energy saving bulbs - a big con?

planetX

I think so. I can't believe the lightbulb prohibition is going to go ahead without any opposition to this madness. I'm stockpiling 100 watt bulbs like crazy. My reasons for this are environmental as well as the fact that I quite like my eyesight, and I would like to continue to be able to read in the evenings.

Latchy

Ann Widdecombe wrote a really good article about this in the daily express last week, condeming the beaurecrats in Brussells .She also questioned the debate about global warming as well believing we are also being conned because the planet is doing it's own thing and the scientists are wrong . Intresting views .

planetX

Oops, forgot to give my reasons.....
mainly - I want to see some emission calculations which include the cost of manufacture and disposal of these. Basically we are throwing out a design which is very simple and cheap to make, and replacing it with something far more complicated. From what I've been able to find out, the new bulbs contain far more components, each of which has to be manufactured. How much energy are these factories using, how much pollution? And what do they contribute to landfill?
The light they give is awful, no way equivalent to 100w. And I currently have them in my kitchen and hall - they have certainly not lasted anywhere like 6 times as long.
As far as I'm concerned they are a publicity stunt, a token effort, and if I choose to have good light when it really matters - like for reading or sewing, I hardly think it's going to tip the balance for the planet, with all the industrial pollution, cars, planes etc.
my two cents.

carveone

planetX wrote: »

Oops, forgot to give my reasons.....
mainly - I want to see some emission calculations which include the cost of manufacture and disposal of these. Basically we are throwing out a design

All manufactured in China too. Does Europe make anything itself anymore? I found it hard to find numbers for manufacturing (what a surprise), although one BBC article said 4kWh for a CFL vs 1kWh. Which doesn't seem unreasonable. CFLs certainly have their place. But not in my room where I want the light to read by. Plus this is Ireland! There's no such thing as "waste heat" from a lightbulb in this country...

The light they give is awful, no way equivalent to 100w. And I currently have them in my kitchen and hall - they have certainly not lasted anywhere like 6 times as long.

They seem to have improved a lot over the last few years. Incandescants are hard to compete with, especially when you consider that most people go on the purchase price alone. So manufacturers have had to work hard to improve their product. Not anymore of course. Banning removes competition from incandescents. Now CFL manufacturers can just sit back and do nothing rather than improve their product.

Worse, some of them seem to cause interference. The woman in the apartment next door did something that turned our antenna reception into muck. I think it was a CFL - high frequency voltage conversion radiating all over the place. Talking to her was pointless, so we had to move the damn antenna...

As far as I'm concerned they are a publicity stunt, a token effort, and if I choose to have good light when it really matters - like for reading or sewing, I hardly think it's going to tip the balance for the planet, with all the industrial pollution, cars, planes etc.
my two cents.

I think computers are far worse to be honest. The funny thing is the way people think. People are just morons - there was a girl in my brother's place who would routinely leave the immersion on for a week. On bath. And then start whining when someone would leave a light on for 10 mins. Pathetic. I nearly lost it when the other guy in my place turned off the light in the room I was sitting in claiming "I'm saving 10 euro". From the guy who leaves his laptop on 24/7, tv on standby all the time etc etc. Screw you asshole!

grahamo

I've got them all over the house.The light isn't great at first but improves after a while.
I've read they are made using mercury so how can they be greener than incandescents?

carveone

grahamo wrote: »

I've got them all over the house.The light isn't great at first but improves after a while.
I've read they are made using mercury so how can they be greener than incandescents?

One could say that the amount of energy saved by using fossil fuels thus emits less mercury into the environment than the amount of mercury present in a CFL. In other words, burning fossil fuels releases mercury anyway, albeit in small amounts and you release less mercury from the fossil fuel by saving the energy...

boomshackala

CFL Indandescent Uints Notes
Efficiency 20% 4%
Electricity unit cost 0.186 0.186 €/kWh
Electric power consumed 20 100 Compare 100W Indandescent with 20W cfl in Watts
Cost to run for 1 hour 0.004 0.019 €
Hours run per day 3 3 h
Hours run per year 1065 1065 h
Cost to run per year 4.0 19.8 €
Additional cost 8 3 € 3€ added for Indandescent as it is replaced twice
Payback 0.3 years

Required hours run / day for 1 yr payback 0.9 Hours
Required hours run / day for 2 yr payback 0.5 Hours

CO2
Energy to produce 4 1 kWh
Difference 3
kWh consumed in 1 hour 0.02 0.1
Hours run to cancel addit CO2 4
kWh consumed when on 3 hours per day 21.9 109.5 kWh / year


Sounds like the argument for CFL is persuasive. There are soft tone versions available for reading also.
I've done a tool for it on excel, so if anyone questions the numbers I can re-do and re-post

20goto10

planetX wrote: »

I think so. I can't believe the lightbulb prohibition is going to go ahead without any opposition to this madness. I'm stockpiling 100 watt bulbs like crazy. My reasons for this are environmental as well as the fact that I quite like my eyesight, and I would like to continue to be able to read in the evenings.

I have some really rubbish ones and some quite good ones. But "quite good" is as good as it gets. The more modern ones have better light, but still not as good as incandescent bulbs and they still need to warm up. Because of this I've actually thrown out my old ones and replaced them, defeating the whole purpose. And if the technology keeps improviing I'll probably keep replacing them.

Another gripe of mine is I cannot find a 40 watt equivalent eco bulb. Leaving a couple of lamps unusable as they have a "40 watt only" sticker on them and anything more powerful gives out a strong smell of melting vinyl So I guess I have to throw out my lamps too, again not very eco friendly.

ebmma

There are good CFLs. The longer they are around, the better they will become.

Ever seen pictures of 1st incandescent light bulbs? :-)

The ones I have now, are pretty good. They are a bit dimmer straight after turning the light on, but go to full brightness really quickly. Definitely no worried about reading anyway.

Also CFLs not supposed to go a landfill either. Recycling centres take them.

ebmma

20goto10 wrote: »

I have some really rubbish ones and some quite good ones. But "quite good" is as good as it gets. The more modern ones have better light, but still not as good as incandescent bulbs and they still need to warm up. Because of this I've actually thrown out my old ones and replaced them, defeating the whole purpose. And if the technology keeps improviing I'll probably keep replacing them.

Another gripe of mine is I cannot find a 40 watt equivalent eco bulb. Leaving a couple of lamps unusable as they have a "40 watt only" sticker on them and anything more powerful gives out a strong smell of melting vinyl So I guess I have to throw out my lamps too, again not very eco friendly.

I understand that it is not a very helpful comment, but there was stand at Cool Earth fair in Dun Laoghaire with CFL in all sorts of nice shapes and sizes. They might have a 40W equivalent.

wish I remembered the name

CJhaughey

Sounds like the argument for CFL is persuasive. There are soft tone versions available for reading also.
I've done a tool for it on excel, so if anyone questions the numbers I can re-do and re-post[/QUOTE]

How does this stack up if the CFL lifetime is 1 year? Or 2 years?
I am curious because the ones I have currently only give reasonable light for approx a year, after this time the light output drops off dramatically and after 2 years they start to fail.
I am all for energy saving bulbs and have spent a lot of time and money buying and testing various types of CFL/LED bulbs in order to try and find a good alternative.
So far Megaman bulbs in GU10 and golfball type BC fittings have proven to be the best for light and longevity.
Philips CFLs have turned to rubbish, low priced and made in China.
I have some very old philips CFLs that had a prismatic cover and these lasted for ages, the new ones are nowhere near as good.

boomshackala

CJhaughey wrote: »

Sounds like the argument for CFL is persuasive. There are soft tone versions available for reading also.
I've done a tool for it on excel, so if anyone questions the numbers I can re-do and re-post

How does this stack up if the CFL lifetime is 1 year? Or 2 years?

From the table above it depends on usage. If you have it on for many hours in the day, then 1 yr lifetime is sufficient to justify payback. Living up to the manufacturers promise is another thing completely.

Interesting note on the various manufacturers

I recently put an electricity meter on a CFL light in a lampshade which got a bit of knocking about so the light was loose on its fitting
Obervations
The 12w bulb was consuming 20W
It was consuming a handful of watts when turned off

I did'nt check it with a proper light

KatCookie

People with severe eczema (really dry skin) can be affected by fluorescent lights and CFL's, thats another bad point about them, I have eczema (fairly mild) so i dont beleive i'm affected, but i could be later on in life!
Just another argument against these energy saving bulbs for you! People forget the medical benefit to having thses non-energy saving bulbs..

When is this law suppost to come into force? is it waiting to be debated in the Dail or is this a European thing?

Personally i'd slap a tax on non-energy saving bulbs, and anyone with a doctors note gets off without paying the tax (Yes i know its a law that would be very easy to sidestep, but..

Cookie_Monster

Was up in Ikea in Belfast the other day and on the wall in the lighting section they have 16 60w bulbs and 16 11w CFLs(or similar) beside each other. No difference in the light off each set IMO.

16*60=960w
16*11=176w

Big difference in power consumption when you add it up.

I've 2 different (Phillips) CFLs in my room and they are great. Really bright but still not harse and light instantly unlike the old CFLs. Its the way to go I think.

20goto10

KatCookie wrote: »

When is this law suppost to come into force? is it waiting to be debated in the Dail or is this a European thing?

Wasn't it brought in by the Greens? As far as I'm aware it came into force in the new year. I suppose shops are allowed to sell off their stock which explains all the 2 for the price of 1 offers on 100 watt incandescent bulbs at the moment

KatCookie

Wasn't it brought in by the Greens? As far as I'm aware it came into force in the new year. I suppose shops are allowed to sell off their stock which explains all the 2 for the price of 1 offers on 100 watt incandescent bulbs at the moment

... Wha?? :eek:


Gotta go buy me some of those bulbs!!

lostinsuperfunk

A complete ban is too drastic. Neither CFLs nor incandescents like being switched on and off frequently, but the lower manufacturing costs of incandescents might make them a bit more attractive in these cases.

The 40W only rating on lamps is to protect them from heating and/or high currents. You should be able to put a 60W-equivalent CFL (only 12W) or even higher in there without anything bad happening.

But LEDs are superior to both : steady-state, non-flickering light, huge lifetime, highly tolerant of repeated on/off cycling.

boomshackala, what kind of meter did you use? I would have to question its accuracy.

McSandwich

A typical (cheap) CFL bulb has a power factor of 0.5-0.6 The significance of power factor is that the ESB supply volt-amperes but bill in Watts. A power factor of 0.5 requires that the ESB supply double the power actually used - effectively distribution losses. A side effect is harmonic distortion which interferes with other electronic equipment at home and on the distribution network. Also overheating can be a problem (or fire risk) when used with electronic switches (timers, dusk/dawn sensors, dimmers, etc.).

The problem can be avoided by using higher quality electronics (ballast) in CFL bulbs but as they're disposable few people will buy a more expensive version of an already pricey product. Light fittings which include a permanent ballast and then use ballast free CFL bulbs are of much higher quality and less wasteful when bulbs are replaced.

I find it shocking (excuse the bad pun) that incandescent bulbs could be banned without any apparent quality controls/ standards with respect to replacement products. I know LED lighting is still new and improving but some of the claims that they produce the same light as even a 40 watt incandescent bulb are far fetched in the extreme. Also, I've yet to buy a CFL bulb which lasts more than 2 years normal use without blowing or going dimmer. So much for 12 years - it reminds me of the '80s when we were told that compact discs would be virtually indestructible!!

lostinsuperfunk

A typical (cheap) CFL bulb has a power factor of 0.5-0.6

- might explain the results from boomshackala's meter.

CFLs, like many other consumer products, are getting cheaper but not necessarily better.

bk

McSandwich wrote: »

Also overheating can be a problem (or fire risk) when used with electronic switches (timers, dusk/dawn sensors, dimmers, etc.).

Really? Why is this?

I use a CFL in a very large reading lamp (the big silver overarching, man height ones for front rooms) with a timer for home security, is there a risk of fire with this?

I had thought there would be less risk as CFL's run much cooler then traditional bulbs.

SeanW

Speaking as a fan of CFL bulbs - I replaced a whole bunch of incandescents with CFLs over the last two years even before talk of the ban - I believe the ban is an error because there are applications where incandescent lights have a use.
For example, in cabinets, storage areas, attics, any garage lighting, all of this requires quick on/off lighting which CFLs are really inefficient at doing - they're slow to light and damaged by frequent short-term use.
There are other applications too - while I prefer the whiter, 'cleaner' looking light they give off indoors, a warmer look with, for example halogen is more pleasant outdoors. We got 4 inlaid GU10 downlights at home put into the soffit boards, and halogen is used there, 120W total, again, for no more than short time usage, never more than an hour.

Then of course there are problems with dimmer switches, timed switches and so on. In short, low-energy alternatives are far from being useful in every situation.

For those reasons I think it would have been better to simply tax incandescents to the point where people only use them if they're needed for a particular application - cupboard lighting, spotlighting, dimmerswitch compatibility and so on.

Another gripe of mine is I cannot find a 40 watt equivalent eco bulb. Leaving a couple of lamps unusable as they have a "40 watt only" sticker on them and anything more powerful gives out a strong smell of melting vinyl So I guess I have to throw out my lamps too, again not very eco friendly.

I would be very surprised if you used an 11 Watt bulb in that fitting and had problems - CFLs generate very little heat.

20goto10

Presumably we can still buy incandescent bulbs in the North? You can also get them on ebay I wonder how they'd survive the shipping..

CJhaughey

Not all incandescents are hit with the ban stick, they are just banning the 75watt and 100w AFAIK the rest are too difficult to legislate for.
Try banning a 500w halogen lamp for a worklamp or outdoor floodlight, and what do you use instead? a 2D? what a laugh that would be.

CK.1

I think it would be a better idea to force all these office blocks, car showrooms and shops that leave all their lights turned on 24/7 to turn them off when there is nobody in the premises. That would save so much energy.

CJhaughey

The big picture is that the Green party are going to push through a Carbon tax.
And it will suit the govt to have people paying money.
Regardless of whether or not we are in a desperate situation they are determined to force through another tax.

McSandwich

bk wrote: »

Really? Why is this?

I use a CFL in a very large reading lamp (the big silver overarching, man height ones for front rooms) with a timer for home security, is there a risk of fire with this?

I had thought there would be less risk as CFL's run much cooler then traditional bulbs.

I looked into this after I noticed that nearly every timer and light sensitive switch came with a warning that they are not suitable for use with CFLs.
Due to the power characteristics, CFLs can draw more power when controlled by dimmers and other electronic switches. The extra power is dissipated as heat which can cause cheap underrated components in the bulb to fail. Usually the bulb just blows but it could just get hotter (especially with unventilated shade or globes). Mechanical, relay based, switches seem to be safe as with them power to the bulb is either fully on or fully off.

It’s a while since I investigated this and I don’t have any references to hand, though report is interesting - http://www.times-news.com/local/local_story_121093606.html

If your switch warns against use with a CFL then I wouldn’t as if something did go wrong your insurance might not pay up..

planetX

So if the CFL bulbs are made in china we should be factoring in the transport across the globe. It would be interesting to see what kind of waste those factories are generating... I agree that they have their place, I have them myself in parts of the house where the lights are on a lot - the hallway and kitchen, where the dimness doesn't matter so much. What I object to is the government telling me i can't sit down and read in comfort, and the way this issue has been used as a token environmental measure. I mean, who is looking out for our local environment - i feel that we look too much at the big picture (global warming, and the bonanza it has produced for those looking for research funding), and not enough at our local lives - availability of public transport, green recreational areas, clean water, not having to live beside a car dump.
Funniest thing I ever read about was a paper at a conference discussing the effects of global warming on Irelands native forests, when at the time same forests are disappearing under development. Common sense?

P. Breathnach

I don't get this stuff about reading. Almost all the bulbs in my home are CFLs, and they give quite enough light for reading. Some take a few seconds (perhaps even a minute) to come up to full illumination, but I have never found that to be a problem.

I suspect that some people are looking for excuses, and any excuse will do.

Antenna

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I don't get this stuff about reading.

It is with older people (who may also have cataracts forming) that the inferior quality of the light from CFLs is going to be more apparent when reading etc.

planetX

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I don't get this stuff about reading.QUOTE]

I don't need an excuse - I have a couple of years supplies of 100w for my lamp. The quality of light from the CFLs is not good enough for any kind of close-up work eg stitching, also reading small print if your eyesight is not perfect.

P. Breathnach

Antenna wrote: »

It is with older people (who may also have cataracts forming) that the inferior quality of the light from CFLs is going to be more apparent when reading etc.

I am an older person with some deficiencies in my eyesight. I don't find light from CFLs to be inferior.

Cheeble

boomshackala wrote: »

CFL Indandescent Uints Notes
Efficiency 20% 4%
Electricity unit cost 0.186 0.186 €/kWh
Electric power consumed 20 100 Compare 100W Indandescent with 20W cfl in Watts
Cost to run for 1 hour 0.004 0.019 €
Hours run per day 3 3 h
Hours run per year 1065 1065 h
Cost to run per year 4.0 19.8 €
Additional cost 8 3 € 3€ added for Indandescent as it is replaced twice
Payback 0.3 years

Required hours run / day for 1 yr payback 0.9 Hours
Required hours run / day for 2 yr payback 0.5 Hours

CO2
Energy to produce 4 1 kWh
Difference 3
kWh consumed in 1 hour 0.02 0.1
Hours run to cancel addit CO2 4
kWh consumed when on 3 hours per day 21.9 109.5 kWh / year


Sounds like the argument for CFL is persuasive. There are soft tone versions available for reading also.
I've done a tool for it on excel, so if anyone questions the numbers I can re-do and re-post

Boomshackala, you've missed the following:

I sit in my home watching TV of an evening (like a lot of other people). I wear warm clothing and have my central heating turned down to the limit of comfort, my home is well insulated. I replace two 100W light bulbs with 20W CFLs. My central heating system has to replace the missing 160W to maintain the room temperature. The CFLs haven't saved any energy at all, indeed now, instead of heating just my sitting room, I'm heating the whole house.

Just for interest, would you post an amended spreadsheet to show how much my carbon footprint has increased under this scenario.

(btw why is 100W always used for comparison, I don't know anybody who uses more than 60s)

BendiBus

Cheeble wrote: »

My central heating system has to replace the missing 160W to maintain the room temperature.

Heat rises.

That 160W was most likely heating the ceiling and delivering little warmth where you were sitting. Unless your central heating thermostats are also on the ceiling then no, the 160W won't be replaced and it won't be missed either.