Energy efficient bulbs

[Red Squirrel]

I actually like those bulbs as they have a brighter white light and tend to light up a room better. BUT I've been wondering, are they really better then incandescent bulbs? Sure while they are in operation they use way less power, but from what I've heard they have a shorter life span if they don't always stay on. So for example in a bathroom where it gets constantly turned on/off it may actually die faster then a regular bulb. (I will experiment this as I just recently changed two in the bathroom)

Also they have more materials to them, such as the mini ballast and in general, more glass/plastic and they also contain mercury. Does the low energy use make up for the fact that they produce much more landfill pollution? Also is it true that being turned off/on is really bad for them? I only heard this, did not really experience it, though I did have one in my room go bad after only a few months, but may of just been a defect. It would flicker a lot kinda like a neon tube that's about to kick the bucket.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Link

Edited: original link too long

 

[NoShangriLa]

Many have improved quick start ballas in them that greatly extend on/off life.

 

[LikeLinus]

Originally posted by: PlasmaBomb
Link">http://letmegooglethatforyou.c...y+content+of+bulbs&l=1

It's like dumb and dumber!

 

[Vette73]

Yes they are better. They use less power and last longer. Reg bulbs use more power and a large % of our power comes from coal which puts a lot of mercury into the enviroment.

Also the newwer style bulbs can be recycled. So the very small amount of mercury in them can be kept from entering the enviroment.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
I actually like those bulbs as they have a brighter white light and tend to light up a room better. BUT I've been wondering, are they really better then incandescent bulbs? Sure while they are in operation they use way less power, but from what I've heard they have a shorter life span if they don't always stay on. So for example in a bathroom where it gets constantly turned on/off it may actually die faster then a regular bulb. (I will experiment this as I just recently changed two in the bathroom)

No.
Link.

The average rated life of a CFL is between 8 and 15 times that of incandescents. [...] The life of a CFL is significantly shorter if it is only turned on for a few minutes at a time: In the case of a 5-minute on/off cycle the lifespan of a CFL can be up to 85% shorter, reducing its lifespan to the level of an incandescent lamp. The US Energy Star program says to leave them on at least 15 minutes at a time to mitigate this problem.

 

[Elstupido]

Cfl's save energy without a doubt, and without green concerns.

Have you seen the amount of mercury in a standard household tstat? Now that is scary.

 

[Jeff7]

New CFLs contain 1mg of mercury.

Some cheap CFLs will die very quickly; I bought some cheapass things from 1000bulbs.com - they died after less than a year. Now I'm hopeful that the Neolites ( = a brand name) I bought will do better. Thus far, I like them. They turn on very quickly (effectively instant, to my eyes), and come up to full brightness faster than any other CFL I've used.

Mercury: If your power comes from coal, and you use an incandescent, you'll put out a good bit more more than 1mg from burning the coal, versus using less power with a CFL.

On/off cycles are hard on fluorescent tubes, though new ballasts try to mitigate this as best as possible. Still, if a light is only going to be on for a minute or two per cycle, it's best to use an incandescent light. For instance, if you've got a light in a dark hallway that's only on for the 20 seconds it takes you to walk through, or maybe in a closet, those lights should be incandescent.
I wish fluorescent ballasts would have labeling on them that would say, "Each on/off cycle = -X hours bulb life."

Originally posted by: Elstupido
Cfl's save energy without a doubt, and without green concerns.

Have you seen the amount of mercury in a standard household tstat? Now that is scary.

Yeah, at least in the old tilt-style ones. Newer digital thermostats probably use a thermistor to trigger a relay that turns on a heat source.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Did not know coal produced mercury, heck I did not even know it was still widely used, I thought nuclear had replaced most coal plants. Nuclear is dirty in a different way (the byproduct, rather then the emissions) but probably not as dirty as coal. Where I live I believe it's mostly hydroelectric. Then again from my understanding US and Canada is pretty much running off the same shared power plants over the grid so essentially we're technically using coal or whatever else is out there.

The on for 15 minute part may be an issue for a bathroom then, but guess in the end it will still lat a tad longer then incandescent bulb. Some of my craps can take as long as 15 minutes.

 

[Jeff7]

At least in the US, coal is still the dominant energy producer. Nuclear plants are expensive to build, and people are ignorantly scared of them, thinking they might go up in a mushroom cloud, or a Chernobyl-style accident. And reprocessing is still illegal, which means more waste is produced than should be.


Coal naturally contains small quantities of mercury, which is released into the atmosphere when it's burned.

 

[Elstupido]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
New CFLs contain 1mg of mercury.

Some cheap CFLs will die very quickly; I bought some cheapass things from 1000bulbs.com - they died after less than a year. Now I'm hopeful that the Neolites ( = a brand name) I bought will do better. Thus far, I like them. They turn on very quickly (effectively instant, to my eyes), and come up to full brightness faster than any other CFL I've used.

Mercury: If your power comes from coal, and you use an incandescent, you'll put out a good bit more more than 1mg from burning the coal, versus using less power with a CFL.

On/off cycles are hard on fluorescent tubes, though new ballasts try to mitigate this as best as possible. Still, if a light is only going to be on for a minute or two per cycle, it's best to use an incandescent light. For instance, if you've got a light in a dark hallway that's only on for the 20 seconds it takes you to walk through, or maybe in a closet, those lights should be incandescent.
I wish fluorescent ballasts would have labeling on them that would say, "Each on/off cycle = -X hours bulb life."

Originally posted by: Elstupido
Cfl's save energy without a doubt, and without green concerns.

Have you seen the amount of mercury in a standard household tstat? Now that is scary.

Yeah, at least in the old tilt-style ones. Newer digital thermostats probably use a thermistor to trigger a relay that turns on a heat source.

Good post!, and yes newer tstats use thermistoers. The scare tactic of the use of cfl's is needless. Fluorescent tubes have been used for countless decades, and had a whole lot more mercury than the ones used today. I am not dead yet from mercury poisoning

 

[0roo0roo]

http://www.popularmechanics.co...provement/4215199.html

 

[Red Squirrel]

Interesting so guess they ARE better then, in general. Guess the application has big impact as well - bedroom vs hallway, for example.

Also are these bad to use outdoors? I'm assuming there are indoor / outdoor types, or can they all be used outside? Just wondering how much stress the electronic portion would get when it's turned on at -50C.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
Interesting so guess they ARE better then, in general. Guess the application has big impact as well - bedroom vs hallway, for example.

Also are these bad to use outdoors? I'm assuming there are indoor / outdoor types, or can they all be used outside? Just wondering how much stress the electronic portion would get when it's turned on at -50C.

Just like normal flourescents and cold start ballasts, you need bulbs specifically made for extreme temperatures if you want to use them in very cold conditions. Most are rated for -10 to -20F.

 

[Rubycon]

Newer thermostats use thermistors, RTD's and diodes. The two latter are usually employed in commercial/industrial settings.

MANY old boiler controls (pressure/limit switches) have HUGE mercury switches. Also there are mercury displacement relays filled with the stuff. If this equipment is removed from service, discarded and incinerated the mercury boils off and the environment suffers greatly.

Mercury content in coal is a problem.

My biggest gripe with (cheap) CFL's are the short lives of the bulbs AND the amount of hash (harmonics) that get sent down the line.

The future is bright for LED lighting. The prices for this technology are coming down - the bulbs are shockproof, last much longer and pose no threat if discarded in an ordinary wastebasket! They are also available in a wide range of color temperatures as well as monochromes (single color) with no loss in efficacy.

 

[Elstupido]

Cfl's need heat to start...they are not so swell as outdoor bulbs in cold weather. But they do warm up rather quickly

 

[Elstupido]

Rubicon, the LED bulbs I see now are the totally obnoxious blue color, until the color is changed, LED is dead in the water

 

[ja1484]

Does someone want to explain to me where we got this delusion that we can "help" the environment rather than just "change it without ever knowing the consequences of our actions"?


I go a little further these days to be more wasteful and toxic just to piss off the green movement enthusiasts.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Rubycon
The future is bright for LED lighting.

Bad puns make baby Jesus cry.



(Haven't seen you around much for awhile, welcome back. )

Originally posted by: ja1484
Does someone want to explain to me where we got this delusion that we can "help" the environment rather than just "change it without ever knowing the consequences of our actions"?


I go a little further these days to be more wasteful and toxic just to piss off the green movement enthusiasts.

The environment wouldn't give two shits if an asteroid the size of Mars hit us an utterly pulverized both bodies into a giant glob of molten metal and rock. It would keep doing what it has done for billions of years.

We humans however have a very narrow comfort zone. Toss a tiny bit of lead or mercury into our bodies, and all kinds of crazy stuff starts happening, usually resulting in death. Hell, just propelling a small steel projectile into your head at high speed is fatal.
We're fragile little things, and the concern is that the consequences of our actions might push the environment outside of that comfort zone.

We're also concerned about efficiency, while nature is not. Using less energy is more efficient, and greater efficiency ultimately helps everyone.
If you want to pollute and waste deliberately, go right ahead, but you're just helping to screw yourself, only for the superficial benefit of polishing your ego.

 

[SsupernovaE]

Originally posted by: Rubycon
Newer thermostats use thermistors, RTD's and diodes. The two latter are usually employed in commercial/industrial settings.

MANY old boiler controls (pressure/limit switches) have HUGE mercury switches. Also there are mercury displacement relays filled with the stuff. If this equipment is removed from service, discarded and incinerated the mercury boils off and the environment suffers greatly.

Mercury content in coal is a problem.

My biggest gripe with (cheap) CFL's are the short lives of the bulbs AND the amount of hash (harmonics) that get sent down the line.

The future is bright for LED lighting. The prices for this technology are coming down - the bulbs are shockproof, last much longer and pose no threat if discarded in an ordinary wastebasket! They are also available in a wide range of color temperatures as well as monochromes (single color) with no loss in efficacy.

How do you always know so much about everything? What did you do before you worked on the cruiseship? I'm intrigued (and slightly intimidated by you).

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: SsupernovaE
How do you always know so much about everything? What did you do before you worked on the cruiseship? I'm intrigued (and slightly intimidated by you).

My theory: Google's database became conscious in early 2005, and joined AT in August of that year.
Becoming a moderator was only the second step of its plan.

 

[Walking in Circles]

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
Where I live I believe it's mostly hydroelectric.

nope

 

[Rubycon]

Originally posted by: Elstupido
Rubicon, the LED bulbs I see now are the totally obnoxious blue color, until the color is changed, LED is dead in the water

Stop looking at cheap flashlights with inferior bin Nichia T13/4 emitters! LumiLED, Osram, and CREE have technology that blows incandescent as well as HID out of the water for efficacy as well as color rendition (corrected). They can be dimmed with no change in color temp with a sliding PWM driver too. The cheap ones have a cold blue look reminiscent of the rice boy headlamps that blind you!

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: Rubycon
The future is bright for LED lighting.

Bad puns make baby Jesus cry.

Yellow River by I.P. Daily, ISBN (written somewhere on the wall of the stall!)

Originally posted by: SsupernovaE

How do you always know so much about everything? What did you do before you worked on the cruiseship? I'm intrigued (and slightly intimidated by you).

Acting believe it or not. Dinner with a consultant and investor is how I wound up in this position and I love it because of the exposure to multiple cultures, disciplines and travel.

 

[ja1484]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

The environment wouldn't give two shits if an asteroid the size of Mars hit us an utterly pulverized both bodies into a giant glob of molten metal and rock. It would keep doing what it has done for billions of years.

Ok, so you clearly recognize the situation. Care to take a stab at explaining to me why so many people try to make it sound so noble? "Saving the planet"? It's disingenuous and insulting to intelligence. Call it what it is: "Saving our own asses, fuck natural balance."

I guess that doesn't work as well as a bumper sticker or, even more importantly, as a marketing slogan.

We humans however have a very narrow comfort zone. Toss a tiny bit of lead or mercury into our bodies, and all kinds of crazy stuff starts happening, usually resulting in death. Hell, just propelling a small steel projectile into your head at high speed is fatal.
We're fragile little things, and the concern is that the consequences of our actions might push the environment outside of that comfort zone.

Agreed, but then we can't predict the consequences of our actions. Attempts by federal agencies, for example, to "manage" predator and/or pest populations have resulted in species/environmental disturbances on a grand scale in countless instances.

So, extrapolating that, how is acting one way any less risky than acting another? You're not preventing the demise or slowing it, just changing the mechanics.

We're also concerned about efficiency, while nature is not. Using less energy is more efficient, and greater efficiency ultimately helps everyone.

If it lowers the personal cost to me, I'm all for it. If it requires me to sacrifice for the benefit of others, to hell with that. I don't provide them with any favors, and I don't ask any from them. That's what my tax dollars are (theoretically) for.

If you want to pollute and waste deliberately, go right ahead, but you're just helping to screw yourself, only for the superficial benefit of polishing your ego.

Is superficiality so very wrong? What, exactly, of superficial or non-superficial nature that you have or experience in this world do you plan to take with you after you die? I would argue that I'd prefer to have a good time while I'm here and not worry about the consequences unless they directly impede that goal.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: ja1484
Ok, so you clearly recognize the situation. Care to take a stab at explaining to me why so many people try to make it sound so noble? "Saving the planet"? It's disingenuous and insulting to intelligence.

Because they want to feel good about themselves - same reason you like to metaphorically piss in their faces.

Agreed, but then we can't predict the consequences of our actions. Attempts by federal agencies, for example, to "manage" predator and/or pest populations have resulted in species/environmental disturbances on a grand scale in countless instances.

So, extrapolating that, how is acting one way any less risky than acting another? You're not preventing the demise or slowing it, just changing the mechanics.

Tell me how having more mercury in the atmosphere is going to be a good thing.
Or how wasting our finite energy sources is a good thing.
Or how wasting money is a good thing.

And no, we can't predict the future with perfect accuracy. Yes, sometimes plans go awry. Do you propose that we just say "Fuck it, do whatever you want to" and hope for the best? If the future can't be predicted perfectly, why try in the first place, right?

If it lowers the personal cost to me, I'm all for it. If it requires me to sacrifice for the benefit of others, to hell with that. I don't provide them with any favors, and I don't ask any from them. That's what my tax dollars are (theoretically) for.

Use CFLs and it lowers your energy usage, reduces mercury output into your environment, and it reduces your need to replace bulbs as frequently.
It might occur to you then that some of this terrible "sacrifice" might be benefiting you as well.

Is superficiality so very wrong? What, exactly, of superficial or non-superficial nature that you have or experience in this world do you plan to take with you after you die? I would argue that I'd prefer to have a good time while I'm here and not worry about the consequences unless they directly impede that goal.

I also have this crazy idea that when I die, the world won't end - other people will still be here. If I pursue a life of pure hedonism, it'd probably not only be illegal, but it would make a mess for those who outlive me, making it more difficult for them to be happy. Now maybe you don't give two shits about other people like that, and that's just unfortunate. I think you can find balance between happiness and not impeding others' pursuit of happiness at the same time.

It's not like any of these things are terrible sacrifices. Oh no, maybe you'll have to take your dead CFLs to a recycling center, costing you a precious 20 minutes of life! My god, how will you ever recover from that?
You're reminding me of something posted in P&N, about how some women are now "sacrificing" for Christmas this year, by not purchasing new designer jeans, while still enjoying their upper-middle class lifestyle. Or a post, I believe it was here in OT, about a sports player who must park his own car, and is unable to use a valet, due to a DUI violation.

Their use of "sacrifice" tarnishes the meaning of the word.