter of CFL technology (I have one CFL that cost me in excess of €55 equivalent in 1997!), I had great hopes for the potential changes in energy consumption that appeared to be possible.

However, the goalposts have moved. Market forces have intervened, and CFLs are now largely manufactured in the far east by the lowest bidder - the reliability and longevity have plummeted IME, and I very much doubt that the environmental controls on their manufacture would pass European standards.

I am an alternative technology geek, and have struggled to find a way to feed CFLs in a truly efficient manner from an off-grid type of supply. I also have to admit that I dislike the light that they provide (and I have tried many, many types from different manufacturers); admittedly that is a personal bias.

The greatest argument, however, against a "world of CFLs" has to do with a concept known as "power factor". Simply put, a CFL of (say) 20 watts needs to be supplied from a source capable of up to 5 times that capacity. In other words, we would still need power stations capable of supplying the needs of incandescent bulbs.

LED lighting technology shows great promise, and does not suffer from the same drawbacks as CFL, but it has a long, long, way to go before it is a practical replacement for Mr. Swan and Mr. Edison's incandescent technology.

Thought provoking article here:
http://sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm

ircoha

First thanks to Taildragon for the wonderful link.

I spent the last 20minutes or so searching for a laymans explanation on power factor. The following is not too techy.
http://www.homeenergy.org/archive/hem.dis.anl.gov/eehem/93/931113.html#93111328

The article, penned in 1993, makes 2 interesting points.

They thought that they would have CFL's with suitable power factor electronics on board by 1994!

Including the ballast in the lamp like they do with most CFLs and the halogen GU10's is not the way to go as the ballast will normally last 3 to 4 times longer than the light generating part.
[The ballast is, in simple terms, all the extra crap you get in a CFL that u dont get with an incandecent bulb.]

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-lighting-ballast.htm

The final point is that excess heat shortens the life of the ballast so the longer life of the CFL's will not be reached when fitted with the ballast above the lamp.

I can personally vouch for that: when the fittings are in a standard lamp type set up they last much longer than in a ceiling.

ircoha

slack,

I was going to cut you some:), until I read this

Greenpeace page says: "Ireland currently has the highest energy consumption per household for lighting in the EU."

I would like to see how this number is crunched when u consider that the Nordic countries and SantaLand are in darkness for much longer than we are.

Are we that far behind them?

Capt'n Midnight

We should move to CET to give us the extra hour in the evenings in winter

other things to look at are PIR / Noise activated lights that turn off when not in use handy for security lamps though a one minute delay would be better

I can remember seeing drops of mercury in old fluorscent tubes, thankfully they don't use as much now and beryllium for the phosphors stopped back in the 50's

power factor is a red herring , one kettle would smooth out most of that, and besides it's possible to redesign the electronics to get arround that. PC's TVs hifi and all such electrical stuff has the same problem, motors like washing machines and power tools too.

slack

ircoha wrote: »

slack,

I was going to cut you some:), until I read this

Greenpeace page says: "Ireland currently has the highest energy consumption per household for lighting in the EU."

I would like to see how this number is crunched when u consider that the Nordic countries and SantaLand are in darkness for much longer than we are.

Are we that far behind them?

We got those stats from a European Commission source, published on the International Energy Agency website:

Source: "Residential Lighting Consumption and Saving Potential in the Enlarged EU", Paolo Bertoldi, European Commission DG JRC, https://www.iea.org/Textbase/work/2007/cfl/Bertoldi.pdf

Basically, it's because we have lots of light points per household in Ireland, plus we don't use energy saving lightbulbs enough.

(Ireland is "EI" on the charts and tables in that document... makes sense)

ircoha

Slack, thanks v much for the link: much obliged: need to look at it in detail.

In passing do you have any data on power consumption of central heating pumps and boilers please?

I found this on alarms
http://www.energyrating.gov.au/library/pubs/sb200415-burglaralarms.pdf

the site itself has loads

ircoha

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

I thought the Govt had already committed to phasing out incandescent light bulbs

yes but there are 4 committees looking at how many people will it take to change each bulb as if there are 2 many, the CO2 from the effort may exceed the lifetime reductions from the new cfls

The_Minister

Taildragon wrote: »

Thought provoking article here:
http://sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm

I know nothing about engineering, but from what I understood of that, he seems to be talking alot of sense, and many of his arguements seem reasonable. Is what he saying truthful, or is it like a Michael Moore film? (or an Al Gore one )

ircoha

I agree, as does the EU re power factor,

Power Factor (now under consideration: power shall not be less than
0.9 for the lamps claiming to be ‘High Power Factor’ or shall not be
less than 0.55 for all the other lamps)

from "Residential Lighting Consumption and Saving Potential in the Enlarged EU", Paolo Bertoldi, European Commission DG JRC, https://www.iea.org/Textbase/work/2007/cfl/Bertoldi.pdf

The problem is, as noted earlier in this post that there is some very crap CFLs around.
I will be keeping my icannies for the mo.

10-10-20

Commented to wrong thread...

Wertz

As someone who get's a chance to see the interiors of other people's houses, through my work, I can tell you straight off the bat why it is we have this figure for power usage for lighting; every new house I go into these days has a plethora of halogen downlighters dotted around each ceiling. In many cases this is throughout the house. I've seen average sized kitchens with 12 lights. Twelve.
...and because they're downlighters most of the reflected light is wasted.
Way back when, you'd have maybe 3-4 incan. bulbs at most in a room and in most cases it's be less than that. Also, not all of these may have been on at the same time....with the halogens that isn't the case....most people seem to put them all on (possibly because with less it's not bright enough). These same houses usually have a fair bit of "soft" lighting too; usually several incan. bulb lamp standard tucked in a corner festooned in fabric.

This trend isn't going away. Quite the opposite.
I realise that halogen lamps use slightly less actual wattage compared to normal bulbs but the point that homes have more than double the number kind of writes that off.

I have a big problem with CFL currently. Price is one; cheapest I can find them is aldi for around 4 quid. I can buy 30 incandesants for that. If you want to try and force people to use CFL then the price needs to come down further; subsidise if necessary.
Flicker is another. I'm very susceptible to fluroescent flicker, it gives me a headache in extreme cases. I've experienced this is friend's houses where a CFL is burning.
Last issue; the fact that it takes a fair bit of energy to kick start the fluoresence...in a house like mine, where we flick lights on and off as we move from room to room, this may in fact lead to more energy consumption....and as CFL's chance of failure rises with the number of times they're switched on/off, they may actually end up costing even more than they should.


Surely what's needed in the case of lighting V energy debate is better use of what lighting we have now.... to utilise all available natural light by fitting skylights or bigger windows in new homes/extensions. In the case of artificial lighting, more mirrors and reflective surfaces and other such measures to reduce the amount of actual light energy required to illuminate a room.

BTW a big concern for incandescent and halogen fans alike; tungsten is a relatively rare and finite resource and is almost impossible to reclaim from old bulbs. I don't think we're facing any sort of shortage for now, but it's something to keep in mind...

Taildragon

I'll apologise in advance to those not interested in the nuts & bolts of this stuff - this is tecchy:)

Maxim are a world leader in the area of power supply devices - their products are inside of all manner of electronic equipment (including many CFLs). Their "lab rats" have come up with a new product that appears to take the development of LED lighting one step closer to becoming a viable alternative to the incandescent bulb.

Edition 61 of the Maxim Engineering journal

Link: http://pdfserv.maxim-ic.com/en/ej/EJ61.pdf

10-10-20

Great link, thanks for that.
We should setup an elecrtonics forum...!

2 stroke

Yeah, that was a little too technical.
I purchassed some 2.5 watt led GU10 down lighters today, Approx €10. They are equivalent to 50 watt GU10. Very happy with them, as far as I see they give a better light.

ircoha

2 stroke wrote: »

Yeah, that was a little too technical.
I purchassed some 2.5 watt led GU10 down lighters today, Approx €10. They are equivalent to 50 watt GU10. Very happy with them, as far as I see they give a better light.

Where is the evidence that

2.5w LED .....are equivalent to 50w GU10

?

2 stroke

Ircoha. Thats what it says on the box. And I am quite happy with the results. Should last much longer than cfl and no toxic component as far as I know.
We will soon see these superbright LED in other bulb types.

ircoha

2 stroke wrote: »

Ircoha. Thats what it says on the box. And I am quite happy with the results. Should last much longer than cfl and no toxic component as far as I know.
We will soon see these superbright LED in other bulb types.

Perfect: where u source them please?

2 stroke

ARRO shop in portlaoise.

slack

btw, GU10 just refers to the type of bayonet mount typically used for halogen bulbs.

ircoha

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

....power factor is a red herring , one kettle would smooth out most of that, and besides it's possible to redesign the electronics to get arround that. PC's TVs hifi and all such electrical stuff has the same problem, motors like washing machines and power tools too.

What is the ratio of kettles to CFLs: seems pretty stupid that we go from incando's to CFLs to save energy and then plug in a kettle.:D

mike65

Bump! Olde School bulbs to be banned from Jan 2009.

Mike.

ircoha

Now that the Green Minister has banned 'old style' incandescent bulbs, is it time to collect pictures of what the range looks like?

here is my contribution, with a ton of Carbon Tax Credits to the best guess at the wattage:D

Yoda

I see that Solus has a range of the old-style CFL bulbs. I like the more bulb-like ones from Philips better but it's nice to see that Solus is moving with the times.

blackbox

May the saints preserve us from these well-meaning fools.

Someone phoned the Last Word yesterday to point out that there is no energy saving in a thermostatically controlled environment.

Now, one could rebuff this argument by stating that this only applies when there is a net heat requirement (i.e. only 9 months of the year), or that it only applies to indoor lighting, but Gormless actually said that he never heard of this! Where does he think the shagging heat goes?

These people seem to have a faith based agenda (mumbo jumbo) rather than any scientific rationale behind their actions.

SeanW

There is also the fact that some applications still require incandescent lightbulbs - such as cupboards and attics where the lights will only be used for small amounts of time, decorative and/or coloured lighting, dimmerswitches and older light fittings such as outdoor fittings that aren't physically big enough for a CFL. There are also, as mentioned here, some people who are sensitive to flourescent flicker.

It would have made more sense to abolish VAT on CFL lights while taxing incandescents to the point where noone will buy them unless they have a specific need for them.

silverharp

Personally I will be taking stock of the various replacement bulbs I will need and will then buy a 5-10 year supply of the bulbs that won't be allowed. As I have some unusual light fittings I don't want to dump them as they cost good money and would need to repaint if the fittings were removed.

good points that in the winter your heating system would compensate for the lack of heat from the bulbs. In the greater scheme of things the measure would seems to be a token gesture.

If they want to do something useful they need to get to variable pricing ideally hourly to manage demand to take into account wind speed etc.

10-10-20

I'm very lucky in that I just purchased 4 lamp fittings 2 weeks ago and I got a sniff of what was around the corner, so I chose fittings which would take CFL's and rejected any of these halogen capsule units which are so common these days... Bad idea those!

Antenna

There are two sides to this debate, but a decision has been arrived at with only one side being heard.

I don't recall any public consultation taking place before this decision being made to ban incandescent bulbs?

Why has there been no trial of a selected number of Irish households (to convert ALL their incandescent lighting) and see how they get on, before planning to foist such a ban on the whole country?

Why should Ireland be the Guinea Pig for the rest of Europe for such a upheaval? We are currently the only EU country with a date for a complete ban in the near future.

blackbox wrote: »

Someone phoned the Last Word yesterday to point out that there is no energy saving in a thermostatically controlled environment.

Now, one could rebuff this argument by stating that this only applies when there is a net heat requirement (i.e. only 9 months of the year), or that it only applies to indoor lighting, but Gormless actually said that he never heard of this! Where does he think the shagging heat goes?

Exactly, we will be manually turning on heating more often (or heating will be coming on more often in the case of thermostatically controlled heating) to make up for the loss of heat from incandescent bulbs.
The 3 or so months without any need for domestic heating are months with minimal need for domestic lighting being on anyway (and this ban is a mainly a domestic issue, as retail, offices, factories etc generally use fluorescent lights)
Looking at the whole picture (both heat and light), the claimed energy savings in a domestic setting for a climate such as ours will in practice be considerably less than that as is claimed. SEI I suspect looked purely at the light energy given off by bulbs, and not at heat, and the knock on effect on heating needs....

It would make more sense for any such ban to be introduced in more southernly European countries with hot climates first – where the heat given off by incandescent bulbs is generally unwanted (unlike Ireland where this heat usually contributes to desired space heating), and so the quoted energy savings would be more realistic.

There are other issues that could be looked at, such as educating the public as to the most appropriate lighting for their various needs and discouraging inefficient recessed lighting as used in many modern homes

The words ‘soft target’ and ‘barking up the wrong tree’ come to mind.


CFLs are unsuitable for applications that need immediate bright light, and unsuitable for applications where lighting is only turned on for brief periods.
(frequent switching of CFLs -> life considerably reduced to about that of incandescent - and when the extra energy used in both manufacture and appropriate disposal – if it happens at all - of mercury etc in CFLs is taken into account, incandescent are surely the greener option in this application.)
CFLs are also unsuitable for security etc PIRs (the manufacturers clearly say so in the instructions).

Amongst other things, I see the following undesirable results of this ban:

(1) Householders stockpiling huge quantities of bulbs before the ban
(2) Bulbs being purchased in Northern Ireland after the ban and being brought south. No concrete plans for such a ban in the UK. Retailers in the south being put at a disadvantage.
(3) People might start using 12V Automotive incandescent bulbs (which I assume are not covered by the ban?) for light fittings within homes via appropriate transformers.

Yoda

I was in Iran, China, and Indonesia this year and pretty much the only bulbs you see are CFLs. Unfortunately they just let them hang bare which is fairly harsh.

As each incandescent bulb in my house burns out, I just replace them with a CFL. What's the problem?

AngryHippie

Yoda wrote: »

As each incandescent bulb in my house burns out, I just replace them with a CFL. What's the problem?

That would not gain any stupid politicians brownie points with their green electors

oops

Yoda

Yoda wrote: »

I was in Iran, China, and Indonesia this year and pretty much the only bulbs you see are CFLs. Unfortunately they just let them hang bare which is fairly harsh.

As each incandescent bulb in my house burns out, I just replace them with a CFL. What's the problem?

A commonsence solution, but the only problem is with some lamp fittings that don't take CFL or any other type of low energy lamp without looking "wrong".

A more sensible solution to banning ineffient bulbs would be to make ALL new lamp shades (insert type of low energy here!) friendly.

Ciaran500

Deleted User wrote: »

A more sensible solution to banning ineffient bulbs would be to make ALL new lamp shades (insert type of low energy here!) friendly.

Don't buy the ones that don't take CFL's and they will stop making them.

Ciaran500

Ciaran500 wrote: »

Don't buy the ones that don't take CFL's and they will stop making them.

Try telling my wife!
For too many people, looks are all important!

ircoha

Deleted User wrote: »

Try telling my wife!
For too many people, looks are all important!

Now you have it.:)

Was at dinner last night where all the shades on the table lamps were black:eek:.

100watt candies and only the ceiling and the table got lit!

ircoha

OK: combustion C + O2 = CO2

The trees absorb the CO2 and use the carbon for 'body=building'
What happens the O2? Is it used as well?
If so what is the process?
when the trees are burned the carbon they absorbed during their life-time is released so thay are carbon neutral.

I remember when I was born, the nurses brought the plants into the ward during the day and brought them out at night: do plants release CO2 at night, so what is the net 'CO2 math" or are we looking for CFL Trees:D

Red Alert

Power factor issues are pretty much a non-issue, a suitable capacitor will deal with the problem. I think the time has come too for micro-flourescent enclosures - i.e. light fittings for CFL-type bulbs where the ballast and starter are part of the fitting, not the lamp.

Hoagy

ircoha wrote: »

I remember when I was born, the nurses brought the plants into the ward during the day and brought them out at night

Wow that's some memory. Can you go any further back? The womb, maybe?

10-10-20

Just before I start - I'm not having a go at you here; you are voicing the concerns of the nation, I'm just trying to look at a differing perspective!

Antenna wrote: »

There are two sides to this debate, but a decision has been arrived at with only one side being heard.

I don't recall any public consultation taking place before this decision being made to ban incandescent bulbs?

Why has there been no trial of a selected number of Irish households (to convert ALL their incandescent lighting) and see how they get on, before planning to foist such a ban on the whole country?

Why should Ireland be the Guinea Pig for the rest of Europe for such a upheaval? We are currently the only EU country with a date for a complete ban in the near future.

I agree, but as the minister said, necessity is the mother of invention and the industry has just started to embrace the CFL and LED technologies, so changes are a-foot. Only in the last 5 months were mini CFL's available for SES (Small Edison Screw) and SBC (Small Bayonet Connector) under €10.

Of course there are going to be issues finding LE lamps suitable to replace 100% of fixtures; did you ever try put a CFL into an ornate light fitting to find that it destroys the aesthetics and throws out homogeneous light, ill suited to the surroundings? Try put a cheap and early CFL into a downlighter and compare the light output to GU10 bulbs. You quickly turn a light fitting from aesthetically-pleasing functional light-source into a glaring, industrial-type fitment, at odds with a residential environment.
Well, these are the issues that we, the consumers, will have to deal with in the short-term. Industry will work to supply new technology and designs and the consumer will push-back forcing change.
It's going to be a two-way process, push and pull. I'd suggest you work with your local DIY store to encourage them to start to become inventive with their supply lines or even with how they sell or describe CFL's. Seemingly, no two brands are the same in light output.

Exactly, we will be manually turning on heating more often (or heating will be coming on more often in the case of thermostatically controlled heating) to make up for the loss of heat from incandescent bulbs.

The implication here is that people are actively using incandescent lamps are a source of heat in a residential environment.

The 3 or so months without any need for domestic heating are months with minimal need for domestic lighting being on anyway (and this ban is a mainly a domestic issue, as retail, offices, factories etc generally use fluorescent lights)
Looking at the whole picture (both heat and light), the claimed energy savings in a domestic setting for a climate such as ours will in practice be considerably less than that as is claimed. SEI I suspect looked purely at the light energy given off by bulbs, and not at heat, and the knock on effect on heating needs....

It would make more sense for any such ban to be introduced in more southernly European countries with hot climates first – where the heat given off by incandescent bulbs is generally unwanted (unlike Ireland where this heat usually contributes to desired space heating), and so the quoted energy savings would be more realistic.

In my mind, not all of the heat given off by incandescents is not contributory to the actual heating (ambient) for one main reason - Within a room, bulbs are not physically located in suitable positions to be considered ambient heat sources. Think about it - why aren't radiators placed on ceilings?
Having a 'heat source' near to the ceiling causes localised heating of the plasterboard, and the heat is not distributed around the room through convection.
Then you may say that the room above the light source will benefit from the heating. True to a point, assuming you want the heat there?
You could also say that some of the heat is radiated around the room, true, but it's so small that it's possibly less than 15%.

<cut>
CFLs are unsuitable for applications that need immediate bright light, and unsuitable for applications where lighting is only turned on for brief periods.
(frequent switching of CFLs -> life considerably reduced to about that of incandescent - and when the extra energy used in both manufacture and appropriate disposal – if it happens at all - of mercury etc in CFLs is taken into account, incandescent are surely the greener option in this application.)
CFLs are also unsuitable for security etc PIRs (the manufacturers clearly say so in the instructions).
<cut>

All this is true, that's why LED's are getting so much attention. They are the next step in terms of lighting and once manufacturers overcome thermal issues surrounding the dissipation of heat (ironically enough!) they are likely to send the CFL the way of the Dodo.
LED's by their nature force designers to think about the way they work with light - they are very directional unlike CFL's, and at present they must be used in groups to achieve the same lighting as standard bulbs.

But, they may also force changes in how we use light also.
Imagine a light which maintains the same level of lighting in a room whether the blinds are open or closed. Imagine being able to switch from cool blue, outdoor colours during the day, to warm oranges at night or tinted hues of purple based on your mood. It's all more possible with LED's than ever before.

AngryHippie

Thats a forward looking post there, good work.
I agree with much of it
I still resent not being asked by the government about this, It should have been put to the people.
I agree as to the potential of LEDs and CFL's, And as to nay-sayers comlaining about fittings, They are so easy to change, The day You can't find a lightbulb to fit your fitting, maybe change it. It'll be a fire hazard by then anyway !

still_raining

I think a ban is absolutely impractical, a tax increase or something would have been more suitable. What about the mercury? This is from the EPA in the US:
http://www.epa.gov/mercury/spills/index.htm#flourescent
They want me to leave the room for 15 minutes after I break a bulb!
What about dimmer switches?
Photographers who can't have flicker in their shots?
Those tiny bulbs on chandeliers?
Not to mention those of us that can actually see the headwrecking flicker!

Oh well, I guess it's off to ebay after 2009 for all my incandescent needs.

casey212

This lightbulb thing is a total scam. The new lightbulbs will cost much more than the old ones, and probably last for a shorter periods.

Greenpeace? Who funds greenpeace?????????

Maybe you should research this before you proclaim how great they are.

People need to snap out of this brainwashing. I would love to see you all in ten years when you have no rights left, not even allowed to enter the countryside. Read "AGENDA 21". This is the plan for your future.

How does it look, green??

10-10-20

casey212 wrote: »

This lightbulb thing is a total scam. The new lightbulbs will cost much more than the old ones, and probably last for a shorter periods.

To quote Wikipedia: "CFLs use less energy and have a longer rated life"
& "a CFL can save over US$30 in electricity costs over the lamp’s lifetime compared to an incandescent lamp and save 2000 times their own weight in greenhouse gases. The purchase price of a CFL is higher than that of an incandescent lamp of the same luminous output, but this cost is recovered in energy savings and replacement costs over the bulb's lifetime."

CFLs are rated by their power and life expectancy. If you are experiencing issues with the quality and lifetime of these bulbs, you can perhaps look at your usage behavior or environment.

Greenpeace? Who funds greenpeace?????????

Have a look at the section "Where does Greenpeace get its funding from?" on http://www.greenpeace.org/international/about/faq/questions-about-greenpeace-in

Maybe you should research this before you proclaim how great they are.

People need to snap out of this brainwashing. I would love to see you all in ten years when you have no rights left, not even allowed to enter the countryside. Read "AGENDA 21". This is the plan for your future.

How does it look, green??

I don't think that you attitude helps your cause.
Maybe you could take time to explain what you see as being the 'hidden agenda' here as Agenda 21 looks harmless to me... "Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and the Statement of principles for the Sustainable Management of Forests"
http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/index.htm

casey212

10-10-20 wrote: »

To quote Wikipedia: "CFLs use less energy and have a longer rated life"
& "a CFL can save over US$30 in electricity costs over the lamp’s lifetime compared to an incandescent lamp and save 2000 times their own weight in greenhouse gases. The purchase price of a CFL is higher than that of an incandescent lamp of the same luminous output, but this cost is recovered in energy savings and replacement costs over the bulb's lifetime."

CFLs are rated by their power and life expectancy. If you are experiencing issues with the quality and lifetime of these bulbs, you can perhaps look at your usage behavior or environment.


Have a look at the section "Where does Greenpeace get its funding from?" on http://www.greenpeace.org/international/about/faq/questions-about-greenpeace-in


I don't think that you attitude helps your cause.
Maybe you could take time to explain what you see as being the 'hidden agenda' here as Agenda 21 looks harmless to me... "Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and the Statement of principles for the Sustainable Management of Forests"
http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/index.htm

What? Why do people always accept what is presented. Also contrary to what is stated on the website, greenpeace was named after the green masonic lodge.

10-10-20

Keep it on topic there Casey212 - this thread is about CFL's.

casey212

10-10-20 wrote: »

Keep it on topic there Casey212 - this thread is about CFL's.

Your right.

In my opinion CFL's are yet another big business/environmental SCAM.

casey212

mike65 wrote: »

Bump! Olde School bulbs to be banned from Jan 2009.

Mike.

Better stock up now.

Also watch how the price of CFL's will just happen to rise rapidly over the course of the next two years when the competition is removed. Coincidence yet again.