You could qualify as terrorist material there.
Not only do you have an abundance of light bulbs not sanctioned by the US government, the caliber of the bulbs you carry could be ranked as assault bulbs.
Posted on 01/14/2012 8:08:34 PM PST by Robert A Cook PE
By Kirk Myers, Seminole County Environmental News Examiner
This article, the second in a series, focuses on the misleading performance claims surrounding the “more energy efficient” compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs now replacing traditional incandescent bulbs. These potentially harmful mercury-filled lamps (see my previous column describing the dangers) are being forced on consumers by the U.S. congress with support from the Green Lobby and light-bulb manufacturers like GE, Sylvania and Phillips. These and other manufacturers stand to make huge profits selling the more expensive CFLs (more on that issue in my next column).
There is a growing body of evidence undermining claims of the EPA, environmental lobby and light bulb manufacturers touting the performance advantages of mercury-laced CFL bulbs.
Exaggerated lifespan
Real-world reports from the home front show that the claimed extended lifespan of CFLs is often greatly exaggerated. There is ample data indicating that the frequent switching on and off of CFLs greatly shortens their life. A study by H. Sterling Burnett, senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, and co-author Amanda Berg concludes
“Unfortunately, except under a fairly narrow range of circumstances, CFLs are less efficient than advertised. Manufacturers claim the average life span of a CFL bulb is 10,000 hours. However, in many applications the life and energy savings of a CFL are significantly lower. Applications in which lighting is used only briefly (such as closets, bathrooms, motion detectors and so forth) will cause CFL bulbs to burn out as quickly as regular incandescent bulbs . . . When initially switched on, CFLs may provide as little as 50 percent to 80 percent of their rated light output and can take up to three minutes to reach full brightness.”
According to a story in the Wall Street Journal, Pacific Gas & Electric originally estimated the useful life of CFL bulbs at 9.4 years. But based on real-world results, the company was forced to lower its estimate to 6.3 years, meaning that it had overstated bulb life by 49 percent. “The early burn-out rate, along with several other factors, meant that the actual energy savings were 73 percent less than the 1.7 billion kilowatt hours projected by PG&E,” the Journal reported.
Less bright, more dim with age
As many consumers have noticed, CFL bulbs grow dimmer as they age. In a 2003-2004 study, the U.S. Department of Energy reported that one-fourth of CFLs, after only 40 percent of their rated service life, no longer produced at their rated output.
And according to Wikipedia: “CFLs produce less light later in their lives than when they are new. The light output decay is exponential, with the fastest losses being soon after the lamp is first used. By the end of their lives, CFLs can be expected to produce 70-80% of their original light output.”
After conducting its own tests on bulbs from several manufacturers, The Sunday Telegraph in London “found that under normal conditions, using a single lamp to light a room, an 11W low-energy CFL produced only 58 percent of the illumination of an ‘equivalent’ 60W bulb - even after a 10-minute ‘warm-up.’”
The European Commission, which led the effort to ban incandescent bulbs in Europe, said that claims by manufacturers that CFL’s shine as brightly as old-fashioned bulbs are “not true.”
Posted on its website for consumers was the warning that “exaggerated claims are often made on the packaging about the light output of compact fluorescent lamps.”
Higher heating bills
Go-Green advocates like to complain about the fact that 90 percent of the energy from incandescent lights is given off as heat, with only 10 percent providing illumination. But they ignore one important fact: The extra heat given off during the winter months can actually lower energy bills.
According to a study by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, “The heat of incandescent lights - more than 341 Btu per bulb per hour - can help to warm a room. Therefore, if the cost of electricity is low relative to the cost of home heating fuel, there may be an economic case for changing to incandescent bulbs in colder seasons.”
In other words, on a cold day when you’re running your electric heater, it makes sense to flip on all those incandescent heat sources. Of course, the contribution of incandescent bulbs to lower heating bills is conveniently missing from pro-CFL literature.
Unsuitable for outdoor lighting
What about the use of CFLs for outdoor lighting? Forget it. Most do not operate well in low temperatures, a performance shortfall that makes them virtually useless for home-security lighting, including as lights in motion detectors. By signing the incandescent bulb’s death warrant, congress has effectively rendered useless outdoor lighting systems that keep away intruders and discourage home break-ins.
Myth of mercury reduction
One of the most misleading arguments advanced in defense of CFLs is the assertion that they reduce harmful mercury levels (a dubious proposition given that the bulbs themselves are laced with mercury).
Case in point: In a letter to the Wall Street Journal in December, CFL advocate Nicole Lederer claimed that “coal-fired power plants produce about half of all mercury.”
In his Jan. 5 response, Charles Battig of Scientists and Engineers for Energy and Environment-Virginia called the statement “scientifically vacuous and misleading.”
Battig cited data from an op-ed ("The Myth of Killer Mercury” by Willie Soon and Paul Driessen) that broke down mercury contributions as follows: �U.S. coal-fired plants, about 41-48 tons per year; forest fires, about 44 tons per year; Chinese power plants, 400 tons per year, while recurring geological events such as volcanoes and geysers emit 9,000-10,000 tons per year.�
“With these missing pieces of information, wrote Battig, the U.S. power plant contribution of mercury is closer to a 0.5% value than the “half of all mercury” claim by Ms. Lederer.”
Battig then offered this advice:
“Would that Ms. Lederer and the Environmental Entrepreneurs expend an equal amount of environmental anguish over placing compact fluorescent lamp bulbs indoors in homes, schools and factories. These mercury-containing, stealth-pollution bulbs bring the mercury threat right into your living room and nursery.”
No good reason for switchover
The fact is there is no good reason for consumers - even energy-conscious go-green enthusiasts - to replace their old incandescent bulbs with the much-overhyped and potentially dangerous CFL lamps. The sole beneficiaries of the forced switchover are light bulb manufacturers who stand to make huge profits selling CFL bulbs whose shelf price has been artificially lowered (but still is higher than incandescent bulbs) through hefty subsidies paid to them by taxpayers.
In light of the facts, the switchover to CFL bulbs has become a real consumer turn-off.
First, a small factual correction. A 60 watt bulb should read 14, not 11. The 11 is more like a 40 watt bulb which I would not use as the sole light for a room. Regarding mercury, large stores (Home Depot) that sell volumes of CFL should accept burned out ones for recycling.
Fifteen years ago I installed CFLs throughout a 4 story home with 2 rental rooms. There was immediately a $10 a month drop in electric cost. Also, I spent far less time changing bulbs. I would give most of my bulbs a 5 to 10 year life, whereas the old incandescents had to be replace every year or two. Just on the cost of electricity I figure I have saved at least $2,000 in the past 15 years. The value of time not spent shopping for bulbs, replacing bulbs, etc.??? I now have a variety of CFL’s clear white, soft pink, daylight, etc. I consider the short warm up time a small price to pay for what I have gained. That said, I think people should have the choice.
See my comment #41. I agree that getting rid of extra heat can be a plus in warm climates. In winter I have a 125 watt white heat lamp bulb in an adjustable holder clipped to my headboard. I aim it at myself while reading in bed, get brilliant light and keep the thermostat at 60 degrees. If I were the type to read in a chair, I would have one to use there along with a nice afghan or quilt.
I replaced every single light in my home with cfls at the same time 4 years ago, not a single interior cfl is still working in any of the commonly used light fixtures.
The only ones still working are the ones we hardly ever use.
The 11 watt light was the only one frequently used that didn’t die until about 4 months ago.
Energy savings ... zero
My 89 year old father had macular degeneration. My brother and I bought him a blender and I taught him how to make several raw food drinks using apples, carrots, cabbage, beets, greens like spinach and kale, pears, apricots, grapes, berries, summer squash, etc. He started using 3 drinks a day, and in 4 months his handwriting had improved noticeably. Try it, she might like it. I encourage using the blender rather than a juicer, because the fiber is also a valuable addition to the diet.
I’m a bit surprised that the one major draw-back of CFLs (at least, to my thinking) has not been mentioned.
I find fluorescent light horribly unpleasant and depressing. I’m not a big fan of any kind of artificial lighting, but fluorescent lights are the worst. It’s a double whammy during the winter, when there are only a few hours of natural sunlight.
When huge companies (still separately owned) and big government combine, I think that is what is called Fascism. When the means of production are owned and operated by the state that is Communism. Either way you have loss of liberty for the little guy.
I don't.
That said, I think people should have the choice.
That's right.
We tried to be good citizens and wanted to reduce our utility bill. We had an electrician come out and replace our 5 can lights in the kitched since they are on a lot and we wanted the latest and greatest electrical in the kitchen. We used flourescent flood lights at $12 each.....I’ve replaced at least 4 of them in two years. Our incandescants never burnt out.....our bedrooms, bathrooms and table lights are ALWAYS burning out.....what is the point of using these???????????
I agree with all points you have made.
I VASTLY prefer CFL’s to the incandescents, and may make the switch to LED’s when they aren’t ridiculous in price. I have been using the same CFL bulbs for nearly 4 years now, that I bought on sale for $2.50/8-Pack. Back when I used incandescents, I’d have to replace a few every couple of months.
I prefer that the bulbs not be so bright when I first turn them on as I’m not as stunned by the instant change in lighting. I used to have to squint in the mornings when I turned on the lights, now I don’t have to.
The first month I made the switch from incandescents to CFL’s, I saved about $50 per month. I also saved the price of cooling in the summer, as I had to run the AC dramatically lesser time lengths. I hate to roast under an incandescent bulb fixture. Also, I like not having to worry about being burned, and not worrying about the side effects from the heat. I do miss the incandescents in the bathroom, only because they did warm that space. My state has some of the least expensive electricity in the country, and with an older, less efficient furnace (I did the calculation earlier this year), I determined that the cost of electric heat is 3x more expensive than the gas.
That having been said, the biggest thing I DO hate about CFL’s (besides the mercury) is that it disturbs your sleep patterns (IIRC melatonin production) for a few hours after long term exposure. Like I said, I think it’s a passing technology, but as I have no fixtures on a dimmer, I have no reason to ever use an incandescent. I think peope should be able to buy whatever they want. I just won’t be buying any incandescents anytime soon/ever (Though I kept several for barter, and to use for baby chicks if need be, lol).
I figure for the hundreds of dollars I save each year, I can run the furnace oodles extra and still be ahead. I’ve heard some great things about the LED’s though, and may make the switch by whatever year these CFL’s burn out.
‘______to last me the rest of my life________’
Ditto here!
Hate CFL’s.
Hate losing choices.
Around 1977, we upgraded the counter-top stove. With the kind/size we bought, we had to have a specific vent hood. With that hood came a fluorescent light.
After about 2 years of turning the light on and off, we left it ON. We NEVer turn it off. The current one may be the 3rd one we’ve had, but I would take a bet and say it’s only the 2nd one.
Even as I type this, it seems crazy, but it’s totally true.
Just now went and looked at it. It’s 16 inches long, cool to the touch, 15 watts, and comes from Hungary . . .
We had no idea this would be.
We take it for granted - that the light will always be on when we’re in the kitchen!
You summed up exactly what I was thinking. Electricity is MUCH more expensive than other forms of heat. I have probably saved over $1000 in electricity costs since I have made the switch, and I don’t roast under the heatlamps anymore. I have replaced (to my knowledge) 1 CFL in the entire time I have used them (Just over 4 years), because I broke it. I paid about $12 for 32 bulbs, and I suspect that it’ll be a long time before I have to buy anymore. I have however, had to replace tube types though.
I was going to say also, that I prefer the CFL in the fridge too, they don’t work as well in the cold, but if I have to have the fridge open for a little while I don’t have a hot bulb to heat up foods next to it anymore. I do like the CFL’s, but prefer everyone get to buy what they want based on free market principles (which we haven’t had in 150 years or so).
I pointed this out on FR years ago and I was told how wrong I was.
Are you seriously trying to claim that using CFL's has NOT reduced your energy bill? Did the incandescents they replaced last 4 years?
The packaging for one of the bulbs I have says 12000 hours or 11 years. One should expect it to last about 1.5 years if left on 24 hours per day.
You could qualify as terrorist material there.
Not only do you have an abundance of light bulbs not sanctioned by the US government, the caliber of the bulbs you carry could be ranked as assault bulbs.
OTOH, the heat generated by incandescents is not a selling point. If you want heat use the heater.
They keep improving the LED lights. I have a bunch of warm white LED mini spot lights in outside fixtures turned on dusk to dawn. The LEDs are still expensive but they have several times the life span of a halogen spot light which is my only other option in these fixtures. There is very little difference in the appearance of the light between a 5 watt LED and the halogen 30 watt bulbs. In my experience, the halogen bulbs never came close to the life span printed on the boxes. They would sometimes burn out in just a few months.
Fascinating stuff. Chinese workers get mercury poisoning while manufacturing the CFL blubs. Unbelievable.
I have a few in the house. I have one in the bathroom. The slow crawl to brightness is actually a benefit in the morning. When I get up and turn on that light it is very dim. It allows my eyes adjust from sleepy bliss to full on bright light. Everywhere else the slow on period bothers me. I haven’t had a failure yet.
I don't use lights in the morning. Since turning on the light (any kind of light) causes me to suffer an instant wave of depression, not to mention the searing of my retinas, I use candles if it is dark at 5 AM and I need to see.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.