Here is some information about CFLs (compact fluorescent light bulbs): http://enlightenusa.org/
There seems to be a lot of talk about these. They are said to use less energy, save money in the long run, and last longer than regular light bulbs. In my state, they are seen as a statement against the big power compnay. I am looking into buying some myself.
Like hybrid cars, I always wonder what the cradle-to-grave impact of these are relative to conventional light bulbs. Overall, the energy savings are well worth it - especially if one is on coal-fired power! But be aware that there's mercury in those puppies, so be careful with breakage or disposal.
I've used these in the past, and they are great especially for lights which remain on for a significant amount of time. I seem to recall that fluorescent bulbs wear out faster if switched on and off a lot (can someone confirm this?), so they may not be worth it in bathrooms or similar.
I think they can be done without mercury now.
Yes maximum power is used when switching on. They use a "starter".
Most still have mercury and you should look for a place for proper disposal. The prices have been coming down and now it makes a lot of sense to use them instead of the traditional incandescent bulbs until LED tech comes to replace them (most flashlights now are LED based).
I am not convinced that there is a total energy budget saving in these devices. There is a lot of energy involved in the manufacturing/mining processes involved in what are much more complex device compared to the old fashioned (and hence very mature) technology of the incandescent bulb. Consider all the different components, electronics plus the rather nasty fluorescent coatings themselves, then the energy involved in safely disposing of the the old bulbs and I am not convinced.
Even the claimed energy savings are not quite what they claim to be. Fluorescent bulbs place a reactive load on the mains. Without getting too bogged down into the physics involved (which requires using the imaginary <square root of -1> to describe part of the behaviour) suffice it say that not all the power used by a reactive device can be metered. The amount of the actual consumption used that can be metered is called the power factor. IIRC the PF for CFL is about .85, which means that the true power consumption is actually something like 15% higher than stated although of course you only get billed for the metered consumption.
I have used these devices and frankly my experience has been that they do not last as long as claimed. I doubt that they save enough billed energy to pay for themselves in many situations and I certainly doubt that they actually represent a real saving of energy overall.
It seems to me that we are being assailed with many products that rely on our good intentions to "do something" for the environment and which are able to make a superficial claim to that effect and so we spend our money on things which when looked at overall make things worse. Many of the technologies currently being touted as being "green" and saving in energy do nothing of the sort, indeed some, like photovoltaic cells, actually never yield more energy that it takes to make them. Yet we are constantly being told that these things are some sort of solution for the "energy crisis"
We need IMO to look at the overall picture when evaluating all these technologies and ask questions like "what is the total energy budget?" and so on before we decide what to do.
Sibling Bluenose
Quote from: Bluenose on February 08, 2007, 12:48:09 AMThere is a lot of energy involved in the manufacturing/mining processes involved in what are much more complex device compared to the old fashioned (and hence very mature) technology of the incandescent bulb. Consider all the different components, electronics plus the rather nasty fluorescent coatings themselves, then the energy involved in safely disposing of the the old bulbs and I am not convinced.
Hard to beat the good ol' tungsten/glass bulbs for simplicity, that's for sure - and in theory they could be easily recycled for glass and scrap metals with the everyday materials.
Hold up, Bluenose... you're saying that reactive devices actually steal 'free' power? Can we exploit this? ;D
Quote from: Bluenose on February 08, 2007, 12:48:09 AM
I am not convinced that there is a total energy budget saving in these devices. There is a lot of energy involved in the manufacturing/mining processes involved in what are much more complex device compared to the old fashioned (and hence very mature) technology of the incandescent bulb. Consider all the different components, electronics plus the rather nasty fluorescent coatings themselves, then the energy involved in safely disposing of the the old bulbs and I am not convinced.
....
I have used these devices and frankly my experience has been that they do not last as long as claimed. I doubt that they save enough billed energy to pay for themselves in many situations and I certainly doubt that they actually represent a real saving of energy overall.
...
I don't think you're comparing it fairly, actually. They both use glass, so we may ignore that. Both technologies use some sort of metal for the actual socket-part, again--ignore.
That basically leaves wire, tungsten-alloy, white "frosting" and some inert gas for the incandescent bulbs.
For the CF's you have wire (again, but different alloy), circuit-board material, electronic circuit bits (resistors, transistors, solder, etc), plastic housing, phosphorous coating (inside glass), a VERY VERY TINY bit of mercury vapor--and--tungsten-alloy wire (used to get reaction started).
So. Tungsten is used in both, but not as much in the CF's. As for the rest, the electronics consume the greatest resources, but they are diverted from other electronic manufacturing processes--so if they weren't making CF boards, they'd be making radios or other cheap electronics anyway.
The mercury is an issue--it must be mined (just like the tungsten). But, on a per-bulb basis, there's much, much less than a common mercury thermometer or A/C thermostat. The phosphorous is dangerous, but it IS very reactive, and very quickly combines with other chemicals to make--- plant fertilizers. (no, really-- many plants use phosphorous compounds as fertilizer.)
Now as for the energy used during use.
Modern CF's use electronic triggers to start-up, and will be fully bright within .5 to 2 seconds (if functioning correctly). The light output from a CF is mostly within the VISUAL spectrum. For incandescent lights, about 1/2 of the light is infra-red (not visible). This adds to your total heat-load for your A/C a significant amount.
The net energy used for CF's
during use is about 1/10 of what the same light output an incandescent light requires. And, you get a significant reduction of "trash heat" into your home. (Although in the Winter, this "trash heat" may be a
good thing. ;D )
CF's last roughly 10-to-1 longer than their incandescent cousins, and modern ones are much more robust on the "switch-on-off" cycle than in the past. (I've got one in my bathroom that is going on 10 years, now. Still gives BRIGHT light, but is cool enough to touch even after a long 45-minute-shower-and-get-ready cycle).
Even if the energy somehow "can not be measured" as Bluenose suggests (which I find
very hard to believe--the rapscallions that run my electric co would
find a way to charge me) even 1/2 of the energy saved is well worth the price.
Think about it: if 1/2 of the population started using 1/2 of the
lighting energy consumed today .... (and I think it's much better than only 1/2).
Bolt-on: if more people used these things, they could be recycled very effectively. ALL the mercury and ALL the phosphorous could be recovered, for example. And NO ONE recycles those incandescent ones-- cost too much energy to get the ONLY thing of value in it: the tungsten wire. And, offtimes by the time it "blows" that wire is lost anyway (vaporized on the inside of the glass envelope). The CF bulbs, if the glass envelope is undamaged, could likely be fully recycled by simply replacing the electronics package (likely the cheapest parts anyway).
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
As for the LED lights--yes virtually all my flashlights are LED, now. But, I'm not convinced that we could gear-up manufacturing enough to make these for general lighting. Cheap electronics in CF bulbs can be made anywhere--"standard" electronics materials, nothing fancy or exotic. But, for LED's, it's
ALL exotic materials to make the LED part itself.
And, they are much more subseptable to voltage spikes--they tend to go easily (I have a couple of flashlights that have "blown" elements in them, from simply putting in new batteries ... fortunately, there are multiple elements, so I still use them anyway). I can only imagine how one powered by the mains would fair. And, they are currently very pricy-- a general 60w equivalent flood light cost roughly $100US currently (but consumes only 9w). A classic 60w flood runs about $3, and a CF runs about $20 as a comparison.
Anyone care to do the math to figure how long it would take to pay for the $100 at 9w vs 60w? ;D (it sounds like a shining example of calculus to me... ::) )
Are LEDs actually available with a spectrum one would actually want to light one's house with? The ones in my flashlight give off light more like an old mercury vapor lamp or the things used in tanning studios (distinctly too much on the pale blue side).
Concerning CFLs I can remember only one that actually stopped working until now (while I remember lots of traditional light bulbs failing).
I'd also say that the production and recycling costs are the true tripwire issue here. About that I do not have enough knowledge to give a judgement.
There are two things in our dearest Bluenose post.
Regarding the first (CFLs) while the total energy budget is at this point unknown, there is a good chance that CFLs perform better.
If CFLs are 4 times more efficent and last 8 times longer then we can say:
Eip : Energy to produce an Incandescent Bulb (IB)
Efp : Energy to produce a CFL
Eio : Energy of operation of an IB
Efo : Energy of operation of a CFL = Eio/4
Eip + Eio <= (Efp + Eio/4 ) / 8
or
Efp >= 8 Eip + 7 Eio / 4
In words for CFLs to be more expensive energy wise than IBs the energy required to make them would have to be higher than 8 times the energy required to produce an IB plus 7.75 of the energy of operation of an IB, or approximating, about 7.5+ more energy than the full energy budget of an incandescent bulb*.
Given that the prices of CFSs have been coming down to a good degree it is possible that less energy is used to produce them.
On a last note while some CFLs don't last as advertised in my experience the average is close to that number.
*I haven't included disposal costs which -using the same numbers- imply that disposing a CFL have to be more than 8 times higher than IBs, which is likely.
----
The second issue is regarding Photovoltaic Solar Panels. Although there are skeptics on the topic, it is estimated that -depending on conditions- solar cells can reproduce themselves (energy wise) from 1 to 30 times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell#Solar_cells_and_energy_payback).
I have my whole house kitted out wityh CFLs (and have done for about ten years). With my other energy saving measures my energy costs are about one fifth of those for most comparable sized houses in the UK. On the cradle to grave issue the CFL is clearly more energy intensive to produce but it uses only around 12% of the energy of a TF bulb and lasts in my experience at least 3 times longer so it is a massive energy saving. If you think that the energy costs involved in producing these bulbs are included in the shelf price you will see that they are clearly a better life span alternative. They may be more polluting in terms of meterials but right now I rather think Climate Change is the bigger threat.
I had a pub in London replace all their lighting with CFLs and oit saved them £660 per year. If you buy them in the likes of IKEA the initial outlay is minimal.
Goats Energy and water saving tips.....
1) install 250mm of loft insulation
2) turn your thermostat down 1 degree (saves about 8% of your total heating cost)
3) install CFLs
4) turn off equipment on standby
5) dont leave chargers plugged in when not in use
6) stick a brick in your toilet cystern
7) turn the tap off when btushing your teeth
8 ) take a shower instead of a bath
9) for goodness sake check that in your home and office you do not have seperate air con and heating with different thermostat settings that make them compete to cool / heat the property. You would be amazed how often I have seen this in offices!
Follow these and the warm glow in your heart and pocket will more than compensate for the 1 degree temperature drop ;D
PS. on the lifespan issue I would love somebody to tell me how the landfill impact of single use nappies (daipers) stacks up against the energy cost of cleaning reusable ones. It provokes some serious debate in Bradford.
Quote from: goat starer on February 08, 2007, 04:20:54 PM
PS. on the lifespan issue I would love somebody to tell me how the landfill impact of single use nappies (daipers) stacks up against the energy cost of cleaning reusable ones. It provokes some serious debate in Bradford.
I was nappy-swamped just as disposables were beginning to grab a serious market share. I chose Real ones.
Outlay (kid 1): 2 dozen cotton nappies, 2 dozen muslins, endless plastic knickers, 1 Jam Making Pan with handles, huge amount of gas (for boiling up the Jam Pan)(assumes cooker already purchased for other reasons), some hundreds tons of water, goodness knows how many packets soap powder, 2 lidded soaking buckets, goodness knows how many sterilization tablets, toil, energy, sweat, stinks, depression, handkerchiefs for use when howling with despair, two hundred bottles of gin.
Outlay (kid 2): Washing machine. Endless plastic knickers, some hundreds tons of water, goodness knows how many packets soap powder, goodness knows how many sterilization tablets, toil, energy, sweat, stinks, depression, two hundred bottles of gin.
I had a brief spell (4 months) using disposables as we were moving houe and in temporary accomodation. Bliss. Saving on gin, massive.
;D
Quote from: goat starer on February 08, 2007, 04:20:54 PM
Follow these and the warm glow in your heart and pocket will more than compensate for the 1 degree temperature drop ;D
During the day, my home thermostat is set to 17 degrees (edit: Celsius, not Foreignheit ;) ). I find that I need to supplement my warm glow with a sweater, but otherwise it's fine.
In the summer, we open the windows and let nature take its course (though we're lucky in that our floor and window layout encourages a bit of passive-solar stack effect, which gives the house a pleasant light breeze).
The CF bulb in my Security Lamp (a lamp that's always on near the front door so that I can see the way out of the house--don't ask) has burned continually except during the move here from Houston, a matter of 2 hours, for over 7 years.
That's 24/7 x 7 years, minus 2 hours.
:istad:
Chatty, they always keep a light burning in the Temple ;)
Regarding the total energy budget of CFLs.
Although glass is used in both incandescent bulbs and in CFLs, in the former it is made by blowing a thin bubble of glass into a mould, a simple relatively low energy process. CFLs on the other hand are made from tubes of relatively thick glass that is bent into a complex shape and then undergoes the manufacturing process to line it with the fluorescent coating, gas, electrodes and so on. With respect, I think it is thus disingenuous to dismiss the difference in energy in making the glass component, it take a lot more energy to make the glass part of the CFL compared to the incandescent bulb.
The electronic components in CFLs all require significant manufacturing process themselves, including the extraction of minerals, refinement and fabrication etc, then there is assembly of the electronic unit from the components including soldering etc. More energy at every step, with no comparable processes in an incandescent bulb.
The CFLs have a plastic moulding which has to be made, the raw materials of which probably come from oil, require refining and creation of the raw polymer and then )probably) injection moulding. All these take a lot of energy, again unique to CFLs.
I am not suggesting that CFLs should never be used and there may well be cost saving benefits for some uses, such as our beloved Chatty's front door lamp. Making a decision to use CFLs on the basis of over all cost is a legitimate exercise and indeed, I use them this way at times myself. I also use them in fittings that have relatively low wattage rating but I want to get more light.
However, the question of whether CFLs really represent a true energy saving when considering all energy inputs over its entire life is IMO far from certain.
Quote from: Bluenose on February 09, 2007, 10:19:36 AM
Regarding the total energy budget of CFLs.
Although glass is used in both incandescent bulbs and in CFLs, in the former it is made by blowing a thin bubble of glass into a mould, a simple relatively low energy process. CFLs on the other hand are made from tubes of relatively thick glass that is bent into a complex shape and then undergoes the manufacturing process to line it with the fluorescent coating, gas, electrodes and so on. With respect, I think it is thus disingenuous to dismiss the difference in energy in making the glass component, it take a lot more energy to make the glass part of the CFL compared to the incandescent bulb.
The electronic components in CFLs all require significant manufacturing process themselves, including the extraction of minerals, refinement and fabrication etc, then there is assembly of the electronic unit from the components including soldering etc. More energy at every step, with no comparable processes in an incandescent bulb.
The CFLs have a plastic moulding which has to be made, the raw materials of which probably come from oil, require refining and creation of the raw polymer and then )probably) injection moulding. All these take a lot of energy, again unique to CFLs.
I am not suggesting that CFLs should never be used and there may well be cost saving benefits for some uses, such as our beloved Chatty's front door lamp. Making a decision to use CFLs on the basis of over all cost is a legitimate exercise and indeed, I use them this way at times myself. I also use them in fittings that have relatively low wattage rating but I want to get more light.
However, the question of whether CFLs really represent a true energy saving when considering all energy inputs over its entire life is IMO far from certain.
Your points are well taken--but.
If one stops production of a CF bulb on a specific assembly-line, then that line will simply switch to something else.
Lowering demand for CF's will not lower the total energy cost of manufacturing--that remains pretty much the same, regardless--
something will get made using the processes--may as well be a CF lamp which does save electricity during it's lifetime.
And I do not agree with your assessment that the costs between the envelopes are hugely different. The main cost with glass production is the initial gathering and mixing of the glass formula. Once it's melted, it can be shaped into simple or complex with pretty much the same heating-budget. The manipulation-machinery is more energy-intensive, but not
that much.
And consider: a typical CF will replace between
8 and 10 standard lamps.
I cannot believe that the expense is 8 times that of making a standard bulb--
just to break even.Factor in: NO ONE recycles standard bulbs AT ALL. The glass recycling people won't take them, metal contamination issues, plus whatever the white frosting on the inside is made of. Won't touch'em.
But, the CF's have a high potential for recycling-- the white coating on the inside of THEM is quality chemicals. The tiny fraction of mercury is worth recovery. The metals in the very small electronic circuit board is usually worth recovery. Even the plastic housing can be recycled.
And--you only need to recycle 1 per every 8-10 of the standard bulbs. Or--that is an 8-to-1 reduction in waste, if it's not recycled.
If one is going to look at the big picture, one
must look at ALL the picture, and not just a single component. ::) ;D
One reason for buying CF - increased demand will likely lead to further improvements in design and hopefully lowered consumer prices/energy production. The tungsten-filament bulb is pretty much going to stay the way it is.
There's a theory that the combination of cheaper solar cells and efficient LED lights will sweep across the developing world, particularly in places which don't have conventional power line infrastructure. The important factor there is efficiency at the point of use, not the overall power balance including manufacture and disposal. Some smart financial cookies are backing the idea, as in this article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2006/12/26/ccview26.xml)from last Christmas.
Quote from: beagle on February 09, 2007, 10:44:55 PM
There's a theory that the combination of cheaper solar cells and efficient LED lights will sweep across the developing world, particularly in places which don't have conventional power line infrastructure. The important factor there is efficiency at the point of use, not the overall power balance including manufacture and disposal. Some smart financial cookies are backing the idea, as in this article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2006/12/26/ccview26.xml)from last Christmas.
What sort of secondary (rechargeable) batteries are they proposing?
I know in many 3rd world areas, primary (disposable) batteries are rapidly becoming a serious hazard-- these folk are used to a "midden heap" for their trash disposal.
When it was mostly organic, no big dealio. When you dump in toxic metals (battery waste) things change drastically.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In a related note, cell-phones are rapidly moving into these countries, too. It's MUCH cheaper to put up line of sight towers than it is to string wires. All the towers need is a source of power--sometimes they are 100% powered by local generators run off of a variety of sources (the local electric mains are insufficiently reliable)
I don't know if they've come up with anything better than deep cycle lead acid gel batteries yet.
Some crank flashlights have NiMH batteries, I believe those aren't as toxic as other types.
Quote from: beagle on February 10, 2007, 08:29:53 PM
I don't know if they've come up with anything better than deep cycle lead acid gel batteries yet.
They have come up with all kinds of amazing batteries while building for use in space. One of the briefs: must fit in strange space and don't forget the exact speification of that space will change 7 years down the developemt programme as they discover a different other vital part has to be unexpectedly enlarge. Sounds like the UK Olympic budget.
Must work at extreme temperatures. Lots of other parameters too.
Don't know details (remember) but there sound like lots of potentially useful common battery issues that might well improve earth-bound batteries. But I doubt if anyone is doing joined-up thinking let alone putting up the money. <cynic>
And how about batteries for cars.
Nah!! I definitely see a battery revolution ahead. Will it arrive before Global Warming wipes us out?
I think mobiles/laptops tend to drive the terrestrial battery technology market, but as we've seen with Sony/Dell laptop batteries there are "issues" with very high energy densities.
Methanol fuel cells are under development. The problem I see is that methanol is a bit unhealthy (though the amount needed to power a laptop may be sublethal).
With solar power in the developing world I was wondering whether you could use electrolysis in the day to create Hydrogen and Oxygen, and then a fuel cell at night to recombine them to generate the power for lights. Is that a very lossy form of power storage (ignoring the possibility of someone inadvertently having a smoke too near the apparatus)?
From what I remember it's fairly easy although a bit dangerous. You need really pure water to keep impurities from hosing up the process.
Quote from: MentalBlock996 on February 11, 2007, 09:49:18 PM
From what I remember it's fairly easy although a bit dangerous. You need really pure water to keep impurities from hosing up the process.
You also may want to use DC current as well, that way, you get the H
2 on one electrode, and the O
2 at the other one.
If you use AC current, you get a mix of gasses at each electrode. (Useful, if you are a high school nerd trying to fill up a balloon for the purpose of making a dramatic *bang*. A bit more dramatic than pure hydrogen balloon, in my opinion. The gas mix that results is EXACTLY the proper volumes to have complete combustion ... )
As for using pure water-- you can't. Distilled water is not conductive unless you use HUGE voltages-- thousands of volts, I seem to recall. The USUAL low voltages generated by solar cells is not good enough. 120v mains is not good enough. 220v European mains is not good enough to force current through distilled or pure water.
You need at least a TINY bit of impurities - preferably an ionic sort, like NaCl, to conduct the electrical current.
Again, in HS, we discovered THIS, too. We'd start with a gallon of distilled water (purchased). NOT the "de-ionized" stuff, by the way.
Put a pair of electrodes into a glass container. (we'd make these from old carbon-zinc D-cell batteries. There's a nice thick carbon rod in the middle of these. Perfect for a water-splitting electrode.)
Have a light bulb in series with the electrodes as "proof" there is a current flowing through the water. Fill container with distilled water. Light remains dark -- no current (we were using 120v from the mains). Add a TINY PINCH of salt. Viola! the bulb comes on, and bubbles form around the electrodes. Keep adding distilled water, and the salt is never used up -- at least, WE never did see that.
Quote from: beagle on February 11, 2007, 08:10:18 PM
(ignoring the possibility of someone inadvertently having a smoke too near the apparatus)?
Maybe that's why they are banning smoking in England?
My laptop battery is only useful in the sense that I can remove it when in a black hole. Other than that, I regard it as useless.
My last mobile phone battery came with large warnings about explosions and instructions to disconnect from charger when fully charged. My new one, identical battery, same make phone, says don't worry about leaving it charging all night. From this I deduce two things. One, very few, if any, people got blown up by the first model, and two, they obviously haven't been listening to all the ads about chargers wasting energy when left on all night....
Light is an easier issue than laptop batteries. All those stars out there just giving out light. If we started towing a few in closer now we'd solve the problem for some future generation. ::)
Or installing some powerful lenses to concentrate the star-light. ;)
The old-fashioned potash lye fuel cells powered with O2/H2 have the dilution problem too. The water formed by the reaction dilutes the lye and thereby reduces the conductivity until the cell stops working.
...which leads me to another question.
I went and bough two CFLs on sale at Walgreens. With the rebate, they came out to $2.50 each. Still a little steep in outlay, IMHO.
Anyway, my intention was to put one in the carriage lamp over my front walkway for two reasons: 1) because I leave this on for at least three hours per night, 2) Because I thought it would be a good sign of solidarity with my neighbos who are fighting Dominion Power- who plan on putting giant lines close to our town. These lines are to carry energy from Ohio to New Jersey and will be of no help to us- just an eyesore and possible health concern. The CFL campaign is part of an overall protest to the power company.
My question (and I do have one!) is this: Can I put a CFL in an outside bulb if it is contained on all sides by a carriage lamp fixture? I notice on the package that you cannot use them if exposed to the elements. I am curious if dear Sibling Chatty's entranceway lamp is exposed, along with any other input from others.
If your carriage lamps are like the outside lamps I have, they can still let rain and bugs in... it'd be safer to use something rated for outdoor use.
Also, I've found that flourescent lights don't like cold temperatures. Around here, they'd work fine in the summer, but not start properly (and hence probably consume much more power) any time it gets below freezing.
Thank you! Here's a hug. :)
Quote from: Griffin NoName The Watson of Sherlock on February 12, 2007, 01:56:38 AM
All those stars out there just giving out light. If we started towing a few in closer now we'd solve the problem for some future generation. ::)
There'll be plenty of spare light when the Sun drops out the main sequence. Otherwise known as the point at which whether we chose to be buried or cremated becomes academic. ;)
Don't know whether it would actually be more bright. The total radiating area would increase but the relative intensity shrink and shift to the infrared.
At least we will not be able to blame it on Dubya ;)
I bet I can think of a reason a reason to blame it on Dubya. I rather suspect that the reason the good lord made the sun have a limited lifespan in the first place was to ensure that there will be an end to republicanism even if we fail to create utopia.
Works for me...I have become convinced that the Republican Party in the US has lost its total mind.
----------------------------
As to the outdoor CF's...ours are in completely enclosed fixtures, and up an the porch as well.
Cold? That I can't tell you. They were fine at our 20F low, but that's about as low as it gets around here.
Does the scripture mean with "a new sun and a new earth" that the Lord has to exchange the lightbulbs occasionally? Actually that should be Lucifer's (=bringer of light) job. ;)
We still have to talk with the latter about the SO2 emissions of his realm exceeding the regulation limits.
My biggest worry is that a major switch to solar power could use up the sun completely in just a few years. :o
Or that somebody would charge us for using all that power.
Probably Mr Burns
Or Sun Macrosystems
Hmmm... that might work in our favor, sort of. If the politicians thought that there was a profit to be made by solar energy, they might be more enthusiastic about backing it.
Thanks, Chatty, for the clue about the porch situation. I wondered whether you ever saw any sub-zero temps there. We don't often see them here, but occasionally we do.
Sheesh, after buying the Walgreen bulbs at $5 a pop last week, yesterday I went into my local grocery store (which openly protests Dominion Power) and there were 8-packs of the 60w for $12.95! I wonder if Walgreen will take these back even if they were on sale. Grrr!
Here's another question: I have ceiling fans with 3-4 lamps apiece. Would the CFLs be appropriate in them?
Hmm.... under $2 apiece? I might have to stock up for some of my major bulbs at those prices, if they can be found here. The bane of my lighting are the halogens in the kitchen (great for cooking, but wear out quickly and are expensive - plus hot!) - can't switch them out in a rental unit.
I don't pay extra for electricity, so there's no financial motivation - just environmental responsibility.
The halogens are the notorious go-bang-ers here too. At least they are slightly more energy efficient than normal lightbulbs and are much smaller.
Quote from: Opsanus tau on February 13, 2007, 04:59:50 PM
Here's another question: I have ceiling fans with 3-4 lamps apiece. Would the CFLs be appropriate in them?
As long as the lights aren't on a dimmer, CFLs should be fine.
Quote from: Agujjim on February 13, 2007, 05:17:56 PM
The bane of my lighting are the halogens in the kitchen (great for cooking, but wear out quickly and are expensive - plus hot!) - can't switch them out in a rental unit.
Friends of mine had a similar problem (not halogen lights - they just didn't like the dining room fixture in their rental apartment) - they bought one they liked, took down the old one, put up theirs and stuffed the old one in a closet. When they moved out, they put the old one back up. Maybe your landlord will let you do the same... if the new fixture would be lower wattage, he/she'd have financial incentive, too.
Quote from: Sibling Lambicus the Toluous on February 13, 2007, 06:24:34 PMFriends of mine had a similar problem (not halogen lights - they just didn't like the dining room fixture in their rental apartment) - they bought one they liked, took down the old one, put up theirs and stuffed the old one in a closet. When they moved out, they put the old one back up. Maybe your landlord will let you do the same... if the new fixture would be lower wattage, he/she'd have financial incentive, too.
I'd probably have no issues switching it out, but I
love having a brightly lit workspace in the kitchen. What might help is switching out the range hood bulb with a bright CFL (would have to be grease-shielded) and using the overheads less frequently, unless actually washing dishes/chopping etc.
I have CFLs in my ceiling fans. The pretty small lamps are more expensive. You can't use CFLs with a dimmer switch BTW. They work great and I didn't have any trouble with them.
I also use CFLs outside although it took me a couple of tries before I found ones that last outside.
They only thing I don't like about CFLs is that it takes a while for them to warm up. They aren't very bright until they do warm up.
Apparently Philips makes a CFL that can be used with a dimmer switch, but I think you have to put it up to 30% or somewhere before it can get enough energy to turn on.
I've been talking with friends who use CFLs and they say that some take a little time to warm up to their final luminescence, and some sit and warm up first before coming on at all. I can think of some applications where a slow warm up from dim to bright might be an advantage: like by the bedside. I dislike having the light glare in my face when I turn it on in the morning.
Quote from: MentalBlock996 on February 14, 2007, 10:28:17 AM
They only thing I don't like about CFLs is that it takes a while for them to warm up. They aren't very bright until they do warm up.
I'm not very bright til I warm up either.
I love this thread. Who'd ever have thought there was so much to write about CFLs !
You just have to use the kind of dimmer switch called a 'Triac'. They work well with fluorescent lights. I only use that kind of dimmer anyway, because they don't throw off the exxcess energy as heat, like a resistance type.
Ah! I didn't know there was such a thing.
I thought Triac was a super-villain from Dr. Who.
It is all about the type of ballast. Some work with dimmers some do not.
The 'warming up' issue gets worse as the bulb ages. My kitchen light is pathetic for about a minute after switching on.
That said the world survived perfectly well before electric lighting so a brief dim period is little price to pay for the carbon and cost savings.
But I think candles or campfires have a worse carbon balance than lightbulbs.
they do not! wood, tallow etc are sustainable energy sources. New trees grow as do new pigs. Fossil fuels are the main source of power for lightbulbs and these are releasing carbon sequestered over millions of years.
But that could in theory be changed and unlike home-made fires a power plant releases the energy from the material more efficiently, i.e. even if the power plant would be fed with wood, it would yield more than an oven at home (or worse: an open fire).
So at aome point in the future electric light MAY be more sustainable than candles. I love watching the decline and fall civilisation.
Although fires and candles are not terribly efficient in themselves losses in power stations and grid transmission account for some 65-70 odd percent of total energy consumption. This compares pretty well the efficiency of a modern wood burning stove (although you would need to factor in transporting the wood!). If wood is sourced from sustainable forests it is essentially carbon neutral (again factoring out energy costs associated with harvesting and transport).
I would not however advocate a mass return to candles and wood stoves as we all know the air quality issues attendant.
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/climate/solution/revolution.cfm
The loss is also a question of the quality of the power grid and the distance the juice has to travel. If the power plants are inside the city that uses the electricity this solves a lot of problems (and also yields hot water that is not wasted but used). Both are obviously criteria not met by the US.
Or indeed met by just about anywhere! decent CHP systems within cities would go a long way to addressing short term needs to introduce energy efficiency yet new housing developments where load weighting with local industry, schools and leisure facilities would give excellent efficieny still rarely consider the option because the up front costs are so high.
Quote from: goat starer on February 16, 2007, 01:18:52 PM
I would not however advocate a mass return to candles and wood stoves as we all know the air quality issues attendant.
Actually, wood pellet stoves are being marketed around here as an environmentally friendly heating option:
Here's a sample from one retailer (http://www.naturalheat.ca/):
QuoteWhen you heat with pellet fuel you reduce CO2 emissions by burning a renewable fuel. Trees growing now are locking up the sun's energy and CO2 in a continuous renewable cycle.
QuoteThe future of pellet fuel:
Although most fuel pellets are currently made from wood they can also be made from fast growing switchgrass. Pellets made from grass are the ideal renewable energy crop, since switchgrass grows on marginal farmland. The energy payback on pellet fuel is up to 14:1. For every one unit of energy used to grow, harvest and pelletize the grass, 14 units of heat energy are produced.
Quote from: goat starer on February 16, 2007, 01:49:57 PM
Or indeed met by just about anywhere! decent CHP systems within cities would go a long way to addressing short term needs to introduce energy efficiency yet new housing developments where load weighting with local industry, schools and leisure facilities would give excellent efficieny still rarely consider the option because the up front costs are so high.
When I still worked in industry, we had a few clients (auto industry, mainly) who had tried adding electricity cogeneration to their processes... and then got rid of it. The consensus among them was that it got poor financial return, added another thing to break down, and generally wasn't worth the bother. Hopefully things have improved since then.
The chemical plants in Germany are designed to be as selfsustaining as technically possible and therefore highly integrated (the heat produced by reactions is used to produce steam etc.) At least in the larger city areas CHP is now, I think, standard. I can literally see were both the hot water from the tap and in the radiators comes from (though the electricity may come from the other end of the city out of my immediate sight*).
*Yes, I know that it is not strictly correct to say the juice is "coming" from one plant or the other if there is a net.
Quote from: Sibling Lambicus the Toluous on February 16, 2007, 01:58:20 PMActually, wood pellet stoves are being marketed around here as an environmentally friendly heating option:
Dad used to sell 'em and we had one as the main source of heat in our cabin at Silver Star. Much nicer than hauling wood, and the forced air keeps them efficient.
wood pellet is very popular in Sweden.
Kielder (http://www.neforestry.info/kielderheating/) has a great wood fired district heating scheme in The most remote village in England
Quote from: Opsanus tau on February 12, 2007, 04:55:34 PM
...which leads me to another question.
I went and bough two CFLs on sale at Walgreens. With the rebate, they came out to $2.50 each. Still a little steep in outlay, IMHO.
Anyway, my intention was to put one in the carriage lamp over my front walkway for two reasons: 1) because I leave this on for at least three hours per night, 2) Because I thought it would be a good sign of solidarity with my neighbos who are fighting Dominion Power- who plan on putting giant lines close to our town. These lines are to carry energy from Ohio to New Jersey and will be of no help to us- just an eyesore and possible health concern. The CFL campaign is part of an overall protest to the power company.
My question (and I do have one!) is this: Can I put a CFL in an outside bulb if it is contained on all sides by a carriage lamp fixture? I notice on the package that you cannot use them if exposed to the elements. I am curious if dear Sibling Chatty's entranceway lamp is exposed, along with any other input from others.
I've got a CF lamp in my porch light, been burning for more than 2 years, ALL NIGHT. It's got a photocell I installed, to shut it off when there's enough daylight.
The porch light has 4 sides of glass, but no bottom glass- that trapped bugs, so I removed it after a couple of days. Now the bugs just drop out the bottom. ;D
Tech note: if you DO elect to use a photocell, BE SURE to choose one that's rated for fluorescent lights-- some ONLY work for incandescents. The 2nd type use a thyister (a sort of A/C transistor) to switch power off, and it does it relatively slowly, like a rapid dimmer switch. This ramping-down of the power will quickly kill the electronics in a CF. A photocell rated for CF's has a RELAY inside, more akin to a light switch.
I may yet try one out in the carriage lamp, just to experiment.
I did return the expensive Walgreen's bulbs and bought two 8-packs at the IGA for 12.95 per pack. They are 13w (as much light as 60w incandescent bulbs) made by Philips. They are plenty bright, and turned on right away. I like them alot so far and plan on getting more.
I do have another question, though: I put some in a landlocked bathroom where we tend to have the lights on a long time in the morning when we shower, but do you think the shower fog might hurt them?
Ha! XXXX has banned the old light bulbs.
Who? What Where?
Fourecks - look up "XXXX beer". That nation....
Or just Queensland? ;)
I have all CFLs in the bathroom Opsa and they are fine.
There is an OSRAM factory about 10 minutes walking distance from where I live. They were asked what they thought about the Aussie development and they said that they would appreciate the same here. It took them one hour to even find a single oldfashioned light bulb still in its original package (estimated age 6.5 years) on the premises ;D
Wicked awesome, Swato!!!!!
So far I'm very pleased with the Phillips soft 13=60w CFLs I have placed around the house. They seem to have a warmer, fuller spectrum than the old lights, more like sunlight.
Small hint in today's UK Guardian that banning the old fashioned light bulb may be a winner over here.
...Although they're worried about the small amount of mercury vapour in each apparently. Load of old rubbish; used to have bucket loads of the stuff lying around in the physics lab when I was young and it never.... What was I saying? I've forgotten again.
Quote from: Opsanus tau on February 20, 2007, 10:38:44 PM
I do have another question, though: I put some in a landlocked bathroom where we tend to have the lights on a long time in the morning when we shower, but do you think the shower fog might hurt them?
I have 2 CF's in my bathroom that are 7 years old at least.
The high humidity has not seemed to affect them at all, and neither has the high "on-off" of bathroom use.
I have no idea what the brand was-- 7 years ago, they were harder to find 'round these parts, so Phillips or GE is the most likely.
I went back to get more of the 8-packs at $12.99 and was only charged $8.99! I think I'll go back and get more before they change their minds about that price.
The debate seem to be livening up again (http://tinyurl.com/27bngt).
I have no idea who's right on this one, though I do remember the "New Ice Age" scares of the 70s.
Elsewhere in the paper they point out that Siemens and Philips successfully lobbied the EU to impose a 66% duty on CFLs imported from China and the Far East.
There are limits to encouraging greenness it seems.
Personally I have always assumed that gobal warming would precede the next ice age which is overdue now. As evidence I cite last week's beautifully warm weather which is now on the way out as most of Britain awaits big globs of snow falling from the skies.
So the only relevant question for me is - is it worth changing my light bulbs to see if I can slow down warming and hence delay the next ice age. On the whole, I tend to believe not and in any case the strange new kinds of lightbulbs being silly shapes would poke out from most of my lampshades in a most unbecoming fashion. Replacing all my lampshades may give the economy a slight boost but no doubt at the expense of further carbon emissions.
Having dealt with that, I am left with one final question. Will the next ice age arrive regardless of my behaviour?
John Betjeman reckoned that in the event of impending disaster he would go to the haberdashery section of Peter Jones (http://www.peterjones.co.uk), because no bad thing could ever happen there. Perhaps the protection extends to the lighting/lampshade department.
I wonder if other more convenient branches of John Lewis (http://www.johnlewis.com/) would be Ok too?
why have I begun to design odd shaped lampshades in my head?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20553143
Field-induced polymer electroluminescent lights are being pitched as the next CFL-alternative. Looks like a neat technology.
Cool!
Sweet! An entirely plastic light "bulb" would eliminate much of the drawback of current tech. Of course, it's potential for recycling is lower. ::)
Says - one in his lab has been working for a decade - so no built in obsolescence then..... = big problem !!
Indeed-- how can the induce their customers to keep buying'em, if they last for decades? ::)
Fipel. Fipel. I've got fipel on the brain. They look cool. I hope they'll be as nice as they hope.
Quote from: beagle on March 18, 2007, 03:34:15 PM
The debate seem to be livening up again (http://tinyurl.com/27bngt).
I have no idea who's right on this one, though I do remember the "New Ice Age" scares of the 70s.
Elsewhere in the paper they point out that Siemens and Philips successfully lobbied the EU to impose a 66% duty on led light (http://www.niceledlights.com) imported from China and the Far East.
There are limits to encouraging greenness it seems.
Cfl time seems to be over now.. Leds and other technology have taken over the CFL
Welcome VernonBarton! Remember to drop by the start here area and introduce yourself, we promise not to bite. ;)
--
While it is true that LEDs are now more ubiquitous and affordable, CFLs are still cheaper and more widely used. Personally I have LEDs at home even in the fridge, and the only hold up is a ceiling fan with it's own FL/CFL sockets, and while I have had some failures they tend to live up to their long life reputation.
Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on August 22, 2013, 05:38:57 PM
Welcome VernonBarton! Remember to drop by the start here area and introduce yourself, we promise not to bite. ;)
--
While it is true that LEDs are now more ubiquitous and affordable, CFLs are still cheaper and more widely used. Personally I have LEDs at home even in the fridge, and the only hold up is a ceiling fan with it's own FL/CFL sockets, and while I have had some failures they tend to live up to their long life reputation.
I've been slowly going from CFLs to LEDs myself. My main living room bulb is now an LED-- it's on daily, pretty much all day (I prefer to have a light on when I come home, especially if it's dark out, which it often is).
My bathroom light is too--it's on an automatic thingy that senses motion-- whenever I stumble in there? It lights up, and politely turns itself off when I leave. Rarely, I must wave at the thingy to turn it back on, but it's pretty good.
My next replacement will be in the kitchen-- I have a CFL in the refrig that I ought to replace-- it's on 24/7, due to warmup issues. That's easily correctable, but it's only like 5 watts as it is now. Trivial compared to the refrigerator itself. The kitchen overheads will go next, though-- they are high-wattage CFL's giving me the equivalent of 500 incandescent watts of light. I've yet to see an LED that can measure up to that output. I may have to swap out the fixture for something with more sockets, to achieve with numbers what I cannot do with individual items.
Welcome, Vernon! As Zono suggested, please stop by our "I'm Here Now" thread (click here for direct route) (http://toadfishmonastery.com/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=32&topic=27.msg167264#new) so that others can say hello to you.
As for CFLs, I love them in the bedroom, where they re slow to warm up, which helps my eyes get adjusted to the light turning on. In the kitchen we now have LED lighting under the cabinets, and it's great. It stays cool and lights the counter tops and sink very nicely.
I've got CFLs which start up fastt enough not to notice a delay, which is what I like. The one I have which takes almost 2 minutes to get to full strength drives me nuts as I blunder around in the dark. Keep meaning to change it.