CFL vs Incandescent

[mikea]

Dimming is a big deal. Even with the dimmer on FULL I have issues with CFLs flickering or not coming on.

I can't put one in my outdoor light on my porch. I've tried eight different models and they WILL NOT work reliably. I will try an LED there.

And where do I get the red and green CFLs to replace the incandescents on the port and starbord side of my garage door?

There are dimmable CFLs. Save your money. I bought a couple and they don't dim at all until they go down quick at 30-10% dim.

I think those of you who are having rpobems have circuits and uses that aren't good for CFLs. Example: With the early versions frequent on/off cycles would cause premature failure. Today I have all Feit CFLs in my recessed kitchen fixtures and I turn them off and on frequently and they're holding up, although this is where I had the cheep GE CFLS fail. Almost all of mine are on X-10 relay (no dim!) switches that are computer controlled.

Note that the end of 2012 law (BTW, signed by GW Bush) does not explicitly outlaw incandescent light bulbs. The law bans low efficiency bulbs. It has exceptions for decorative bulbs and other special uses. You will be able to still get the new efficient incandescents and such as halogen bulbs. When the outcry builds, I'd still look for congress to extend to cutoff date as they did for the analog TV cutoff.

You can stock up on incandescents in the meantime if you choose to be an anarchist.

 

[mantakos]

So you answer a challenge to your 'hard data' by referring to a piece of comedy ?

No, I answered a piece of comedy with another piece of comedy.

... If you can refer me to a paper from a at least semi-independent source that looked at all those aspects of the CFL lifecycle, I'll gladly have a look at it.

Why don't you do that and tell us what you find? I tried my best to provide the information, but apparently the private sector, public sector, and academia are not eligible as sources of information.
-harry

 

[weilke]

Why don't you do that and tell us what you find? I tried my best to provide the information, but apparently the private sector, public sector, and academia are not eligible as sources of information.
-harry

Popular Mechanics an academic publication ?

If this was 'your best' to provide information, my expectations are probably too high.

 

[mantakos]

Popular Mechanics an academic publication ?

Did somebody say it was?

If this was 'your best' to provide information, my expectations are probably too high.

I provided information from industry, government, and media sources. That's pretty good for a forum of this kind. If you're not satisfied, you should absolutely demand a refund.

What have you provided?
-harry

 

[denverpilot]

I tried my best to provide the information, but apparently the private sector, public sector, and academia are not eligible as sources of information.

Personally I thought you did good Harry... finding un-biased opinions on this topic is virtually impossible, since someone has to foot the bill for writing all this stuff.

I just wish government would stay out of my choice of light bulb. Maybe I should start screaming about how it's my body, and my rights? A man's right to choose! -- His light bulbs.

With that said, it's too late. Either stock up now, or use CFLs in the future. I don't think government regulation in our lives is going to get any smaller anytime soon.

 

[Richard]

I'm talking about globe light bulbs that are not in a recessed can, like this one.

It's not next to a freeway but it's in California where they have earthquakes.

I just remembered...check your voltage. The 120V which PG&E provides may be 127V or a tad higher in your neighborhood.

So when Mari burns out a bulb, it's time for duck and cover?

 

[denverpilot]

I just remembered...check your voltage. The 120V which PG&E provides may be 127V or a tad higher in your neighborhood.

I had a friend graph his voltage over time, and found that there was a problem in the switching substation near his home. He reported it monthly for six months, and couldn't get a response from Xcel.

He faxed the graphs to the PUC and started calling them. Took another two months before a repair was made.

Obvious problem, hard data, no fix for eight months. Voltage at night was all over the place, and way out of spec.

 

[pilot_dude]

(ii) EXCLUSIONS- The term `general service incandescent lamp' does not include the following incandescent lamps:

(I) Appliance lamp (e.g. refrigerator or oven light)
(II) Black light lamp.
(III) Bug lamp.
(IV) Colored lamp...
​

They do make colored CFLs, though...

-harry​

​

Thank you for that piece of info. I raise ducks and need the red incandescent bulbs for heat during the first month or so of their life. I put a few back for later use but guess that won't be necessary for now.

 

[timwinters]

You can stock up on incandescents in the meantime if you choose to be an anarchist.

Or buy appliance bulbs. They'll still be available and they last longer anyway since most of them are 130v rated. And, you should still be able to buy next generation incandescents that meet the new standards.

To say that incandescents have been banned is inaccurate.

To say the federal government is dictating what type of lamps you must buy is inaccurate.

The new federal standards are technology neutral. They simply require lamps to produce a minimum number of lumens per watt and incandescent mfgrs can meet these standards with newer technologies...if they choose to.

 

[mikea]

...Note that the end of 2012 law (BTW, signed by GW Bush) does not explicitly outlaw incandescent light bulbs. The law bans low efficiency bulbs. It has exceptions for decorative bulbs and other special uses. You will be able to still get the new efficient incandescents and such as halogen bulbs. When the outcry builds, I'd still look for congress to extend to cutoff date as they did for the analog TV cutoff.

You can stock up on incandescents in the meantime if you choose to be an anarchist.

Or buy appliance bulbs. They'll still be available and they last longer anyway since most of them are 130v rated. And, you should still be able to buy next generation incandescents that meet the new standards.

To say that incandescents have been banned is inaccurate.

To say the federal government is dictating what type of lamps you must buy is inaccurate.

The new federal standards are technology neutral. They simply require lamps to produce a minimum number of lumens per watt and incandescent mfgrs can meet these standards with newer technologies...if they choose to.

"minimum number of lumens per watt" = efficiency.
Yes?

 

[timwinters]

Mike,

I wasn't referring to your post when I said that. I was referring to others before you. I quoted you at the beginning because I thought you made a good (and hilarious) point that was being overlooked by many here and I also wanted to expound on that thought.

The rest of my post was completely unrelated to your post though. I'm sorry that it didn't come across that way. And, it didn't...I should have segregated my thoughts better.

 

[mikea]

Mike,

I wasn't referring to your post when I said that. I was referring to others before you. I quoted you at the beginning because I thought you made a good (and hilarious) point that was being overlooked by many here and I also wanted to expound on that thought.

The rest of my post was completely unrelated to your post though. I'm sorry that it didn't come across that way. And, it didn't...I should have segregated my thoughts better.

S'OK. I didn't remember the exact details of the qualifications, but I knew that plenty of bulb types were still going to be legal.

I keep thinking about the streaming lights on theater marquees...then again I though there would be lots of poor folks that couldn't get TV anymore and that never became a scandal.

 

[denverpilot]

The new federal standards are technology neutral. They simply require lamps to produce a minimum number of lumens per watt and incandescent mfgrs can meet these standards with newer technologies...if they choose to.

That's such a cop out. Of course it's worded to seem technology neutral, but it had the effect of shuttering all U.S. based incandescent bulb manufacturing. And you can't say they didn't know that was the effective outcome of the law, nor can you say they didn't see it coming.

Give us a break with the wordsmithing. We're not quite that stupid.

That's just like saying the TSA isn't breaking the 4th Amendment as long as you're standing in a "Screening Area".

Same BS. Different apologists.

 

[mantakos]

That's such a cop out. Of course it's worded to seem technology neutral, but it had the effect of shuttering all U.S. based incandescent bulb manufacturing...

It had the effect of instituting a phase-out of all "non-specialty" low-efficiency incandescent bulbs. Special-purpose incandescent bulbs and high-efficiency incandescent bulbs will continue to be legal.

If anything, US manufacturers should be more able to compete in the market for these bulbs as they have a higher purchase price.
-harry

 

[weilke]

According to EIA,
-household electricity use amounts to less than 40% of total electricity consumed ( the rest is industrial and commercial. Both of those sectors are largely using fluorescent or discharge systems already).
- Only 8.8% of household energy use is for lighting,
- even if we manage to push that down by 50% through use of CFLs, the effect on all electricity used is only going to amount to 1.5% or so.
- 45% of electricity is made from coal, so at best we are down to 0.6% decrease in coal based generation.
- From the data quoted earlier, the switch to CFLs can decrease mercury emissions by 70% leaving us with a potential decrease of mercury emissions of 0.42%

Pretty steep climb for a short slide .

I dont see us eating lots of domestic lake fish in the near future.

 

[denverpilot]

If anything, US manufacturers should be more able to compete in the market for these bulbs as they have a higher purchase price.

That'd be true if there were any U.S. manufacturers left.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/13/ge-closes-last-us-factory-making-incandescent-light-bulbs/

That was September of last year. Where you been?

 

[mantakos]

... -household electricity ...

Note that you're assuming that 100% of incandescent lights are used in households.

- even if we manage to push that down by 50% through use of CFLs...

CFLs use about 1/4 of the electricity of an incandescent, so that's a 75% reduction. The heat generated by incandescents also must be countered by additional air conditioning in the summer.

Pretty steep climb for a short slide .

What's steep about it? You buy a different bulb, you save money.
-harry

 

[mantakos]

That'd be true if there were any U.S. manufacturers left...

Note that GE still makes incandescent bulbs, they're just shuttering that US plant and moving the production to Mexico and China. Is this the first time something like that has happened?

US factories struggle to compete with overseas factories for low-cost products.
-harry

 

[weilke]

Note that you're assuming that 100% of incandescent lights are used in households.

No I dont, but taking the lamps of the store-shelves is a move directed at the consumer market. Most industrial lighting has changed over 30 years ago.

CFLs use about 1/4 of the electricity of an incandescent, so that's a 75% reduction.

Yup, but fleet-wide the reduction will not be that high.

The heat generated by incandescents also must be countered by additional air conditioning in the summer.

...and it has to be subtracted during the heating season.

 

[mantakos]

Most industrial lighting has changed over 30 years ago.

Why do you think that is?

Yup, but fleet-wide the reduction will not be that high.

How so?

...and it has to be subtracted during the heating season.

Are those costs symmetrical?
-harry

 

[skidoo]

...and it has to be subtracted during the heating season.

And, who is in the best position to decide how to balance his heating percentage of use; a percentage from bulbs, a percentage from electric heaters, a percentage from oil, or propane, etc...? I contend that the purchaser is best able to decide, not the regulators.

I tried the CFL's some years ago. After a short while some started smoking at the base. I checked them all, and they all had some sort of crack/dark area at the base, evidence of overheating. I immediately got rid of them. CFL's, No thanks!

If a CFL causes a fire, can the regulators be held liable?

 

[weilke]

Why do you think that is?

Because commercial and industrial lighting have different requirements from household applications. E.g. lighting up a warehouse 24hrs/day with cycles counted in weeks or a retail car lot for 8-10hrs every night is a very different application from the couple of can-lights that illuminate my basement stairs for maybe a 2 minutes a day.

How so?

- there are already regular fluorescents in use, there wont be any reduction from replacing them.
- there will still be incandescents, spotlights, specialty fixtures
- the energy-savings of CFLs are overstated

Are those costs symmetrical?

Never said they are. It is just a factor conveniently 'forgotten' whenever the CFL issue is discussed.

 

[weilke]

And, who is in the best position to decide how to balance his heating percentage of use; a percentage from bulbs, a percentage from electric heaters, a percentage from oil, or propane, etc...? I contend that the purchaser is best able to decide, not the regulators.

Oh no, goverment knows best .

I had a CFL just melt its case in place, dripped off like molten wax.

 

[mantakos]

Because commercial and industrial lighting have different requirements from household applications. E.g. lighting up a warehouse 24hrs/day with cycles counted in weeks or a retail car lot for 8-10hrs every night is a very different application from the couple of can-lights that illuminate my basement stairs for maybe a 2 minutes a day.

You did a really good job of avoiding saying "because flourescent lights are more efficient and thus there are significant cost savings and residential consumers are the last ones to figure this out".

- there are already regular fluorescents in use, there wont be any reduction from replacing them.

If CFLs use 25% of the electricity of incandescents and have 20% market share, that means that they only use 5% of the total lighting power, and so only that 5% is not "eligible" for the additional benefit of the ban.

- the energy-savings of CFLs are overstated

How so?

By the way, how much of the problem does a solution have to solve to justify itself when the solution costs negative money?
-harry

 

[weilke]

You did a really good job of avoiding saying "because flourescent lights are more efficient and thus there are significant cost savings and residential consumers are the last ones to figure this out".

In those industrial/commercial applications, discharge or fluorescent lights are more efficient.
In SOME residential applications, fluorescents are more efficient, in others they are not.

If CFLs use 25% of the electricity of incandescents and have 20% market share, that means that they only use 5% of the total lighting power, and so only that 5% is not "eligible" for the additional benefit of the ban.

So ?

By the way, how much of the problem does a solution have to solve to justify itself when the solution costs negative money?

If the cost was negative, the 'invisible hand of the market' would lead to eventual displacement of one technology by the other.

 

[timwinters]

That's such a cop out. Of course it's worded to seem technology neutral, but it had the effect of shuttering all U.S. based incandescent bulb manufacturing. And you can't say they didn't know that was the effective outcome of the law, nor can you say they didn't see it coming.

Give us a break with the wordsmithing. We're not quite that stupid.

That's just like saying the TSA isn't breaking the 4th Amendment as long as you're standing in a "Screening Area".

Same BS. Different apologists.

Civility & civil discourse aren't your forte are they, Denver...

 

[mantakos]

... In SOME residential applications, fluorescents are more efficient, in others they are not.

And what are the applications where they are not more efficient?

So ?

So ... therefore the benefit of converting the remaining incandescents to cfl via a phase-out of incandescents is not significantly diminished by the partial installed base in place today as CFLs don't use power proportional to their installed base.

If the cost was negative, the 'invisible hand of the market' would lead to eventual displacement of one technology by the other.

In a vacuum, a feather and a brick will fall at the same rate. We encounter such vacuums most often in high school physics text books.
-harry

 

[weilke]

And what are the applications where they are not more efficient?

Anywhere where frequent cycling and short run times diminish the longevity of CFLs to a point that the energy (and mercury) penalty of producing the thing outweighs the savings.

So ... therefore the benefit of converting the remaining incandescents to cfl via a phase-out of incandescents is not significantly diminished by the partial installed base in place today as CFLs don't use power proportional to their installed base.

Just a little bit further up you indicated that any improvement, even the less than 1/2 percent of mercury output a full CFL campaign could create, is worth the effort. Yet you are willing to just ignore a similar sized effect that acts opposed to the intended goal ?

 

[skidoo]

the energy-savings of CFLs are overstated

How so?
-harry

Because there is an assumption that the energy load of a bulb is waste. But, in many cases it is not. For example, say I have a 200 sq ft room and I use 4 100W bulbs for light and a 1000W electric heater to keep the room comfortable. If I could replace those 4 bulbs that produced all light with zero heat, then that same room would need more electric heater power to maintain the comfort level. I would have to switch to the 1500W heater setting. So, the energy savings from converting to a most efficient bulb becomes moot...

 

[Doggtyred]

What about in climates such as mine where the temp is above 80 degrees most of the year and I only use heat 2 months out if the year??

Waste heat is not always beneficial.

And what applies to you does not universally apply to everyone.

 

[mantakos]

Anywhere where frequent cycling and short run times diminish the longevity of CFLs to a point that the energy (and mercury) penalty of producing the thing outweighs the savings.

Would the invisible hand of the market determine which scenarios these might be?

Just a little bit further up you indicated that any improvement, even the less than 1/2 percent of mercury output a full CFL campaign could create, is worth the effort. Yet you are willing to just ignore a similar sized effect that acts opposed to the intended goal ?

Interesting.

If I understand it correctly, I think the argument you're trying to float is something like: "you said that a 2% reduction was enough to justify an action that has negative cost, but now you're pooh-pooh'ing a factor that reduces that number by 5%, despite 5% being clearly 'more percent' than 2%!"

Is that correct?

If so, the reason one is significant while the other isn't is because your 5% is 5% of the 2%. In other words, 2% of power savings can be enough to justify an action that has negative cost, and if that savings turns out to be only 95% of that 2%, or only 1.9%, that's still enough to justify an action that has negative cost.
-harry

 

[weilke]

What about in climates such as mine where the temp is above 80 degrees most of the year and I only use heat 2 months out if the year??

Waste heat is not always beneficial.

And what applies to you does not universally apply to everyone.

That is why we need to take ALL factors into account, not just the ones that favor our respective agenda:

- lamps in outdoor fixtures dont create a cooling load
- lamps in indoor fixtures during heating season dont create a cooling load
- lamps in recessed cans on a top floor dont create much of a cooling load
- CFLs still produce a cooling load, those suckers can get hot !

All these things can be modeled, I have yet to see credible research that takes them into account.

 

[mantakos]

Because there is an assumption that the energy load of a bulb is waste.

It is clearly true that the inefficiency of incandescent bulbs results in heat release. If you continually heat your home all day long, all year long, then this doesn't work against you. If you live in Antarctica, then your incandescent light bulbs are just little space heaters taking some of the load off your furnace, and you don't care about the efficiency of bulbs (though you might care about the cost of the different power sources, e.g. a gas furnace vs an electric "space heater").

On the other hand, if you ever cool your home, then you're paying once to run the little space heater in your incandescent bulb, plus you're paying a second time to run the AC to counter that heat, and since the AC isn't 100% efficient, you're paying more than 2x for that bulb's heat.

Note that, technically, this isn't really about the efficiency of the bulb, just the cost associated with the inefficiency, though maybe that's just a terminology nit.
-harry

 

[mantakos]

... - lamps in outdoor fixtures dont create a cooling load

Right, though you are spending money to run a space heater to heat the outdoors.

- lamps in indoor fixtures during heating season dont create a cooling load

Right, though they create a more than double load during cooling season.

- lamps in recessed cans on a top floor dont create much of a cooling load

But, again, you're paying to run little space heaters, so you still have that 1x factor even if you don't have the full 2x factor of running counter to your AC.

- CFLs still produce a cooling load, those suckers can get hot !

Yes, they create about 1/4 of the heat of incandescents, so this discussion is just about that 3/4 difference.

All these things can be modeled, I have yet to see credible research that takes them into account.

Ok, but does this really require more than the back of an envelope to realize that you're saving money? What you'd get from the computational model is "how much money would I save", though the supercomputer running the computational model would generate a lot of heat, so I'd run that during the winter.
-harry

 

[skidoo]

It is clearly true that the inefficiency of incandescent bulbs results in heat release. If you continually heat your home all day long, all year long, then this doesn't work against you. If you live in Antarctica, then your incandescent light bulbs are just little space heaters taking some of the load off your furnace, and you don't care about the efficiency of bulbs (though you might care about the cost of the different power sources, e.g. a gas furnace vs an electric "space heater").

On the other hand, if you ever cool your home, then you're paying once to run the little space heater in your incandescent bulb, plus you're paying a second time to run the AC to counter that heat, and since the AC isn't 100% efficient, you're paying more than 2x for that bulb's heat.

Note that, technically, this isn't really about the efficiency of the bulb, just the cost associated with the inefficiency, though maybe that's just a terminology nit.
-harry

Well, I don't live in Antarctica, but I am running my electric space heater right now. Have been since about last October. Those who live south can choose CFL's if desired, but dont' force me to choose them because you assume my needs are just like yours... The free market works best!

 

[weilke]

Ok, but does this really require more than the back of an envelope to realize that you're saving money?

I thought this switch to CFLs was all 'about the environment' ? If reducing overall energy consumption is the objective, whether the individual saves money or not is of no consequence.

I am really not sure that I 'save money'. I purchased a 5 year old 'energy star' home with most of the upstairs living areas equipped with CFLs. For some reason, I keep changing them with a frequency not much different from my prior home that had all incandescents. The difference is that I pay a lot more for a box of lamps, particularly as I need to get the mirrored versions that go into recessed cans (If I stick cheap CFLs into the cans, I will end up with less light output further reducing efficiency).

What you'd get from the computational model is "how much money would I save", though the supercomputer running the computational model would generate a lot of heat, so I'd run that during the winter.

No. What I would get from a properly calculated model is the knowledge of whether we are actually doing something useful and sustainable. This may mean that in a state like North Dakota or Alaska where the heating season is longer and energy is cheap, the equation really doesn't favor CFLs.

Education and the market are far better mechanisms to disseminate this type of technology than cramming it down peoples throats via goverment fiat.

 

[mantakos]

... dont' force me to choose them because you assume my needs are just like yours...

Are your needs different? CFLs would save you money, but less money than they'd save people who live in warmer climates.
-harry

 

[weilke]

Are your needs different? CFLs would save you money, but less money than they'd save people who live in warmer climates.

You keep repeating this like it is true.

 

[mantakos]

I thought this switch to CFLs was all 'about the environment' ? If reducing overall energy consumption is the objective, whether the individual saves money or not is of no consequence.

He's saving money by purchasing less of a product whose production has negative environmental consequences. And because he's saving money, he's personally benefiting from the mandate, as opposed to being forced to pay a price in the name of environmentalism. This is what we call a "win-win".

For some reason, I keep changing them with a frequency not much different from my prior home that had all incandescents.

The lifespan of a CFL should be many times that of an incandescent, in general. In the years that I've used them, I've only had one fail. Do the CFLs you buy come with a warranty?

The difference is that I pay a lot more for a box of lamps...

And there's a difference in the amount of electricity you're buying to power those lamps. This ordinarily overcomes the difference in purchase price in fairly brief time, less than a year. If your CFLs are regularly lasting less than a year, then something very unusual is at work.

What I would get from a properly calculated model is the knowledge of whether we are actually doing something useful and sustainable. This may mean that in a state like North Dakota or Alaska where the heating season is longer and energy is cheap, the equation really doesn't favor CFLs.

It sounds like your criteria is "every household in every state benefits". Is that the proper criteria? Is this action proven counter-productive if you can identify a village in Alaska that doesn't get much benefit from CFLs?

Education and the market are far better mechanisms to disseminate this type of technology than cramming it down peoples throats via goverment fiat.

I agree that such an ideology is aesthetically more pleasing, much like the high school physics problems that ignore friction and air resistance are easier to figure out.
-harry

 

[mantakos]

You keep repeating this like it is true.

Pull out an envelope and show us how it isn't.
-harry