Banning Incandescent Light bulbs

Everyone is patting themselves on the back for their great idea.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070220/ap_on_hi_te/ban_the_bulb
It was not too long ago that all the enviromentalists were up in arms about mercury. Every discharge lamp, which a CFL (Compact Florescent Lamp) is, has mercury in it. These all end up in the landfill unless recycled, and who is going to do that? Who recycles florescent lamps from your home now? In the US, we do not currently catagorize household wastes as hazardous.
Other little details; What about dimming? Want to fry your CFL lamp ballast? Run it on low voltage. What about the lamp that is only used ocasionally? Hard to justify the extra cost for energy savings on a lamp that is off 99.99% of the time. Oh and don't forget the temperature sensitivity of these. The lumen curves drop off if too cold or hot.
CFL Lamps have their place and is a good product when mated to the right application. But these broad brush generalizations are a real display of ignorance.
(Mercury, metal content)
Bob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Feb 20, 11:51 am, snipped-for-privacy@consolidated.net wrote:

And why limit it to the compact flourescents? See: http://www.superbrightleds.com/MR16_specs.htm for the future.
I've never had one of those compact "twisters" last more than a year or so, supposed to be good for 7 years with most sorts I've gotten. Maybe sitting in a closet... And how much more "greenhouse" gas is given off in the manufacture of same compared with incandescents? Not to mention the mercury in them. I don't see CFLs saving Western Civilization either.
There's enough mercury in a flourescent that we had special teams to clean up after a tube breakage at the shipyard. Seems that cuprous plumbing fittings in submarines and mercury didn't get along, something about being brittle when mixed. Not exactly what you want cruising along under the surface.
Stan
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@prolynx.com wrote:

I've had good luck with the twisters except where there is vibration. There Philips mercury light bulbs really excel. The only problem with them is that the start up time is slooooow.

It is amazing how many things we take for granted will kill you when operating at near the edges of the envelope
Wes
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@prolynx.com wrote:

Mercury will desolve other metals. You may recall that was how they reclaimed gold. The gold would disolve in the mercury. The same goes of silver fillings in your teeth. If the mercury gets into any systems it will disolve and possibly make the metal brittle. Any parts used on a sub must be tested and certified that they are mercury free.
John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@prolynx.com wrote:

I was replacing 40 watt incandescent bulbs in my always on front porch light about every 3 months. The 18 watt twister has been in about 5-1/2 years. I figure the break even point was at about 4 years.
David
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Feb 20, 2:20 pm, snipped-for-privacy@prolynx.com wrote:

The only one's I've had trouble with were installed upside down in a lamp hanging on a chain from the ceiling. In the 15 years I've been using them, I've only replace two others.

It can also cause stress corrosion/stress cracking in Stainless Steel.
--
FF




Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 20 Feb 2007 10:51:51 -0800, snipped-for-privacy@consolidated.net wrote:

Fluorescent lighting is also very old technology, having emerged in the '40s or so. CF's are made possible by advances in cheap electronics so the ballast could be part of the "bulb" -- but they're still mercury vapor tubes with phosphors to convert UV to visible light.
LED technology has now surpassed both incandescant and fluorescent in terms of luminous efficacy -- lumens of light per watt of electricity. http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/gadgets/ultra-high-efficiency-led-created-182241.php
They're still considerably more expensive first-cost and 5 watts is about as high as they go at present (need 20 of 'em for 100 watts) but it's still very early in their technology life cycle. Costs will drop a lot as these become more mainstream for general illumination beyond being just little colored indicators for elex gadgets. Further, LED's last tens of thousands of hours so life-cycle cost of "bulb" in $ per lumen-year is already considerably better than it appears at first glance.
There are already a couple of concept cars with LED headlights.
California may ban them because some contain arsenides, might prefer genetically-engineered organically-fed lightning bugs....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Don Foreman wrote:

Well, then they certainly should ban ALL LED-containing products! No computers, cell phones, CD players, etc. allowed in the state. And, of course, you can't allow anybody to MAKE semiconductors in CA either, as they probably vent/throw away 100 times as much As as goes on the chip itself.
Jon
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But so what, there is nothing magic about the 100W number. And at least in traffic light usage, a 20W cluster (actual consumed power) is equivalent to a 100W incandescent. [5 W for turn signals, but that is not a fair comparison)

. . .
A naked LED MAY be able to claim those sorts of hours, but not cluster assemblage, as you will see if you start paying attention to traffic lights. LED cluster can also have color rendering problems (as compared to sunlight or incandescent) just like fluorescent do.

Unlikely
jk
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@consolidated.net wrote:

If you're a light bulb manufacturer and you sell two bulbs, one which costs the consumer $.28 and the other that costs $4, which bulb do you want the environmentalists behind?
If you make cars, with a standard model costing $16k, and the hybrid model costing $22K, which model do you want the environmentalists behind?
This list could go on and on, but the fact is, the environmentalists never consider what damage the extra costs of these "friendly" products do to the environment. The car mentioned above is the Honda Civic, and as a remodeling contractor, I have to process a lot more material and haul a lot of it to the dump to afford the Hybrid model. Impact to the environment? I wish someone would do an honest study.
--
Gary Brady
(getting down off my soap box)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<snip>

Gary, and just what planet are you from? We here on Earth don't do honest studies...we have agendas!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tom Gardner wrote:

Yeah, I guess I'm having one of those "logical" days.
--
Gary Brady
Austin, TX
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I wish someone would do an honest study.

But to be fair you need to take into account the life of the bulb. The incandescent 100 watt bulbs have a 750 hour rated life. The compact flouescent has a 6000 or 8000 hour rated life. So if you multiply the $.28 by 8 then the CFL is about twice as expensive per hour of bulb life. But based on the same 6000 hours, a 23 watt CFL uses 138 kilowatts and the incandescent uses 600 kilowatts. At .08 cents per kilowatt, the incandescent bulbs cost about $37 more for electricity.
That is about as honest a study as I can do.
Dan
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's a good start. Another advantage is that they run cooler. A lot of our house lighting is from "cans" in the ceiling. They are limited to 60 watt lightbulbs. I can put "100w equivalent" CF lights in them, save money on electricity and make my room considerably brighter.
i
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not to mention that in the summer, we use even more electricity to pump the heat generated by the lights out of the house, so the energy savings by switching to CF is even greater. In the winter, the extra heat is put to good use warming the house, but in many parts of the country, we have heating fuels that cost less than electricity. So by heating less with electricity, and more with our other fuels, we still save by switching to more energy efficient lights.
The real problem people have in this thread I believe is more tied to simply not liking government interference. I have no problem with people trying to stop government interference in our lives. I'm all for smaller government. But I do have a problem when people misdirect there frustration with the government at the "evils" of converting to energy saving lighting technology.
Trying to get people to reduce their energy usage by converting to a technology which will actually save them money at the same time it does more good, than harm to the environment, is not something anyone should be making fun of or resisting. Man is having some serious global effects on the world and it's something we can't ignore any longer. This is the one thing we can all do without having to make any big changes to our lifestyles.
--
Curt Welch http://CurtWelch.Com /
snipped-for-privacy@kcwc.com http://NewsReader.Com /
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 21:34:25 -0600, with neither quill nor qualm,

I switched over to 23w CFLs a few months ago when they went on sale for a buck a pop. I love them and they're brighter than 100w incans.
A friend is suffering from Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD.) Who has a good and very inexpensive 5900k lightbox, or who makes good bulbs and fixtures? I can make a box for her. She'd rather spend the $50 she has than the $200 she doesn't.
-- If it weren't for jumping to conclusions, some of us wouldn't get any exercise.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 06:21:44 -0800, Larry Jaques

If she has any of the 4' tube fixtures about..simply buy "grow lights" from HD or Kmart etc. They are tuned to the same wave lengths as sunlight, or at the least..the bands most suitable for plant growth.
They work pretty well for my snow belt family and friends.
Gunner
"Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for Western civilization as it commits suicide" - James Burnham
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:56:57 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm, Gunner

Don't normal grow lights put out UV? SAD lamps are said to be UV-limited.
-- If it weren't for jumping to conclusions, some of us wouldn't get any exercise.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

In my office I have 3 ea 4' fixtures. 5 of the tubes are 40W "Cool White" and the other is a "grow light." I like the light mixture. And unlike my unheated and uncooled garage/shop, I haven't changed a tube in the office for 4 years.
-- Mark
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
but if you need the lights on, use incandescent, its easier on your ugly face
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.