For a long time CFL (Compact Fluorescent Lightbulbs) were a poor replacement for incandescent lightbulbs in many situations (“Why are eco-fascists trying to ban incandescent bulbs?”) And if you only settle for the cheap 3-for-99p-in-Poundland option you would think that still the case, but many alternatives are now available, including dim-able, instantly bright, broad-spectrum and even flashing CFLs. they cost more, but often come with a warranty.
I have 2 broad-spectrum 20 Watt bulbs in my kitchen that light up the whole room like a bright sunny day, and will last me until LEDs are a viable alternative
I’ve had CFLs in most of my lights for years, with no problems. I know some complain about the color of the light, but the newer ones are fine, you’d never know they aren’t incadescent. And lately I’ve added several LEDs. Cecil is a bit behind: he says “Unfortunately, the LED equivalent of a 100-watt incandescent bulb right now costs on the order of 50 bucks.” He should visit his nearest Home Depot, which has been promoting LEDs for some time. For instance, they have an 8.6 watt, 40 watt equivalent, for about 10 bucks. I have several of these, and I think the 40 watt claim is accurate, the color of the light is fine, and its dimmable. And there’s an 18 watt, 110 watt equivalent, for under $40. With savings in energy and replacement costs, these are decent deals, and prices continue to decrease.
Don’t live in ND do you? Try starting a CFL when it -20 or colder. Heck when it’s under 30 the CFL in my mud room can take 4 - 5 minuets to fully brighten up. Yes it’s new and no it not a cheap model. in the unheated barn, you can wait more that 10 minuets for a CFL to fully brighten up, that is when they work at all. We don’t even use fluorescent in the shop, because once it gets under 30 you can’t count on them to start. Of course we could just leave the heat on 24-7, but why heat a space we might not use for several days just so we can have light when we do need to use it. Many times I walk in turn on a light find something and leave. With a plain old light bulb, I hit a switch and I have full light. Now with the death of the old light on the horizon, I have to choose a very expensive light bulb (led) or run heat in place where I don’t normally run heat.
I do use CFL in my home where it’s warm but the one size government shoe that fits all doesn’t always fit.
Or, I don’t know, use one of the more-efficient incandescents currently coming onto the market? Sorry to diminish your grounds for complaining about “government shoes”, but there are other options available.
Powers &8^]
Too seldom mentioned in complaints, valid or otherwise, about alternatives to incandescents: CFLs SHOULD NOT BE USED IN ENCLOSED FIXTURES. Ever at all, mostly. Or some recessed cans, either, depending on several factors – the key is heat. CFLs are very picky about temperatures and don’t make light very well when too cold, as noted above, and die too quickly when too hot. If you are having many prematurely useless CFLs, be sure you’re not using them in environments where they just don’t belong. I have mid-price CFLs that are ten years old still in use in our house, but only the ones that I’ve never accidentally cooked.
If you live in ND, or TX, or other places or situations where operating temperature is often not CFL-friendly, by all means try the newer cheap multi-LED bulbs. I’ve picked up a few to try very cheaply on eBay, a dollar or two each including delivery, from Hong Kong companies trying to get established, I think is what their deal is, with loss-leader auctions to build rank. The cheapie LEDs are low-lumen jobbies in general, best for low light needs like nightlights or hallways, but I have a few that are almost three years old now that have surprised me with their non-crappiness, and am thinking of dropping double-digit type cash for a brighter one next.
You’re not diminish complaining. But why should the government decided which light bulb I should use? They don’t know where it’s going or what I’m using it for. Maybe I’m using it to keep stock waters free from freezing up. The one’s we currently have use the heat from a bulb to keep them working and ice free. So now I have to either buy new stock waters with a built in heater which are more expensive to run and more expensive to repair, or retro fit the ones I currently have with some other kind of heater.
Like I said the one size government shoe doesn’t fit everyone. And so you know I have CFL in places where they make sense, where it’s generally warm but not too warm. So I’m not against them per say, what I am against is people who have no idea what’s going on, decided what I need and don’t need, what I MUST buy and what I can’t. They have no idea what I’m doing or why, and yet they think they know better than me, I think not.
And the new Philips bulb is $6 each vs less then a buck a piece for the old style bulbs. And I don’t know if we are going to be able to get the high wattage bulbs we use in the arena, which is unheated. So odd are they are going to have to be replaced again costing me $$$ out of my pocket.
I love it when people want to save me money when the truth is it’ll cost me more than I will ever save.
I know you’re not supposed to use CFL’s in enclosed fixtures, but I’ve ignored that device and they work fine. In my last apartment, I had a CFL in an enclosed fixture (in a glass globe about 6" in diameter) and it lasted 6 years. It was still going strong when I moved out.
Now in a different apartment, I installed them in 3 different enclosed fixtures including a heavily used livingroom light and after 3 years, they are still working fine.
And these are the cheap bulbs - $2 each at the hardware store (I think some of that price was subsidized from the power company, but they are generic brands, not a big name ike GE, Sylvania, etc).
I live in a cool climate (San Francisco), and my apartment is not well heated, so that may be why they’ve worked out so well.
You can still purchase halogen bulbs, which are only moderately more efficient than regular incandescent, so will still have plenty of waste heat. Also, specialty lights like flood lights and colored lights will also remain available.
The law isn’t supposed to save you money, it’s supposed to save money across the general public. Some people, like you, might end up paying more, but by mandating that everyone buys them, it brings the cost per unit down dramatically due to economies of scale in manufacturing. It (usually) costs a lot less per unit when you’re selling 100 million items than when you’re selling 1 million. And the average consumer will save money with CFL’s.
Many people don’t bother to calculate how much they might save in electricity costs; a 100 watt incandescent will cost about 1 cent an hour to run (at a relatively cheap 10 cents/kWh, some areas it is a lot more), while a CFL will cost about 1/4 of that; assuming a cost of 50 cents for an incandescent and $2 for a bargin bin CFL, the CFL would reach break-even after only 200 hours. And if the CFL actually lasts as long as advertised, it can even cost less than the incandescent in material costs; e.g 50 cents for one incandescent vs $5 for a CFL (I’m assuming a not-so-cheap CFL but the $2 ones could last as long, but their lower price offsets the need to do so) means that if the CFL lasted at least 10 times longer the bulb costs would break-even, and total costs are over three times lower for the CFL over a typical lifetime of 10,000 hours ($105 vs $30, saving $75).
Also, while waste heat can be useful in some situations, it is usually better to use non-electric forms of heating when considering the efficiency and costs of electricity and other fuels (of course, I realize there are situations where this isn’t practical, like the one postpic200 mentioned, so yes, incandescents can be useful in those cases, but as already mentioned halogens can be used instead).
You have optimized your operations to comport with obsolete technology. The need to spend a little extra to adjust to new technology is one of the risks you undertook.
Powers &8^]
At over 6X the price. Plus I don’t know how much heat is going to be generated so I have to take a chance of a freeze up and take the chance of burst pipe or go with a much bigger bulb. I like 99+% of people will err on the side which will save me money. Since a burst pipe can cost $100s of dollars I’ll go with a larger bulb.
Well according to the PSA’s it suppose to save me money, and as it looks right now it won’t save me money nor will it save energy or reduce my carbon footprint. I’m going to have to heat areas that currently I don’t have to heat, so in the end in my case, it going to cost more, much more. Also if you go by the past, when something is mandated it has always cost more, because you HAVE to buy it, you don’t have a choice.
A study conducted in Denmark, explored some carbon footprint factors, but not all, showing it took 1.8 Kwh of electricity to assemble a CFL compared to 0.11 Kwh to assemble an incandescent bulb. That means it took 16 times more energy to produce a CFL.
And they didn’t take into account the heavier shipping weight, or the “proper” disposal costs. Again the one size fits all approach doesn’t work for all people, it never has. Like I’ve said before I do use them where they preform best, I don’t use them were they don’t preform well or where they won’t work at all.
Unless there is a compelling heath or safety issue the government shouldn’t be banning anything. It should be left to YOU to decide what is best for YOU.
Many businesses use “obsolete technology” why, because it works and many times it works better than the new technology. Some of that “obsolete technology” was purchased in the last five years and should last at least another 5 to 10. So again it going to cost more energy, more money, and more carbon.
But the bigger question is, unless its a heath or safety issue, what say should the government have in running MY business. I’m taking the risks, I’m putting my money on the line. If I lose money I don’t see the government hand me a ton of cash, I’m not too big to fail, nor do I have a bunch of lobbyists kissing butt in Washington. Its nice to say you need to spend more money when it’s not YOUR business. It would be like me walking into your house and saying you MUST buy a new washer, dryer, and dish washer, when they are all working and doing their job.
In lightbulbs, on the other hand, old-fashioned inefficient incandescents are obsolete. The fact that a standard incandescent loses 90% of its energy to heat is a bug, not a feature. I’m sorry you came to rely on that bug, but that doesn’t make fixing it wrong.
It is a health and safety issue. The health and safety of the planet, and the people who hope to continue living on it into the future. Using standard incandescent light bulbs wastes energy, which is something we can no longer afford to do. Now, you personally may be using that heat and thus not wasting the energy. If so, great. But letting you use them also means letting everyone else in the country use them, and that’s just not acceptable anymore.
Powers &8^]
heaters exist that are 100% efficient in producing heat with no wasted visible light. replacement, retrofit and addon units for tanks are plentiful and inexpensive.
As usual fixing one bug produces many others bugs, like garish light quality, uneven spectral distribution, lack of dimming. Sometimes it’s best to stick with the original version.
First of all, if going by lumens CFL are contantly overestimating their equivalence by 20-25W. A “100 watt equivalent” is around 500lm less than a 100W incandescent.
All I know is that it is impossible by going to Home Depot or Lowe’s to get a CFL flood that is bluer than 3500K, 1500 lm or brighter and instant on.
To cut down on energy use and diminish CO2 emissions… but you already knew that I’m sure.
Becoming more energy efficient is going to cost all of us, at least in the short term. Admittedly, it will cost some more than others, and I’m not sure what the answer to that is, but the what are the costs of not becoming more efficient?
Really then in the name of being more efficient, shouldn’t the government “FORCE” you buy water heaters or furnaces that are at least 90% efficient when you go to replace them? After all those two item use more energy than lighting your house that would have a greater impact Although at a much greater cost. $2,000+ vs $500 or less.
Give that lighting our home takes less then 1% of the energy used in our homes, compared to a water heating can account for 14%–25% of the energy consumed in your home. So IF the goal is to save energy wouldn’t it make more since to MANDATE more efficient water heaters when they are replaced.
But the big question still remains why should the government have a say? Like I said unless it a health or safety issue the government should have NO say. Unless you want the government to tell you what you can’t and can’t buy, what you can and can’t eat (we are already started to see that)
and what you MUST buy. The government position right now is they CAN force you to buy, from a private company, anything they wish you to buy. Hopefully the courts will find they don’t have that power, otherwise get ready to buy a bunch of stuff that you don’t want or need.