Interesting discussion for the Summer holiday season. My 2cents:
Whether we like them or not, here in the EU they have banned the sale of the
most popular sizes of incandescent bulbs in an effort to force the use of
CFL. This caused people (being people) to stock up with "a life time supply"
of incandescent which probably at least dented any environmental benefits of
reduced energy consumption.
Although the "quality" may not be absolutely high, clearly it only has to be
good enough for the device to function as designed. The early CFL were
pretty naff, but currently they seem to be OK and once they have got over
the installation costs of themselves and their short life ancestors probably
will have some sort of benefit. At least they are not subsidized which
always seems to me to be singularly pointless. Their long life does seem to
hold true, at least if you never switch them off. We have one in our rather
dark hall which we leave on all the time. It has been there for so long I
can't remember. The consumption is low enough that we reason its OK, thus
very adequately demonstrating again how people mess up environmental logic.
Conversely in rooms which have short on cycles we have reverted back to
incandescent as the CFLs fail early.
My ecofriend points out that burning coal emits mercury when you query the
mercury in the CFL, but doesn't have any numbers on the net outcome.
LEDs have a Moore's like Law (doubling in brightness/halving in cost about
every 18 months I think it is) so soon they will be an economical
replacement, thus obsolescing CFL. Already we can buy mini LED spots for
domestic use and replacement apparently fluorescent light tubes which are
actually a glass envelop stuffed with LEDS. These make economic sense in
industrial use already. There are interesting developments also in OLED
light panels for ceiling fixtures which will soon be commercial.
Regards
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Steven Creswick
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 9:26 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] what is the reliability of CFLs and LEDs as incandescent
light bulb replacements?
Brian,
Wow! The only 'early ones' that I could get were made to the West of the US
[across a large pond], and they were not cheap!
I remember in one purchase, I had 50% mortality just getting them home. The
store asked me what I had done with them? ... took them out of box and
screwed into socket. Didn't work!!! Here I am! Had to expend an
Additional significant amount of fuel and time to return them. Suggested
that they take the rest of the shipment and put them back into the shipping
container and send them back to point of origin. My 'environmental savings'
had long since been flushed away.
I prefer the cool white [daylight] bulbs vs the dim 'warm' ones myself...
I remain cautious about putting them in enclosed fixtures and/or continuous
use applications. Certain brands are on my do-not-use, or use-with-caution
list.
I still remain skeptical about how much additional Hg was released into the
environment by less than intelligent, frustrated consumers in the maddening
rush to 'save the environment.'
Even though prices of CFL's have come down and reliability has gone up, they
are still not particularly cost effective for many of my 'typical' home-use
applications. Your situation, on-the-island, could be different, however.
IMHO, 'Feel good' still remains a large factor in many cases. LED
luminaries are just way too expensive yet!
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brian Ellis
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 2:42 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] what is the reliability of CFLs and LEDs as incandescent
light bulb replacements?
I agree that early CFLs were terrible for domestic use. Several years ago,
being a professional environmentalist, I changed nearly every bulb in the
house. I was disappointed because of 50 Hz flicker (well, 100 Hz really!),
poor lifetime, cold light, long start-up time, poor reliability and high
cost (about the equivalent of $10 each). They were all made in the USA (I
was told the European ones weren't available). I think I must have taken 20
back for guarantee replacement.
Little-by-little, they were replaced by European and Chinese ones with warm
phosphors, faster start-up, high-frequency (flicker-free) "ballasts" with
minimal mercury and 1/3 of the price. These seem to be lasting their
advertised lifetime -- can't really say, as I've replaced only one in ~5
years. I'm now entirely satisfied. I'm also amazed at the great variety of
shapes, styles and sizes that are sold now, including traditional
bulb-shaped ones. I recently installed a new light and went to Leroy-Merlin
for a decorative CFL; it took me half-an-hour to find what I was looking
for, such was the choice. I would guess they must have had 200 or more
different types of CFL on their shelves, which occupied a whole aisle.
Brian
On 29/08/2012 00:29, Bob Landman wrote:
> A very interesting discussion about what's inside these new devices. Have
any of you torn one of them apart to see how well they are made? You'll be
amazed at the poor quality of the components in a lamp that's supposed to
have a 10 year life.
>
> -Bob Landman
>
> IFTLE 98 Lester the Lightbulb vs CFL and LED : the Saga Continues By
> Dr Phil Garrou
>
> In IFTLE 63 [ see IFTLE 63, "Bidding Adieu to Lester Lightbulb
http://www.electroiq.com/blogs/insights_from_leading_edge/2011/08/iftle-63-b
idding-adieu-to-lester-lightbulb.html] back in Aug 2011 IFTLE attempted to
make the case that our little 25 cent friend Lester the incandescent bulb
had gotten a bump rap as he awaited extinction on death row.
>
> It's not that the claims of the newer technologies (CFL and LED) using
less power than incandescent bulbs are invalid, but rather what appears to
be the bold faced lie that their much greater cost is compensated by their
decades long lifetimes that upsets all Lester supporters.
>
> http://www.electroiq.com/blogs/insights_from_leading_edge/2012/04/iftl
> e-98-lester-the-lightbulb-vs-cfl-and-led-the-saga-continues.html
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
> For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or
> [log in to unmask]
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
______________________________________________________________________
|
