CFL vs Incandescent

silver-eagle

silver-eagle

En-Route
Joined
Mar 11, 2005
Messages
4,649
Location
Massachusetts
Display Name
Display name:
~John
Let me start by saying I can't understand why CFL is replacing incandescent bulbs. CFLs use mercury. You need to dispose of them carefully because of the hazardous nature. (Read the documentation on what steps need to be taken after you break a CFL. The EPA doc does make one wonder where people's heads are.)
I'd buy LEDs but at 4 times the price, they do not yet seem a viable replacement for incandescents. And good luck getting incandescent bulbs. Doesn't the law prohibit selling them after 1/2012?
So here's the technical question. If I have a socket rated for a 60 watt incandescent bulb, and buy a 11 watt CFL (rated to replace the 60 watt), can I get a larger rated CFL? I'm wondering if I could replace the 60 watt incandescent with a (rated to replace) 100 watt CFL?
 
silver-eagle said:
So here's the technical question. If I have a socket rated for a 60 watt incandescent bulb, and buy a 11 watt CFL (rated to replace the 60 watt), can I get a larger rated CFL? I'm wondering if I could replace the 60 watt incandescent with a (rated to replace) 100 watt CFL?
Click to expand...

If I understand your question, the answer is Yes. You should be able to draw 60 watts of power through the socket. Don't be confused by watt-equivalent ratings, there are only two things to worry about here: total watts being drawn (actually you are concerned about amperage, but since you aren't changing the house voltage, watts will do) and the amount of heat generated by the bulb, which might overheat the socket.

CFLs will produce far less heat than an incandescent, watt for watt. So you don't need to worry about that. Just don't overload the amperage (watt) limit of the socket and you should be fine.

-Skip
 
Last edited:
I like CFL bulbs because you don't need to replace them nearly as often which is a PITA, especially when you need to bring out the ladder.
 
Mari, this thread may be perfectly suitable for you to drag out that funny about changing light bulbs.
 
I went back to incandescent for my outdoor pole lamp. The CFLs last anywhere between 3 and 6 months. Incadescents last >18 months. CFLs hate high-humidity environments.

Yet another fine mess you've gotten us into Ollie...
 
silver-eagle said:
Let me start by saying I can't understand why CFL is replacing incandescent bulbs. CFLs use mercury. You need to dispose of them carefully because of the hazardous nature. (Read the documentation on what steps need to be taken after you break a CFL. The EPA doc does make one wonder where people's heads are.)
Click to expand...
And how many of them are just thrown in the trash?

. And good luck getting incandescent bulbs. Doesn't the law prohibit selling them after 1/2012?
Click to expand...
Since I live in MN CFL work so good in my outside lights in the middle of winter. Yes they make cold weather CFL I still like incandescent for the cold.
 
Everskyward said:
I like CFL bulbs because you don't need to replace them nearly as often which is a PITA, especially when you need to bring out the ladder.
Click to expand...

I agree with that changing part but I hate it when I buy one at 5x the cost and then it burns out in a week.
 
ron22 said:
I agree with that changing part but I hate it when I buy one at 5x the cost and then it burns out in a week.
Click to expand...
I've never had one burn out in a week or even a few months. In fact it seems like I rarely replace a CFL bulb. I don't live in a high-humidity environment, though.
 
I use CFLs (or LEDs) in places where they are very difficult to change.
I use incandescents on dimming switches (which they are now starting to make dimmable CFLs).
We use CFLs in places where the light is on all the time, and the wattage draw difference makes a difference. The ballasts on fluorescents don't like cycles.
We use CFLs in places where I don't want the heat from incandescents (like the enclosed can lights in the bathroom, the fixtures get HOT with an incandescent enclosed in that fixture).

We use incandescents in places where we are reading, and want the warm light rather than the harsher light of CFLs or LEDs.

On the topic of unintended consequences, we switched out our traffic signals to LEDs (it reduced maintenance by a factor of 10 at least). The bad part is that LEDs generate almost no heat, so when we get blowing snow, it sticks to the face of the signals and obscures them.
That didn't happen with the old ones, the heat from the lamps melted off the snow.
So now, we are looking at adding heading elements to the traffic signals to prevent that.
My Public Works guys say the cost of adding the heaters will still be offset many times over by the reduction in labor and parts replacing traffic signals, plus reduce the need to have multiple traffic signals at each intersection which came from the need to NOT have a burned out red light cause accidents.
 
Everskyward said:
I've never had one burn out in a week or even a few months. In fact it seems like I rarely replace a CFL bulb. I don't live in a high-humidity environment, though.
Click to expand...

You must be living right. Most of the ones I have ever gotten haven't lasted any longer than the incandescent lights I replaced.
 
Everskyward said:
In fact it seems like I rarely replace a CFL bulb.
Click to expand...
The key is to buy good quality bulbs. When you go to the local Home Improvement store, you can buy the no-name bulbs for ~20-30% less, but the unit failure rate will be higher.
It's not necessary to buy the most expensive ones, but keep one step up from the bulk-packaged brown-box units, unless you don't mind having some die.
I use the cheapies in places where it's easy to replace them if I get a bad one, the more expensive ones in places where I don't want to have to deal with them for a long time.

Another difference is the cheapies tend to start off dim, then get brighter over the course of 2-3 minutes. In living areas, that's no good, I use the more expensive instant-on units.
For a carriage light or garage light, crawlspace, whatever, that's probably OK.
 
PilotAlan said:
T
Another difference is the cheapies tend to start off dim, then get brighter over the course of 2-3 minutes. In living areas, that's no good, I use the more expensive instant-on units.
For a carriage light or garage light, crawlspace, whatever, that's probably OK.
Click to expand...

So where does one buy the good ones?
 
silver-eagle said:
Let me start by saying I can't understand why CFL is replacing incandescent bulbs. CFLs use mercury.
Click to expand...

However the amount of mercury in CFLs is far less than that produced by coal fired plants to produce the addl energy it takes to power incandescents.

I've never had a CFL fail early. In fact I'm not sure I've ever had one fail, period.

My issue with CFLs is that it takes them a minute or two to ramp up to full brightness. They're not a good fit for closets.
 
Bob Noel said:
So where does one buy the good ones?
Click to expand...

Same place as the cheapies.
Here's the cheapies: http://www.homedepot.com/Electrical...splay?langId=-1&storeId=10051&catalogId=10053
$15 for 12 bulbs.

Or these: http://www.homedepot.com/Electrical...splay?langId=-1&storeId=10051&catalogId=10053
$4 for 4 bulbs.

This is instant-on, indoor/outdoor, daylight spectrum: http://www.homedepot.com/Electrical...splay?langId=-1&storeId=10051&catalogId=10053
$4 for one.

It's just a matter of looking at the specs and making sure that you're getting what you need.
 
timwinters said:
However the amount of mercury in CFLs is far less than that produced by coal fired plants to produce the addl energy it takes to power incandescents.
Click to expand...

sort of like the hazard warning for the lasar in CD/DVD players?



timwinters said:
I've never had a CFL fail early. In fact I'm not sure I've ever had one fail, period.
Click to expand...

I have a few CFLs in the house. The two that failed were the outside front light. I thought the first one might just have been bad luck. When the second one failed also within about a month, then I stuck the regular bulb back in - those typically last about a year.

I'm "solving" the problem of supply by purchasing a whole bunch of regular bulbs at a time when I go visit a home depot or lowes.
 
\A place I've found CFLs hate is in ceiling fans. The constant vibration seems to kill them.

The best use so far for CFLs has been the enormous one that barely fits into my front porch lamp that lights up the U.S. Flag all night, and the two "spotlight" style that are in my security light on the back garage pointed down my driveway which are on a day/night sensor and the other pair that are pointed at the back yard but rarely on. The downside is that they don't come up to full brightness instantly when you throw the switch, and in really cold weather can take 10 minutes or more to fully illuminate the yard.

I also leave a "40w equivalent" CFL bulb in my desk lamp. A lot less tendency to scorch myself on the metal hood. ;)

But for the main lighting in our very dark living room, there's four 150W incandescents, and two CFLs. And it's still dark in here. :) Next house will have much bigger windows.
 
timwinters said:
However the amount of mercury in CFLs is far less than that produced by coal fired plants to produce the addl energy it takes to power incandescents.

I've never had a CFL fail early. In fact I'm not sure I've ever had one fail, period.

My issue with CFLs is that it takes them a minute or two to ramp up to full brightness. They're not a good fit for closets.
Click to expand...
So far I've only had one premature CFL failure out of about 20 lamps. I also have issues with the time it takes to get to full brightness in many of the locations I put the CFLs. For some reason it seems the PAR30 reflector style are particularly bad for that and they seem to get worse over time. I have four in recessed cans lighting my kitchen and it's like candlelight for a few minutes after turning them on. I recently swapped two of them over my dining table for 13W PAR30 LED lamps which appear to be a much better product. Hopefully they'll last a long time since they cost about $40 each. That price will come down, I suspect we'll see the same lamp for $10 in a few years.

WRT the question about using higher power CFLs, there is one consideration. High temps are likely to shorten the life of some of the components of a CFL (they have a built in electronic ballast) and the still generate some heat so while a fixture rated for a 60W incandescent won't have any electrical issues or become a fire hazard like might happen if you installed a 150W incandescent lamp, you still may be causing the CFL to run hotter than optimal for long life if you stick one in a fixture that's meant for a low wattage lamp. The same is true for LED lamps, they won't get as hot as the incandescent they are designed to replace but they aren't intended to get all that hot either.
 
I've been using CFLs for a few years now and have only had one fail. You do have to dispose of them properly, but if I have to remember to take a light bulb with me to IKEA once ever 3 years or so, I think I can handle that.

I think these "incandescent equivalents" are a little optimistic, I wouldn't consider an 11w CFL as a replacement for a 60w incandescent, that's more like a 40w incandescent.

As for "why do they exist", the answer is because you get 100w worth of light while paying for 23w of electricity. But CFLs and dimmer switches don't like each other, even bulbs marked as "dimmable".

As for "the law", there will be a phase-out of incandescent bulbs in 2012 through 2014, starting with 100w incandescents in 2012. There are lots of exceptions for special-purpose bulbs.
-harry
 
Last edited:
silver-eagle said:
Let me start by saying I can't understand why CFL is replacing incandescent bulbs. CFLs use mercury. You need to dispose of them carefully because of the hazardous nature.

Doesn't the law prohibit selling them after 1/2012?
Click to expand...

CFL's are the new Ethanol.
 
mantakos said:
Is the analogy appropriate, or is it just fun to say contrary stuff?
-harry
Click to expand...

Meh... A government-mandated thing that's supposedly environmentally friendly but doesn't work in all applications and is in some ways worse than what it's replacing? I dunno, seems that fits for both...

And no, I'm not trying to be contrarian... I just don't like the mandate. If you want people to replace their incandescents with CFL's in *appropriate* applications, then just tax the hell out of incandescents until they cost as much or slightly more than CFL's. But, this whole eliminating incandescents thing just seems a bit over the top to me.

Alan seems to have a very good handle on how to use them where appropriate, and others should follow suit. I also use a combination of CFL's and incandescents. I just am NOT looking forward to the day when harsh white light is all we can get. :incazzato:

I also have a bunch of X10 lamp modules that don't work with CFL's at all, and nothing to really replace them with. :dunno:
 
mantakos said:
Is the analogy appropriate, or is it just fun to say contrary stuff?
Click to expand...

If you mean it's yet "another greenie thing that isn't all that green" the analogy is apropos.

If you mean "we pay people to grow stuff that isn't a suitable fuel substitute", it probably doesn't work for CFLs.

We're just forcing CFLs in some areas, so manufacturers see the writing on the wall, shutter the incandescent plants, and we all have to put up with CFLs whether they're appropriate for the job we intended them for, or not.

So many other analogy possibilities, but I think he was going for that first one...
 
p.s. I'm not "anti-CFL" by any means, and use them in some appropriate applications. I also just agree with Kent that it's not government's business what light bulbs I choose to use.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Meh... A government-mandated thing that's supposedly environmentally friendly but doesn't work in all applications and is in some ways worse than what it's replacing? I dunno, seems that fits for both...
Click to expand...
Ethanol is arguably counter-productive, i.e. it doesn't achieve its nominal goal. The same can't be said for CFLs, they achieve their nominal goal quite well, they provide the same amount of light for far less power.

In what ways are CFLs worse than what they're replacing?

For what applications do CFLs not work? I'll offer up "dimmer switches", as I'm yet to find a CFL that works well with one. Other than that?
I just am NOT looking forward to the day when harsh white light is all we can get. :incazzato:
Click to expand...
I've seen some CFLs that provide "harsh white light". I don't use those.
I also have a bunch of X10 lamp modules that don't work with CFL's at all, and nothing to really replace them with. :dunno:
Click to expand...
Do they not work with X10 for the same reason that they don't work well with dimmer switches?

Note that incandescents aren't being banned, it's just that efficiency standards have been set that _current_ incandescents can't meet. So look for new "high efficiency" incandescents.
-harry
 
denverpilot said:
If you mean it's yet "another greenie thing that isn't all that green" the analogy is apropos.
Click to expand...
How are they not all that green? Because they contain less mercury than would be released into the atmosphere at the coal plant to generate the extra electricity needed to power an incandescent instead?
-harry
 
Oh I dunno... I just read the EPA's instructions for disposing of a broken one in my home, and decided that it would just be lovely to have these in the house if one had kids...

http://www.epa.gov/cfl/cflcleanup.html

My favorite is "leave the heating/cooling shut off for many hours"... yeah... sure... lots of people doing that, mid-winter, I'm sure.

The "detailed" instructions are even better.

http://www.epa.gov/cfl/cflcleanup-detailed.html

Any light bulb that requires a HAZMAT style cleanup SuperFund-style, probably isn't going to get used too much around here indoors.

So, that's what's "not green" about them. How many do you think are "properly disposed of" vs. being thrown in the trash can?
 
denverpilot said:
... Any light bulb that requires a HAZMAT style cleanup SuperFund-style, probably isn't going to get used too much around here indoors...
Click to expand...
The amount of mercury in a CFL is a tiny fraction of what's in an old-school thermometer. I broke one when I was a kid, my grandmother cleaned it up with a paper towel.

If you read the EPA directions closely, that's pretty much what they're telling you to do, they're just taking a long time to tell you. They're giving you detailed step-by-step instructions for how to clean up broken glass. The only "special" thing they're telling you to do is turn off the AC and take some precaution to air out the room, precautions nobody ever bothered to take for mercury thermometers, of course.
How many do you think are "properly disposed of" vs. being thrown in the trash can?
Click to expand...
Again, throw a CFL into the trash and you're potentially releasing into the landfill an amount of mercury that's less than the amount that would get released into the air to burn the coal to generate the extra electricity needed to power an incandescent.

What we're looking at here is a "raising of the bar". The care proposed for handling a broken CFL is a "raising of the bar" compared to how we used to handle mercury thermometers, and the care applied to recycling CFLs is a "raising of the bar" compared to incandescents powered by coal.

The CFL is easily "greener" than incandescents, it just doesn't seem that way because nobody ever bothered to detail for you the environmental impact of an incandescent.
-harry
 
Last edited:
How many mercury thermometers were manufactured? How much mercury was inside them? How many were broken or disposed of inappropriately?

How much mercury is used to manufacture millions and millions of CFLs? How much is inside of them? How many are typically broken and/or disposed of inappropriately?

Until you answer those questions, saying the environmental impact of CFLs is "lower than a mercury thermometer" is completely false science and reeks of a platitude restated over and over until people believe it.

Our family owned one mercury thermometer since I was a kid. It's still in "service" at mom's house. It was never broken, nor has the family needed more than one of them. I've never owned one.

I'd guess that each member of the family has used 10-20 CFLs already and will use many more in our lifetimes, mostly because we won't be able to purchase incandescents eventually.

As far as the silly, "Raise the bar" comments, feel free to raise your own personal bar, and I'll take care of mine.

How about we keep government regulations out of it? They've done such a bang-up job with regulating the mortgage and insurance industry (which is far easier than energy... there's a frakkin' balance sheet right in front of them).

I certainly trust them wholeheartedly to do the right thing with Energy policy, because their motives are 100% pure as the driven snow, and lead directly to Utopia.

The government would never allow anyone to obscure the reality by trading in derivatives not directly related to the product ("mortgage-backed securities", "carbon credits"... what's the difference?), and take those as real collateral vs. using the real numbers, would they? One would ruin the banking system, the other would ruin the real environment. Government is here for only our good and would NEVER do anything that stupid.

I know they wouldn't. Even if their buddies trading the derivatives were giving them big kickbacks at every fundraiser.
 
CFLs are great where they're great, and their benefits can and do sell them for appropriate use.

Mandating their use (by whatever means) is fundamentally wrong.

NB: sometimes, when CFLs fail, they start to generate HUGE RF noise, disrupting radio operations... X10 systems and powerline networking.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
CFL's are the new Ethanol.
Click to expand...

Probably more accurate to say that CFL's are the new MBTE.

CFL's save electricity, MBTE reduced emissions.

CFL's contain pollutants far worse that regular bulbs, MBTE created more environmental problems than saved.

And for the added bonus, does disposing of CFL's require more energy that is saved?
 
Last edited:
flyingcheesehead said:
Meh... A government-mandated thing that's supposedly environmentally friendly but doesn't work in all applications and is in some ways worse than what it's replacing? I dunno, seems that fits for both...

And no, I'm not trying to be contrarian... I just don't like the mandate. If you want people to replace their incandescents with CFL's in *appropriate* applications, then just tax the hell out of incandescents until they cost as much or slightly more than CFL's. But, this whole eliminating incandescents thing just seems a bit over the top to me.

Alan seems to have a very good handle on how to use them where appropriate, and others should follow suit. I also use a combination of CFL's and incandescents. I just am NOT looking forward to the day when harsh white light is all we can get. :incazzato:

I also have a bunch of X10 lamp modules that don't work with CFL's at all, and nothing to really replace them with. :dunno:
Click to expand...

Hey, it's all about the government protecting your freedom to choose. ;)
 
Greg Bockelman said:
You must be living right. Most of the ones I have ever gotten haven't lasted any longer than the incandescent lights I replaced.
Click to expand...

Likewise. Hasn't mattered whether they're the "cheap" ones or the "expensive" ones.

EppyGA said:
Hey, it's all about the government protecting your freedom to choose. ;)
Click to expand...

"You're free to choose any color as long as it's black"
 
denverpilot said:
... How much mercury is used to manufacture millions and millions of CFLs? How much is inside of them?...
Click to expand...
It takes about 125 CFLs to match 1 mercury thermometer.

And, again, you're ignoring the fact that if you use an incandescent instead of a CFL you end up releasing more mercury into the atmosphere than is contained in the CFL.
As far as the silly, "Raise the bar" comments, feel free to raise your own personal bar, and I'll take care of mine.
Click to expand...
The EPA is giving you extensive instructions on what to do when you break a CFL. You're interpreting this as evidence that a CFL is a dangerous thing. But you need to break 125 CFLs to equal one mercury thermometer, and you've never seen the EPA recommendations on how to handle a broken thermometer.

You're fretting over the trace amount of mercury found in a CFL that motivates a recommendation of "recycle, don't throw out", but even if you throw out every CFL you're still releasing less mercury into the environment than if you have used an incandescent instead.

This is "raising the bar", it's a higher level of care than was applied to incandescents or thermometers, not evidence of a higher level of risk.
How about we keep government regulations out of it? They've done such a bang-up job with regulating the mortgage and insurance industry...
Click to expand...
You're using a failure stemming from deregulation of the financial industry as support for deregulation of energy.
-harry
 
Bob Noel said:
... CFL's contain pollutants far worse that regular bulbs, MBTE created more environmental problems than saved...
Click to expand...
CFLs do not create more environmental problems than they save. Switching from an incandescent to a CFL results in less energy spent, less money spent, and fewer pollutants released into the environment.

Everybody is focusing on the 4mg of mercury inside a CFL while ignoring that if you use an incandescent instead, the extra power required results in an extra 7mg of mercury released into the atmosphere at a coal plant.
And for the added bonus, does disposing of CFL's require more energy that is saved?
Click to expand...
It costs about $1 to recycle a bulb that saves you about $40 in energy costs over its lifetime.
-harry
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top