[Pm@c]

Yeah what about dimmer? I have a few rooms in my house with dimmer switches, cant use them with dimmer switches..

 

[error401]

Quote:

Originally Posted by c0mfortably_numb /img/forum/go_quote.gif Thats kind of funny really when you think about it, regular bulbs are supposedly a major cause of global warming? So they propose we use CFL's instead, now we have a mercury risk, then they make a recycle depot. So now instead of just tossing your old (non-toxic) bulb in the trash, you will have to hop in your car, drive down to where ever they are recycling the bulbs, in turn wasting gas and creating more ozone. Anyone else think this all sounds stupid? Also are we going to have to keep hazmat suits in our house if we accidentally drop a bulb in our bedrooms or living rooms? Just a small drop of Mercury is enough to be a contamination problem.

Definitely it's stupid, but they die infrequently enough that I don't think it's that big a problem. Another thing to factor into the equation though - how much energy does it cost to safely dispose of them?

See here for some information on cleaning up broken lamps. They're not life threatening, but shouldn't be treated like the old style ones. If you break one, it's a lot of work to clean up properly. That said, many newer CFLs have a plastic outer envelope to both protect the tube glass and improve the appearance and light dispersion. Such a plastic envelope is difficult to break, and should contain any contaminants should the internal tube break if it were dropped. Hopefully this type would be the 'standard'.

 

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crowbar /img/forum/go_quote.gif The point is, it should be up to the consumer, not forced down his throat by the government.

+1.

 

[VR6ofpain]

cfl's are great for specific purposes. Despite Mythbuster type tests, I have found that when a cfl is placed in a location where the switch is turned off an on often, sometimes quickly (like a closet or laundry room), they seem to burn out very soon (in a matter of a few months). Considering their cost, this is definitely a bad use for them.

Something equally important is warmup time. Incandescent and halogen bulbs hit full brightness within milliseconds of being powered on. CFL's on the other hand usually take a good 30 seconds to 1 minute to hit peak brightness. Throw in cold weather (used outdoors or in a cold room) and it takes even longer (sometimes 2-3 minutes).

Banning these cheap bulbs would be a complete mistake. Did these same legislators consider the amount of chemical waste that having only CFL's on the market would produce? Those bulbs have mecury, along with a host of other hazardous waste inside them (you can't just toss them in the trash).

 

[Lazarus Short]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carl /img/forum/go_quote.gif As long as they don't ban vacuum tubes....

An incandescent "bulb" is actually a vacuum tube resistor. They have been used for just that purpose in some audio circuits.

Laz

 

[Senn20]

Quote:

Originally Posted by VR6ofpain /img/forum/go_quote.gif cfl's are great for specific purposes. Despite Mythbuster type tests, I have found that when a cfl is placed in a location where the switch is turned off an on often, sometimes quickly (like a closet or laundry room), they seem to burn out very soon (in a matter of a few months). Considering their cost, this is definitely a bad use for them.

Hmm, really? I have CFLs in several rooms in my basement where they are switched on and off frequently and they're currently running on their second year of operation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VR6ofpain /img/forum/go_quote.gif Something equally important is warmup time. Incandescent and halogen bulbs hit full brightness within milliseconds of being powered on. CFL's on the other hand usually take a good 30 seconds to 1 minute to hit peak brightness. Throw in cold weather (used outdoors or in a cold room) and it takes even longer (sometimes 2-3 minutes).

Not the case with mine. Takes between half a second and two seconds depending on the wattage. Lower wattage bulbs usually take the longest, but I use 100w equivalent bulbs in most fixtures so it's not a problem. After that, no real noticeable change in brightness.

I find the light from my compact fluorescents acceptable, if not better than standard incandescent bulbs (Reveal etc. excluded). Regular incandescent bulbs are very lacking in blue light which CFLs are a little better at, I think. The color from fluorescent bulbs is getting better all the time.

In the hardware store I used to work at, they replaced the fixtures in the front half of the store with new T8 ballasts and bulbs, leaving the rear half with standard T12s. If looking back to the rear of the store at night, you can actually see the ugly green/yellow cast from the older bulbs, where the new ones were much whiter in appearance.

Also, the difference between cheap fluorescent tubes and sunlight/aquarium/plant bulbs is shocking. Lovely, vivid color can indeed be obtained from fluorescent bulbs.

Recycling these bulbs, on the other hand will prove to be a problem. The only upside is that it will only be a concern once every few years.

 

[Crowbar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by elrod-tom /img/forum/go_quote.gif If Al Gore has his way, they will be banned

Heh, Gore + global warming = PROFIT

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/200...e_exposed.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by error401 /img/forum/go_quote.gif SAD

I think SAD is due to lack of high intensity light in the blue end of the spectrum. However, I'm not discussing SAD here. The paper on productivity I cited show actual solar spectrum is needed to improve it, as obviously the fluorescent tubes were no substitute.

BTW, my offer to demo or lend you one of my bulbs was serious, so don't joke about it. Maybe I'll bring one when there's a head-fi meet in the area.

Quote:

Oh, and Crowbar, your 1800 extra watts isn't going to make a dent in overall usage. You're maybe one of a handful in the country doing this, it's statistically insignificant. The exact opposite is true of lighting, the aggregate is a huge portion of overall usage, and if everyone using it switched we'd see a large effect.

Lighting is not that huge portion of overall usage! There are 40 kilowatts of energy in a gallon of gasoline! A drive in your car is far more damaging than using incandescent bulbs (especially when you factor in the widely different energy of production for incandescents and 3-times heavier CFLs).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Senn20 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I find the light from my compact fluorescents acceptable, if not better than standard incandescent bulbs (Reveal etc. excluded).

Note the graph I posted above showing the Reveal spectrum to be pretty poor compared to a good daylight incandescent.

Quote:

The color from fluorescent bulbs is getting better all the time.

But due to nature of light production, phosphors stimulated by UV generated inside the bulb, their spectrum will always be spiky and will make many colors look unnatural.

Quote:

If looking back to the rear of the store at night, you can actually see the ugly green/yellow cast from the older bulbs, where the new ones were much whiter in appearance.

I was comparing the best of each camp; of course most incandescents are not good, but when you take the best of each side, the CFLs have no chance.

Quote:

Also, the difference between cheap fluorescent tubes and sunlight/aquarium/plant bulbs is shocking. Lovely, vivid color can indeed be obtained from fluorescent bulbs.

I do use daylight CFLs in my aquarium, and they make some colors stand out very well. Many fish pigments are somewhat fluorescent, which works well with these types of bulbs as they have spikes in the right regions of the spectra. But these are somewhat artificial colors--the fish under daylight don't look quite like this (which is good for this application). It's art from the light.

A note about the mercury--just throw some sulfur on it.

 

[error401]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crowbar /img/forum/go_quote.gif Heh, Gore + global warming = PROFIT http://www.larouchepub.com/other/200...e_exposed.html I think SAD is due to lack of high intensity light in the blue end of the spectrum. However, I'm not discussing SAD here. The paper on productivity I cited show actual solar spectrum is needed to improve it, as obviously the fluorescent tubes were no substitute.

Ah, I wasn't sure of the mechanism, I was just wondering if maybe this was a currently-niche market that was using different technology than we've discussed thus far. Just an off-centre thought, not trying to bring SAD into the discussion.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Crowbar /img/forum/go_quote.gif BTW, my offer to demo or lend you one of my bulbs was serious, so don't joke about it. Maybe I'll bring one when there's a head-fi meet in the area.

I'm sure it was

. I joke a lot. I just trust your word that these bulbs are great and don't feel the need to have that proven to me, though if I attend a meet it might be neat to see one in action.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crowbar /img/forum/go_quote.gif Lighting is not that huge portion of overall usage! There are 40 kilowatts of energy in a gallon of gasoline! A drive in your car is far more damaging than using incandescent bulbs (especially when you factor in the widely different energy of production for incandescents and 3-times heavier CFLs).

We're talking about electricity here, which apparently accounts for about 9% of overall usage in the US, a significant portion (though not huge). The other large portions are difficult to improve: HVAC systems are already in the 80-90% efficiency range (though we'd do well to use gas heating instead and do away with the rather large transmission losses of electricity). Appliances are mostly fairly efficient these days as well, though I don't have numbers this has been an industry goal for years now, and with an electrical cost benefit that users will notice and good product labelling (at least here in Canada) I think people are paying attention to this. Lighting is next.

As I posted previously, the article you link a) doesn't have solid energy cost data for the production of CFLs and b) ignores the vastly longer life in its calculations. Assuming their guess is correct, the overall energy cost to produce each is approximately the same. With the lack of real data, I'll accept their guess, though I personally would guess higher.

Don't get me started on cars and the wastefulness of suburban sprawl. It sickens me every day.

For the record I wouldn't consider myself a hardcore environmentalist. I'd like to see a lot less waste and carelessness, but I'm not an advocate of anything that would significantly affect the standard of living (by my standards, of course ) we all enjoy.

 

[Crowbar]

Just a moment regarding appliances here. Inside appliances are 100% efficient in Canada unless it's summer daytime, because their heat output goes towards heating the house.

 

[error401]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crowbar /img/forum/go_quote.gif Just a moment regarding appliances here. Inside appliances are 100% efficient in Canada unless it's summer daytime, because their heat output goes towards heating the house.

This is true if your home is heated by electric heat, but there are still a few caveats. If your heating is anything other than electric, we can add the transmission losses in getting that electricity to the inefficient appliance, which can apparently be 30-50%, making the appliance 50-70% efficient at generating heat. Even if your home is electrically heated, your appliance is not a heater, and probably won't do a good job of moving the heated air around (which might be trapped or in a place you don't care about, like behind the refrigerator). They'll locally heat the area near them, but your thermostats probably will barely notice, and the overall ambient temperature won't change much. There's a good reason why permanent electric heaters are almost always placed below windows.

Houses need to be heated evenly, and an appliance that's dumping heat won't help much with this, so there's still a lot of waste involved.

I think I'm going to bow out and listen for a while, this is turning into a back-and-forth, and while I'm arguing with you Crowbar, I'm not convinced by either side at the moment. My natural alignment causes me to lean to the conservationist side, but there doesn't seem to be enough information to make an informed decision either way.

 

[KimbaWLion]

Hello there peoples

I am HARDLY the brigthest around ( I love bad puns! ) but one thing that DOES worry me about the new bulbs they want us to switch to is that fact that compact fluorescents contain mercury which COULD be a bigger issue down the road. I mean look at Calif., first they ban paper for plastic and now they ban plastic if FAVOR of paper. I mean I use a ton of the compact ones HOPING to save a little but in the long run I am HARDLY sure which is the better one for GENERAL living. JUST my thoughts that probable have been said on various replies to this thread that I most likely missed BUT I hope not.

 

[donunus]

halogen rules!!! too bad theyre too hot and power hungry

 

[Superpredator]

I'm all for saving energy. In fact, you could probably group me in with the wackos who think that the planet is teetering over an age where food, water (http://globalpolicy.igc.org/socecon/hunger/environment/) and (maybe) energy become quite scarce.

But... I find fluorescent light utterly depressing. I feel like I am half blind when looking at objects illuminated by fluorescent light. I put up with it for eight hours a day five days a week at work. It's hard to choose it for (all) my lighting at home.

 

[Crowbar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by error401 /img/forum/go_quote.gif your appliance is not a heater, and probably won't do a good job of moving the heated air around

Irrelevant, since that heat is still not wasted--if it's not moved around, it will accumulate until convection forces it to move around.

Quote:

which might be trapped or in a place you don't care about, like behind the refrigerator

Doesn't matter where it is! It is still not wasted as even when you prevent convection, it will transmit itself through conduction.

Quote:

They'll locally heat the area near them, but your thermostats probably will barely notice

False! Eventually ALL of the heat energy will conduct/convect outwards, and none is wasted. You are getting confused because the time constant can be long, but that doesn't matter as long as it's not that long that it goes from a heated to a non-heated season.

Quote:

the overall ambient temperature won't change much.

Absolutely false! It just has a slow response time; it will still change as much because that heat energy has to go somewhere. It cannot accumulate in a space, since the higher the temperature gradient is, the more heat is conducted and the stronger the convective forces are, putting a limit on the accumulation.

I cannot believe you didn't realize something that should be so obvious! You must have been so blinded by your earnestness in conservation that you did not check your logic. Ouch!

Quote:

There's a good reason why permanent electric heaters are almost always placed below windows.

Making them less effective (loss through windows), though increasing comfort by warming the colder sections of the house.

Quote:

Houses need to be heated evenly, and an appliance that's dumping heat won't help much with this, so there's still a lot of waste involved.

I've clearly demonstrated this is 100% incorrect.

As for non-electric heating: gas prices are increasing quite fast and in some places it's already no longer cheaper than electric heating.

Spend the money where it counts--on insulating your house better, for example.

 

[Crowbar]

BTW, I contacted Rod Elliott about his article, and he told me that CFLs make very hard to read color codes on some resistors. I checked my boxes, and sure enough, some of the resistors have way different colors when I change the light from incandescent to a CFL and it's not always clear what it is. LOL!