Inside a "new and eco-friendly" lightbulb....

[W3RXO]

I think you need to look closely at your rant and see where your problems with the bulbs actually are. Truth is, these bulbs don't break all that often, when they do, clean up is a little more difficult. But it is a rare event, not something happening every year, even.

If you are hung up on the mercury, did old style thermometers, themostats, and mercury switches bother you? Your house probably contained many hundreds of times the amount of mercury in these items as are contained in modern CFLs. If those did not worry you, then CFLs should be of far less concern.

As far as how long they last, it depends on the unit. Most of them with cycling will not last 8000 hours. But an incandescent will fail sooner when cycled, too. Even if the CFL only lasts 2000 hours, it is still more economical to buy and run than a comparable incandescent bulb, even if the bulbs are given to you for free!

I don't buy into most of the environmental nonsense, but CFLs do make good sense from an economic standpoint.

Joe

Joe,
First off, it's not a rant. As someone who will frequently "Rant" about issues, I simply am questioning things, and want to know facts. I was unaware that there is only a minute amount of mercury in them. I simply, actually read warnings, and have seen the pamphlets, with pictures of people's feet, badly infected from stepping on the broken bulbs. Now, my problem lies here. The science is questionable, as to whether or not, they actually do give an advantage, in energy savings, over the life of the bulb, and whether or not that savings, or lack of it, is actually good for society, in the end. Given the hazardous nature, and the likelihood that some folks WILL NOT follow proper procedure, and WILL simply take the chance and throw them away, thus contaminating the soil, with WHATEVER level of mercury is there. Given that, I do not understand why ANYTHING should be promoted, through the power of government, to it's industry's advantage, over another. I still can use, and buy, incandescent bulbs, and have several packages around my house, with new ones in them. I choose, to want that savings, but so many of my CFL's have failed, that I am beginning to understand the anti-CFL side of things. I am now choosing to convert to LED's, by my choice. That's all I ask. Let people decide for themselves, what they want. If CFL's are what they believe is best for their needs, then by all means buy them. If LED's seem best (as they seem, to be, to me) then buy them, but don't use the power of the government to destroy ANOTHER industry, in America, wich employs people, in favor of something that the science is questionable, at best, made in an "Emerging economic nation", by labor standards that may not be what they would be here. I am simply in favor of freedom of choice, here.
But, my question, was truly from the standpoint of being ignorant of the matter. I asked, as a means of maybe learning something. I even opened up, by saying that I am NOT trying to be a contrarian. My problem is that, in my experience, they have NOT had the life I am told they should have. I have replaced CFL's in the same fixture sometimes 3-4 times a year, where I was replacing incandescents once every 3-4 years, in the same fixtures.
I am not bashing CFL's. I am giving MY anecdotal evidence, as to why I don't like them, anymore, after having been a big fan, based on advertised ratings, alone. If they are what you prefer, go for it. I don't want to stop you. But, I have had 3 of them break over the past 15, or so, years, (probably more, but the early ones, were before we knew how they were supposed to be cleaned up) and having to follow the instructions HERE given by our own government, on how to clean it up, makes me believe there may be more of a hazard than you elude to.
Back in the days when we had mercury thermometers, I was a child, and didn't know the dangers. I think most of society didn't realize the dangers, AND it was the only product of it's kind available (thermometers). Your argument there is specious at best. I am not "using" mercury as my reason to not use CFL's, but after having cleaned up 3 of them, over time, using the proper methods, I'd rather avoid that for the future.
What I AM questioning, is why our government, in it's perceived infinite wisdom, has seen fit, to phase out incandescent bulbs, which, in tough economic times, has only served to further erode our fragile economy. You seem like a reasonable guy. You make a good argument. But, in my experience, that argument does not hold water. Now, it's time to try a new technology, as that one seems to have failed, in my estimation.

[K7JEM]

What I AM questioning, is why our government, in it's perceived infinite wisdom, has seen fit, to phase out incandescent bulbs, which, in tough economic times, has only served to further erode our fragile economy. You seem like a reasonable guy. You make a good argument. But, in my experience, that argument does not hold water. Now, it's time to try a new technology, as that one seems to have failed, in my estimation.

Incandescent bulbs add nothing to our economy. 90+% of them are imported. I think you would be hard pressed to buy one that is made in the USA. So, no manufacturing jobs are lost here, it just depends on whether we want to buy imported incandescent bulbs or imported CFLs.

I have no problem with LED. But they may take a long time for payback of investment. A cfl will pay for itself after less than a year of use. If it lasts longer, as it should, then you come out ahead. So purely from an economic standpoint, the CFL is better, even if the regular bulbs are free.

CFLs are selling for under $3 each at the local Wal Mart. Cheaper if you get them through a source subsidized by the electric company. Since home lighting is a big user of electricity, it would pay to switch as many lamps as we can to CFL or LED. That just makes sense for the electric utilities.

The gov't has mandated efficiency standards for cars and appliances for a while, this is nothing new. If the new products end up saving you money, then the switch is worth it. Incandescents will be around for quite a while longer. I think CFL may only be a stopgap solution, until LEDs get cheaper and better.

Joe

[K7JEM]

read this: http://cdonner.com/power-factor-and-...-bulbs-cfl.htm

The PF of modern CFLs is capacitive, which is a good thing, since the power lines have to add capacitors to cancel out the inductive PF that exists from motors and transformers. Since we don't pay for apparent power, the resulting PF from our home is not much concern. Since the CFLs draw less apparent power anyway, than the regular bulbs that they replace, no additional beef up of the power lines would be needed, since there would be less current flowing in the wires.

Joe

[W3RXO]

Incandescent bulbs add nothing to our economy. 90+% of them are imported. I think you would be hard pressed to buy one that is made in the USA. So, no manufacturing jobs are lost here, it just depends on whether we want to buy imported incandescent bulbs or imported CFLs.

A job is a job. And tell that to the guys working at Pomona ITT, Sylvania, or other electrical component manufacturers, who no longer manufacture here. ITT used to be a good job, here in Pomona, and now they're all made cheaper, more cheaply, and to lesser standards, by child slave labor in China.

I have no problem with LED. But they may take a long time for payback of investment.

Great, freedom of choice at work!

A cfl will pay for itself after less than a year of use. If it lasts longer, as it should, then you come out ahead. So purely from an economic standpoint, the CFL is better, even if the regular bulbs are free.

Key phrase there, is "AS IT SHOULD". In my experience, nothing is ever, "AS IT SHOULD" be.

CFLs are selling for under $3 each at the local Wal Mart. Cheaper if you get them through a source subsidized by the electric company. Since home lighting is a big user of electricity, it would pay to switch as many lamps as we can to CFL or LED. That just makes sense for the electric utilities.

Exactly what I did. I bought 200 of them, at $0.40 each, from a SoCal Edison "Program" many many years ago, and DID switch every possible light in my house to fluorescent. ALL of the CFL's were GE manufacture, made somewhere in an Asiatic Communist country. The circular, and straight tube were either Philips or Sylvania, I can't remember. Some made here, some abroad. I have no issue with the life of tubular fluorescents, they do have a good life, in my experience. It's the cheap assed ballasts, that suck, in my estimation. But as for the CFL's, I have to replace them sometimes 3-4 times a year. Incandescents lasted 3-4 years in the same fixture. There's something wrong when it changes that drastically.

The gov't has mandated efficiency standards for cars and appliances for a while, this is nothing new.

And I don't like CAFE standards, any more than I do light bulb efficiency standards. It is government over reach, of the worst kind. CAFE standards have killed plenty of people, by creating smaller lighter, less sturdy cars, which do not survive crashes, very well. A complete nanny state, is what we are headed towards. Anyone ever heard of, or become familiar with Article II, Section 8, on the U.S. Constitution, the enumerated powers of Congress?

If the new products end up saving you money, then the switch is worth it.

Not when I have to store my old, piling up, used bulbs, in a sealed container, until the day my city holds it's household hazardous waste round-up, and HOPE I have that day off work, to take them there, along with my boxes of batteries, and old paint cans and empty hairspray cans, and empty cans of insecticide, etc., etc.

Incandescents will be around for quite a while longer. I think CFL may only be a stopgap solution, until LEDs get cheaper and better.

To me, it has ALWAYS been about the overall cost savings, and CFL's have not proven themselves to be cost effective, for me, in my house. When I look at my charts, available from SoCal Edison, to see my energy usage, from before my total switch to fluorescents, to after the switch, the only noticeable difference was consistently March and October, having a significant drop in KWH usage, for the 3 years after the switch, to the time I married, and added a second human into the equation, thus making comparisons to earlier years null and void.
No, I am holding out hope for LED's, and just bought 9 bulbs at Costco, to see how I like them. Cost was comparable to what I paid for the first CFL's I was buying in the early 1990's, when they were starting to come down in price. About $4, per bulb. So far so good. But, we have yet to see, if there will be an advantage. I am spreading the purchases out, as I can afford them. I have replaced 9, of the 17, screw-in type bulbs my fixtures require. But, the rest need a brighter bulb, than what I found at Costco. So, for now, those remain CFL's.

[N2EY]

W3RXO:

I'll beat this drum again:

Look up Philips EcoVantage bulbs. They're improved incandescents which look just like ordinary ones, but have higher efficiency, bright white light, and cost $1.50 or less at Home Depot. They're made in Mexico, too.

They are rated at 1000 hours but I haven't had any burn out yet.

btw,

CFLs are not a good choice for some applications:

1) Applications that are turned on and off a lot.
2) Applications in very cold, very hot or wet locations
3) Applications with dimmers (unless special dimmable CFLs are used)

Simply putting a CFL in every socket can be a big mistake.

73 de Jim, N2EY

[W3RXO]

Jim,
I will look into some of those, for those special applications. I have 3, I think, that those type of bulbs would be a viable alternative. I don't mean to sound argumentive with Joe. I just have not had the life expectancy out of CFL's, that are "expected", and they have not performed up to what level I thought I should get. So, I went from being a believer, from the economic standpoint, to being a total NON-believer, because of my personal experience, and Joe doesn't seem to "get it" that I have experience with them, and learned to hate them, for every reason that you hear about. So, I am looking for a more viable alternative, that will still be a more economical alternative. I love the idea of saving money, and if it is also earth friendly, so much the better.
While CFL's may be earth-friendly, when they are handled right, IN THEORY, my reality is that they are not very people friendly. So, than you, for your suggestion. I WILL look into those.

[N2EY]

I will look into some of those, for those special applications. I have 3, I think, that those type of bulbs would be a viable alternative.

They're usable pretty much anywhere a conventional incandescent is usable.

I don't mean to sound argumentive with Joe. I just have not had the life expectancy out of CFL's, that are "expected", and they have not performed up to what level I thought I should get. So, I went from being a believer, from the economic standpoint, to being a total NON-believer, because of my personal experience, and Joe doesn't seem to "get it" that I have experience with them, and learned to hate them, for every reason that you hear about. So, I am looking for a more viable alternative, that will still be a more economical alternative. I love the idea of saving money, and if it is also earth friendly, so much the better.
While CFL's may be earth-friendly, when they are handled right, IN THEORY, my reality is that they are not very people friendly. So, than you, for your suggestion. I WILL look into those.

I don't know what you pay for electricity, but if it's more than a few cents per kWH, the EcoVantage bulbs pay for themselves.

As for CFLs, I suspect that a key part of your bad experience is that you got a bad batch or a bad brand. IIRC you got 200 of the things through the utility, and they're the ones that have been short-lived.

In my house I have a mix of Sylvania, GE and other brands. Usual sources have been Home Depot and Costco. I write the install date on the base, and am still using CFLs installed in 2008 and 2009. Conventional incandescents in the same sockets wouldn't last a year.

---

What really burns my bacon about CFLs and LEDs is that there's no central website I know of where actual test results are shown.

If I were a government that was really serious about saving energy, I'd have an independent testing program that ALL common light bulbs would have to go through. There would be life tests, light-output tests, cold- and hot-environment tests, RF emission tests, and special-purpose tests (such as how well dimmable bulbs really work).

Tests would be performed on a significant number of bulbs purchased through various retailers (say 25 bulbs of each type, bought from at least 4 different places to assure different batches). The full results would be listed, not just summaries.

That way, I could make an informed choice of what bulb to buy - be it incandescent, CFL, LED, or whatever.

73 de Jim, N2EY