Australia to Change Lightbulbs to Curb Warming (banning incandescent bulbs)

[Doondoo]

CANBERRA -- Australia will be the world's first country to ban incandescent lightbulbs in a bid to curb Greenhouse gas emissions, with the government saying on Tuesday they would be phased out within three years. Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull said yellow incandescent bulbs, which have been in use virtually unchanged for 125 years, would be replaced by more efficient compact fluorescent bulbs by 2009.

"By that stage you simply won't be able to buy incandescent lightbulbs, because they won't meet the energy standard," Turnbull told local radio.

Australia along with the U.S. has refused to sign up to the Kyoto Protocol setting Greenhouse Gas reduction targets, calling instead for an agreement requiring energy-hungry developing countries like India and China to help combat climate change.

Turnbull said the banning of incandescent bulbs would help trim 800,000 tonnes from Australia's current emissions level by 2012 and lower household lighting costs by 66 per cent.



http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=12256

[Callalily]

1. We can all make a

difference here and replace our energy sucking light bulbs with incandescent bulbs or compacat fluorescent light bulbs. The savings are incredible, and what could be easier?

NPR focused on this topic. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7279952

[zanne]

2. Good move.

There's bound to be a lot of opposition to it, though. Imagine all the lighting designers having a collective fit! It's a bold move that we should take up, too.

[madame defarge]

3. Recycling issue with fluorescent bulbs...

In the NPR story I heard, they talked about how the fluorescent bulbs were not being properly recycled & that alone will cause environmental problems equal to or worse than the use of incandescent bulbs. The fluorescent bulbs contain mercury & if not disposed of properly, it will seap into to soil. They have to go to hazardous waste sites, & many places aren't set up to accept them.

Just saying that there are issues to be resolved in the use of these new bulbs.

[roamer65]

12. The mercury in the lamps is dwarfed by the amount emitted...

by coal-fired power generation. I plan on hanging on to the burned out ones and taking them to a local recycler who handles this kinda stuff. But I have yet have one of these bulbs burn out. As they get more popular, recyclers will gear up to take them.

[slackmaster]

17. Someone tried to make that point regarding California's proposed bulb ban

But not one Watt of commercially generated power in California comes from coal.

Australia OTOH is a heavy consumer of coal.

http://www.worldcoal.org/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=188

[magellan]

24. Use of CFLs curbs other pollutants too

"Even in areas without significant coal-fired power generation as part of the electricity mix (e.g., Alaska and the Pacific Northwest), there are other, equally positive environmental impacts from saving energy through the use of CFLs: reduction of nitrogen oxides (which cause smog), and prevention of substantial quantities of CO2, a greenhouse gas (which is linked to global warming), as well as other air pollutants."

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:Wpsa9wiDeWcJ:www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf+mercury+compact+fluorescent&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Overall CFLs are much better for the environment than incandescent bulbs.

[TroglodyteScholar]

80. Living in central GA...

...there isn't even a municipal recycling program for ALUMINUM, much less hazardous materials. Maybe some of the more liberal areas of the nation have programs to dispose of CFL's, but there's nowhere within 80 miles of me that handles them -- and even then, it's a commercial place that charges fees.

I'm just gonna keep used ones in a box. If they live up to expectations, maybe someone local WILL be recycling them by the time mine blow. (crossing fingers)

[Xithras]

23. Interesting point, I've never recycled them.

I've been using them for years and just trashed them when the time came to replace them. How much mercury is in a bulb?

BTW, the nearest public recycling center to my home is about 20 miles away. There are a handful of private commercial centers closer than that, but none of them accept anything other than glass bottles, metal, and some types of plastic. Anything else has to be driven to the public recycler. I doubt that many people around here are going to make a 20 mile trip to dispose of an old lightbulb.

[magellan]

25. A very tiny amount

About the size of the period at the end of this sentence. And manufacturers are finding ways to reduce that amount even more.

[Tesha]

41. Up until recently, there was also lead...

Magellan is correct; there's less and less mercury in the
lamp tubes as time goes by, although, by definition,
fluorscent lamps will likely always contain a small
amount of mercury.

Up until recentlym there was also lead in the solders that
held the electronic components of the lamp together. But
thatnks to the ROHS directives coming from Europe, fewer
and fewer devices contain leaded solders, although they
remain legal in the ever-so-progressive United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restriction_of_Hazardous_Substances_Directive

Tesha

[eppur_se_muova]

53. Thanks, wasn't aware of that. nt

[KurtNYC]

33. LED is the next wave and will be boosted by the banning of incandescents

LEDs are now approaching efficency levels that exceed fluorescent, have a longer life and are easily recycled.

[madame defarge]

47. You must have watched Mythbusters too

They did a great test comparing the energy usage on all types of bulbs & LEDs won, hands down.

[bleedingheart]

48. I saw a demonstration of LED lighting at the Carnegie Science Center

in Pittsburgh and those issues were mentioned.

[iverglas]

61. I'm thinking of lighting my house with hand-cranked LED flashlights ...

Only got the one so far though, so it's compact fluorescent for now.

Ikea takes back the bulbs they sell. As CFLs become more prevalent, it is reasonable to expect that a recycling program will be instituted by municipalities, or imposed on retailers. Up here in the land of long winter days, anyhow. ;)

[Fire Walk With Me]

4. I wish they'd offer a website or handbook on exactly what we can do

to curb this problem... After "An Inconvenient Truth", I wanted to DO something, and hope that there can be constant examples for all to see and act upon.

Isn't there any sort of "what can I do" section on Gore's website? Anything that could be sent out in bulk mail? I think that people want to do something, but are short on information.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

8. They passed this out at the theater when I saw the movie

http://www.climatecrisis.net/pdf/10things.pdf

[Fire Walk With Me]

10. Good news, thanks! No sign of this when I saw the film.

Thanks for the link!

[RedEarth]

18. Peake, here is another site you might have an interest in

....it deals with carbon offsetting

http://www.co2.org/

and a few other sites.......all have links to steps we can take to help slow down global warming

http://www.climate.org/climate_main.shtml

http://grist.org/

http://www.stepitup07.org/

[Newsjock]

5. And how many "news" organziations made fun of California?

Just recently, when legislation was proposed to do exactly the same thing. Newspapers and TV were falling all over each other to laugh the proposal right out of existence.

And now we get shown the way by the Australian government of John freakin' Howard, Bush's best buddy.

So, are any of those crazed editorial writers or "reporters" going to apologize now? Yeah, right.

[depakid]

9. Coopting the issues

Global warming is a big deal in drought stricken Australia- and this was one of Labor's proposals.

That should be a lesson to the Dems and especially to their "leadership" in the Senate. Unfortunately, I rather doubt that they'll get it- and I fully expect the Republicans to coopt popular issues just like this in 2008.

[MissB]

6. Hooray for Australia!

[slackmaster]

7. Still no word on how they'll handle situations where incandescents are best

Oven lights, freezer lights, people with medical conditions like MS that make fluorescents intolerable, people whose work demands that they see colors in a natural spectrum, heat lamps for pets, etc.

[TroglodyteScholar]

81. CFL's are available in full spectrum...that covers one of your scenarios, at least... n/t

[truthisfreedom]

11. I HATE the color temperature and spectrum of fluorescents.

Warmer color-balanced LED bulbs had better be available soon!

[Tesha]

14. Which of the many available spectra do you hate?

> I HATE the color temperature and spectrum of fluorescents.

Which of the many available spectra do you hate?

Tesha

[Boxturtle]

15. Once LED's are readily available, fluorescent lights could

possibly be banned. LED's use only 30% of the energy that fluorescent lights use.

[KurtNYC]

35. 30%? Not by my math (when producing an equal amount of light)

Here is lumens (light output) per watt of currently available products:

Incandescent: 17 lm/W
Halogen: 22 lm/W
LED (white - GE): 45 lm/W
Fluorescent: 90 lm/W
HPS: 132 lm/W

Cutting edge (not yet available for purchase):
Cree LED (white): 131 lm/W
Nichia LED (white): 150 lm/W

I think White LEDs would have to produce 300 lumens per watt to be using 30% of the energy fluorescents use. Or are you counting the efficiency gained by dimming? I think we aren't quite there yet but we may get there.

The theoretical maximum for converting electricity to light (any spectrum) is 683 so technology may get us beyond where we are now.

[Tesha]

43. Cutting-edge fluorescents are managing 105-110 L/W

Just FYI:

Cutting-edge fluorescents (long T5 normal-output tubes) are
currently managing 105-110 L/W.

Estimates vary on the maximum theoretical efficiency of what
we would consider "White" light. True broadband white light
may be as low as 200-250 L/W whereas narrowband RGB "white"
light might lie as high as 400 L/W.

Tesha

[Tesha]

42. It's not at all clear that the life-cycle pollution costs of LEDs...

It's not at all clear that the life-cycle pollution costs
of LEDs are an improvement over the life-cycle pollution
costs of fluorescent lamps, especially if the world gears
up a consumer-level recycling program for spent fluorescent
lamps.

Semiconductor manufacturing isn't exactly the world's least-
polluting process.

Tesha

[Tesha]

13. Here's the AP story...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/02/20/financial/f080318S76.DTL

Australia to Ban Old-Style Bulbs

By ROHAN SULLIVAN, Associated Press Writer

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

The Australian government on Tuesday announced plans to phase out
incandescent light bulbs and replace them with more energy-efficient
compact fluorescent bulbs across the country.

Legislation to gradually restrict the sale of the old-style bulbs
could reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions by 4 million
tons by 2012 and cut household power bills by up to 66 percent,
said Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull.

Australia produced almost 565 million tons of greenhouse gases
in 2004, official figures show.

Prime Minister John Howard said the plan would help all Australians
play a part in cutting harmful gas emissions: "Here's something
practical that everybody will participate in."

In incandescent light bulbs, perfected for mass use by Thomas
A. Edison in the late 19th century, electricity flows through
a filament to create light. Much of the energy, however, is
wasted in the form of heat.

<more>

[daleo]

16. This is a good idea

The U.S. and Canada ought to do so, as well. I picked up some of the new bulbs yesterday. They are pretty cheap now, and the lighting quality is fine, in my opinion.

[The2ndWheel]

19. Unless more people use more

The cheaper and more efficient a product is, more people will use it more often.

[B3Nut]

20. I hope they make an exception

for the small bulbs used in Lava Lites. Both the light and what would normally be waste heat is put to work in those delightful groovy works of hip art!

It's not like you run the things 24/7, IIRC it's a whopping 15 watts (I haven't looked in mine in a while, never had to change the bulb.)

Flourescents are nigh-useless for color photography as well, too many holes in the spectrum. The color balance is all wonky. So an exception for photofloods would be OK, since they're only run during a shoot. Maybe wide-spectrum LED's will come out, hopefully the light won't have the depressing quality flourescents often have (especially the tubes in our offices, they make me glad my office has large windows.)

LED's will be great when the technology matures, you get a lot of light out of a few watts of energy.

Todd in Beerbratistan

[MadHound]

21. I hope that they don't enact such laws here

My wife had an eye injury a few years back that left her very sensitive to certain types of lights, neon and flourescents in particular. Such laws would drastically decrease her quality of life, and cause her much pain via headaches, eye pain, etc. Many other people throughout the country are in the same boat.

If this gets pushed through, I'll be buying a lifetime supply of incandescents so that my wife at least won't have to suffer at home(though going out and about would still be hell).

[depakid]

29. I'm sure that you can purchase lighting for therapeutic reasons

Ozzies- or even Americans aren't that cruel....

What this law is meant to do is change the habits of the vast majority- rather like CAFE standards, who would otherwise stubbornly continue with their wasteful, inefficient habits.

[MadHound]

32. Yes, I'm sure that they'll have therapeutic reasons.

However that will still limit her when it comes to going other places, for work, busness or pleasure. The omnipresent flourescent lighting that we have now is bad enough, but replacing all incandescents with CFLs would mean that playing pool is gone, it is less pleasurable going for a night out, etc. etc.

Don't get me wrong, I think CFLs are a fine idea, but in addition we need to work on bigger issues, like the production of electricity. Wind power has the potential to provide for all of our electric needs cleanly, renewably, and dependably. Let's tap that, and then we wouldn't have to ban incandescents.

[Lurking Dem]

45. But for people like me for whom

UV exposure from fluorescent lighting is dangerous, such laws mean that we will be housebound and no longer able to enjoy public life without a burka made from Coolibar fabric.

[Xithras]

22. There are still many situations where CFL's don't work.

As someone else mentioned, ovens and refrigerators. They also don't work in high vibration environments, or in closed fixtures. Sealed recessed lighting (like those found in many bathrooms and other damp environments) and enclosed outdoor lighting also cannot use CFL's, because the fixtures tend to get very hot during use and CFL bulbs do not work well in high temperature settings. There is also, as of yet, no CFL equivalent for undersized incandescents like those required for some ceiling fans and other compact light sources. Another issue is environments where the light gets turned on and off frequently. CFL's only provide energy savings if they're turned on and left on a while. If you, like me, were taught to TURN THE LIGHTS OFF when you leave a room, they're not that much of a savings. Not only does the power spike during powerup draw MORE power than an incandescent, but each powerup stresses the onboard electronics. A CFL has to run about 15 minutes before it beats the power consumption of an incandescent bulb. Placing CFL's in locations where the lights get turned off and on a lot, for short periods, may actually increase power usage. Turning them off and on frequently also substantially shortens their lives. Somewhere on GE's website is a statement that the life of a CFL that isn't allowed to warm up properly before being turned off will be much less than a year. CFL's are extremely efficient in situations where the lights will be turned on and left on for long periods, but that's about it.

I agree that CFL's are a great investment for both environmental and personal financial reasons, but a few years of using them has taught me that CFL's aren't the be all and end all of lighting. To mandate their use in situations where they're actually LESS efficient is rather silly. I have no problem with the government pushing CFL's through marketing, rebates, and other methods, but banning incandescents outright is short sighted (here's an idea...how about offering a tax credit for CFL's?)

We have some nitwit trying to push this in California, and it's just as dumb an idea here as it is in Australia.

[magellan]

26. CFL works in our fridge

The old bulb blew out two years ago, I only had CFL on hand so stuck a small one in there. It lasted till December '06 and I replaced it with another. So shorter lifespan than expected, but it is in a cold fridge. Because CFLs are more sensitive to cold, it takes a moment or two to come on after we open the fridge door, but no big deal.

We've been using CFLs throughout our house for three years now and apart from an apparently bad one that blew out within a few months, all have lasted much longer than incandescents. We immediately saw savings on our electricity bill.

They aren't the answer for every situation. We have a chandelier in our dining room that doesn't take them; not small enough. But I suspect that most people could use at least one CFL in place of an incandescent someplace in their house and help the environment. It'd be nice if the government worked on reducing the cost of CFLs so more people would do so.

[Xithras]

30. Agreed. My house in 90% CFL

For the majority of people, the majority of lighting CAN be replaced by CFL's. I wasn't implying otherwise. I have CFL's in several outdoor fixtures, in my hallways, in my ceiling lights, and in most other sockets in the house. I only use incandescents in a few fixtures where they make more sense.

The biggest issue with refrigerators is, again, the warmup period. CFL's are less efficient than incandescents if left running for less than 10-15 minutes. They take a large jolt of power to "light", and then very little to keep running. If you run a flourescent for less than 10-15 minutes (exact time varies by bulb type and brightness), the power draw for the lights ignition will actually exceed the power draw needed to run an incandescent bulb for the same period. I would assume that you don't often leave your fridge open for more than 10 minutes, so putting a CFL in there isn't realizing you any power savings (and may be costing you money...probably in the tens of cents every month ;)). The longer you run a CFL, the more money it will save you, but in situations where a light is only on for a few minutes at a time, there is no power or money savings. When you factor in the higher replacement cost and the dramatically shortened lifespan CFL's experience in refrigerators and other similar environments, they can actually be a money hole.

I do agree that the governments resources would be better spent getting the CFL costs down, and resolving its waste issues. If those are resolved, CFL's will take over without any government mandate forcing people to do so.

[Tesha]

44. Your reply is wrong on so many points it's not worth citing them individually.

But nearly everything you said is incorrect.

Tesha

[Xithras]

50. Wha? I don't think so.

Straight from the mouth of one of the manufacturers: http://www.gelighting.com/na/business_lighting/faqs/cfl.htm#4

No vibration, no enclosed recessed fixtures, a reference to frequently turning them off and on. Sealed outdoor fixtures in hot environments (it can hit 105F where I live in the summer) have the same issues as sealed recessed lights, and ANYONE who has used CFL's outdoors in a cold environment can tell you about startup issues. CFL's are also pretty useless in any kind of shop environment, because they cannot deal with shock or abuse AT ALL. I tried putting one in my droplight once, and the thing lasted all of 20 minutes...the first time I dropped the light three inches, the bulb broke. The manufactrers generally warn against that kind of use anyway, since the dirty power and vibrations found in most shops will fry CFL electronics pretty quickly.

As for the power surge, the ballast electronics in a CFL work by precharging a capacitor, which then discharges into the cathode to excite the light. That initial charge, on a cold bulb, DOES draw more power than an incandescent at startup. Where CFL's are more efficient is in their ongoing power draw. While a bright CFL may initially draw 150 watts or more to light, its power requirements will quickly drop to 10 watts or less as the bulb warms over several minutes of use. The incandescent equivalent, of course, may pull 75 watts of power and keep pulling at that level indefinitely. That's the strength of a CFL...if the light is going to be left on, it will quickly become the more efficient solution. The idea only fails in locations where CFL's aren't left on long enough to reach maximm efficiency...water closets, refrigerators, that sort of thing. Incandescents are actually a more efficient solution in those situations.

If you want to refute any of this, please do so. Don't just drop a "BWAH, THAT'S NOT TRUE!" and leave it hanging.

[Tesha]

51. Let's take just one point...

> As for the power surge, the ballast electronics in a
> CFL work by precharging a capacitor, which then discharges
> into the cathode to excite the light. That initial charge,
> on a cold bulb, DOES draw more power than an incandescent
> at startup. Where CFL's are more efficient is in their
> ongoing power draw. While a bright CFL may initially draw
> 150 watts or more to light, its power requirements will
> quickly drop to 10 watts or less as the bulb warms over
> several minutes of use.

Let's take just this one point. On this one point alone,
you're wrong on several counts.

1) Compact fluorescent lamps don't take "150 watts" over the
implied "several minutes" that they are warming up. The design
simply won't allow that. The lamp is usually ballasted by a
capacitor in series with the arc tube, and that capacitor
limits the current through the lamp *AT ALL TIMES* to a
value no higher than the rated current of the lamp.

2) What you're referring to as the "surge" is the initial
half-cycle (or one-cycle, depending on the design) current
surge that charges the bulk storage capacitor(s) of the
lamp. Once the bulk storage capacitors are charged, the
"surge" is over. And it's certainly no more power than
is consumed in the next fraction of a second of normal
lamp opertaion.

3) Did you know that incandescent lamps also draw a surge
of power on startup? Tungsten has a much lower resistance
when cold than when hot, so it's not unusual for an ordinary
incandescent lamp to draw, on startup, *TEN TIMES* the
ordinary running current of the lamp. It's for this
reason that incandescent lamps often fail on startup: the
intense magnetic field surrounding the filament at startup
imposes the greatest mechanical strains on the filament.
And unlike with the CFLs, this startup surge lasts several
cycles of the mains power.

Tesha

[Xithras]

60. Just one?

The 150 watts thing was meant to be illustrative, but this has turned up some interesting research. My numbers are based on old data, primarily drawn for industrial grade fluorescents. The 10 minute warm-up primarily only applies today to the large 10 foot long bulbs. BUT! I was off on time, but not on principle. Every reputable source I looked at, including the EE professors down the hall, confirmed that CFL's have a "strike time" of between 30 and 60 seconds, and that they DO exceed their rated wattage every time you turn them on. The EE prof specifically confirmed this, saying that standard EE curriculum includes instructing budding engineers to account for this surge when designing electrical circuits. Using your math and logic, a 75 watt incandescent would either pull 750 watts at startup (which would blow the breaker in any house) and exceed its rating, or it's held to its 75 watt rating, and only pulls 7.5 watts once warmed up. Which is it?

Either way, increased power consumption is actually the least of my concerns when used in refrigerators and other environments where it will only be on momentarily. Every single source I consulted confirmed that using a CFL like that will result in a bulb lifespan significantly shorter than that found in incandescents. Even if I conceded your point on power, appliance grade incandescents generally last 4-6 years in a clean power environment. The manufacturers themselves concede that CFL's were never intended to be used this way, and that turning them on and off again regularly, in under 30 seconds, can shorten their lives. Rather than a single incandescent being replaced once every few years, you'll be replacing your CFL once a year or more. You can extend this life by consolidating refrigerator trips and leaving the door open longer, but your refrigerator will pull far more power than a CFL could ever hope to save as it tries to cool itself off again.

And in the grand scheme of my original post, this was one of the more minor points. There are environments where incandescents are better than CFL's. LED bulbs will probably oust even those once the prices and lifespan issues are worked out, but TODAY there is no viable alternative to incandescents for some uses.

By the way, you may also want to check your warranty if you own a major brand computer. Many computer manufacturers will void your warranty if you have it plugged into the same circuit as a CFL, unless you have a line conditioner between the two devices. Both the power draw at startup and the "noise" generated by their constant switching are hell on electronics. This may not seem like a real concern, but if you have your computer plugged into a cheapy power strip, and the next wall outlet on the same circuit is running a lamp with a CFL installed, you could be doing damage to your computer every time you turn it on. Fluorescents, power tools, and appliances are all generally considered warranty voiders if you have them on the same circuit. Everyone should be running a line conditioner on their computer anyway, but relatively few do. Most people just use a $10 surge strip, and while that may stop lightning, it's not going to help power sags or noisy power from nearby appliances or flourescents.

[Tesha]

65. Wow! Are you sure you want to keep going on this?

> Using your math and logic, a 75 watt incandescent
> would either pull 750 watts at startup (which would
> blow the breaker in any house) and exceed its rating,
> or it's held to its 75 watt rating, and only pulls 7.5
> watts once warmed up. Which is it?

A 750 Watt load will *NOT* trip a breaker. A 15 Amp
circuit can deliver 15*120 = 1800 Watts continuously
without tripping the breaker and, because modern
circuit breakers incorporate a "time lag" feature,
will deliver much more than that for a startup-surge.

By convention, a circuit is only designed to be loaded
to about 75%-80% of its rating so its common to see
120V appliances designed to draw less than 12 Amps
or 1350 Watts.


> Every reputable source I looked at, including the EE
> professors down the hall, confirmed that CFL's have a
> "strike time" of between 30 and 60 seconds, and that
> they DO exceed their rated wattage every time you turn
> them on. The EE prof specifically confirmed this, saying
> that standard EE curriculum includes instructing budding
> engineers to account for this surge when designing
> electrical circuits.

The EE Prof is either referring to the exact phenomenon
I told you about (the half- to one-cycle surge that
charges the "bulk storage capacitors") or he is wrong.
I just measured two different CFLs and got the following
results:

1. A Sylvania 20W lamp drew 160 mA at turn on; its
current consumption eventually *ROSE* to 180 mA as
the lamp brightened up.

2. A Commercial Electric 19W R40 reflector lamp that
is obnoxiously slow to brighten up drew 150 mA at
initial turn-on and eventually drew 200 mA at full
brightness.

You'll note that there was the *OPPOSITE* effect as
claimed by you; current consumption was roughly
proportional to light output and *ROSE* to the
final value as the lamp warmed up.

If, when you tell your Prof that you're excluding
the charging surge, he still maintains that CFLs draw
high current during warm-up, tell him to crack out
his clamp-on ammeter or current probe and have a look
for himself.


> By the way, you may also want to check your warranty
> if you own a major brand computer. Many computer manufacturers
> will void your warranty if you have it plugged into
> the same circuit as a CFL, unless you have a line
> conditioner between the two devices.

My Apple computers have no such restriction; here's a link
to the current Apple Warranty:

http://www.apple.com/legal/warranty/hardware.html

My Sun computers have no such restriction; here's a link
to the current Sun Warranty:

http://www.sun.com/service/warranty/index.xml

What computer companies are so stupid as to try that
exclusion? Why not post a link to their warranty/
warranties.

Tesha

[Xithras]

66. Well, Sun for one.

Most manufacturers simply cover it under "external conditions". In our case, Sun did a data center update for us, and then threatened to void our warranty if we didn't move our lighting onto a different electrical panel (not just a different breaker, a different panel altogether). And we HAVE a line conditioner protecting the servers! Dell also includes a reference to power issues as warranty voider's, and has cited sharing circuits with noisy devices (including fluorescents) as cause for denying warranty claims.

That aside, let's take a step back here for a minute. You may be right, I don't know. I'm a CS professor, not an EE professor, so am only repeating what I've read and have been told on the subject. To be completely honest, I wouldn't even know HOW to test power pull if I were asked.

You and I are going back and forth on this one power issue, and there were many others brought up. Even if I give up on the power thing and cede that point, it still doesn't undermine my overall argument that there are many environments that fluorescent isn't appropriate for.

[Tesha]

75. Re: several points

For a datacenter, I'm pretty sure you'll find that the various
electrical codes *REQUIRE* the separation of the "general
lighting" loads and the computer and air-conditioning loads.
This makes sense for several reasons including the fact that
a lot of commercial lighting operates at 277 volts (one phase
of a 480 volt "Y" 3-phase circuit") and that it's desireable for
safety reasons that the general lighting circuits survive problems
affecting the computer/HVAC circuits.

And if Dell was trying to deny non-commercial warranty
claims because of use of fluorescent lights, well, Dell is
a shitty company on several counts and everyone knows
that.

But okay, let's step back and look at the larger questions
of where CFLs are applicable.

I'll grant you two-and-a-half uses where incandescents
still reign supreme:

o Oven lights (because of the high heat)

o Refrigerator lights (because of the cold, although
LED lights will work there just fine so it won't be
long till incandescents aren't needed in this
application)

o Certain fixtures that are enclosed or otherwise will
not physically fit a CFL (but that last bit is becoming
less and less common)

I'm also sympathetic to the argument regarding lamps
that are only lit for a few minutes a year (the lamp in
the attic, etc.).

But CFLs are getting better all the time and a lot of the
reasons people are offering for not using them are
either obsolete or just patent bullshit.

Tesha

[TroglodyteScholar]

82. Mythbusters debunked one of your gripes...

CFL's only provide energy savings if they're turned on and left on a while. If you, like me, were taught to TURN THE LIGHTS OFF when you leave a room, they're not that much of a savings

Mythbusters looked at this, and they said it's more efficient than candescents if you plan on leaving it on for more than something ridiculous like .18 sec. Gotta be pretty fast to be in and out of a room in that amount of time.

[Delphinus]

27. Perhaps a stupid question, but

what happens to all the manufacturers (a.k.a. employees) of the regular light bulbs? How many will lose their jobs?

[goforit]

28. Now that is action!!!.....GE should just sell all floresent from now on.

[Harper_is_Bush]

31. Excellent news! Everyone should change their bulbs IMMEDIATELY!

Unless of course you have a skin condition that reacts to fluorescent light.

Otherwise, there's no excuse for not doing it.

DO NOT WAIT FOR THE INCANDESCENTS TO BURN OUT! DO IT NOW!

[Critters2]

34. I've been concerned about putting cfls in enclosed lights in my

bathrooms and kitchen, but am considering just taking the covers off and using the exposed bulbs. Won't look as nice, but'll work just as well, cost less, and use less energy. How often do people look at light fixtures anyway?

[alfredo]

36. How many Australians does it take to screw in a

compact fluorescent bulb?

[TankLV]

37. How many Austrailians does it take to change a lightbulb?

I'm sure there's a joke in here somewhere...

HA! I posted before I read all the way down to the above post!

HA HA!

[TroglodyteScholar]

83. Q: How many Australians does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: Dunno, guess we'll find out in 4 to 7 years when they start going bad.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

38. Many people perceive fluorescent light as a strobe light...

I'm one of them. I don't perform my best or concentrate as well when in that environment.

[Matilda]

39. How many politicians does it take to change a light bulb?

One, but it needs an election coming first.

No, that wasn't original, but it's true. This is a knee-jerk reaction from a slack government that
has suddenly realised that a large number of voters take climate change seriously.

The idea is obviously good - we use CFL lights at home wherever possible, and its cut our power bills
quite a bit. But they're not suitable for everything, and a lot more work has to be done before
they can be universally used.

This is about votes, folks, and an election a few months away.

[superconnected]

70. They're way better now. 5 years ago they had flickers.

Some flicker once when you just turn them on now a days.

Mine don't though. I don't know why. I buy the cheap energy saver lights.

[bushcrab]

40. SHEEPLE, Sheeple, Sheeple:

Sorry folks, this is not what it appears. Outlawing the use of incadescent bulbs is SO ignoranusly ridiculous.....LOL!!! For two simple reasons:

Energy savings myth

If they are serious about cutting energy consumption, maybe they should focus on the real energy hogs, such as A/Cs, space heaters, baseboard heaters, water heaters, hot tubs, senseless tv shows, hair dryers, on and on. 60watt light bulbs consume relatively nothing compared to these other items. Why don't they require Australians to wear long johns in the winter, and open their windows in the summer and use small fans instead? Light bulbs are the problem??!! lol

Health Hazards

Fluorescent lights emit electromagnetic fields that can have an adverse effect on your health. I'd recommend a distance of 2 feet or better if you use fluorescent light bulbs for reading, and you might want to read this as well:

http://www.mercola.com/article/emf/emf_dangers.htm

[wuushew]

63. how about a little research first

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2001/enduse2001/enduse2001.html


Indoor lighting is a rather large component of total household electric use, and in any case is it not far cheaper to replace relatively inexpensive light bulbs than the several grand investment of a new central air conditioner? From an available cash flow standpoint the former is much easier than the latter.

[bushcrab]

73. LOOK at your own research data

KWh per household figure is WAY less than your refrigerator, your A/C, your Heating System, your Water Heater. Look again maybe.

My point is, is that there are far better measures to take to conserve energy than to outlaw incadescent bulbs. I DIDN'T say to replace the A/C unit, just use it more sparingly and more efficiently....wear a sweater rather than crank up the heat... take quicker showers....on&on&on!!
Wow.

[depakid]

79. A Mercola siting!

First I've seen in several weeks! :rofl:

[Tracer]

46. The 37-year-old lightbulb.

It's true.

At the bottom of my basement stairs, there is a very, very old compact flurorescent light bulb that has worked for 37 years.

And it's not one of those bulbs that never gets used. Every time someone goes down to the basement (laundry, workshop etc.) it gets turned on.

I'm going to gradually replace all my incandescents, now that the price has come down.

[recoveringrepublican]

49. that's nothing! Lightbulb burning since 1901...snopes link

http://www.snopes.com/science/lightbulb.asp

[slackmaster]

59. I have a fluorescent Harp beer sign that's about that old

It's an old fashioned ring-shaped fluorescent.

[DainBramaged]

52. When they curb their Prime Minister I'll cheer

[davepc]

54. Why cant consumers have a choice?

I have about 60% fluorescent bulbs in my house, but for some applications (like my desk lamps and other lights that I use primarily to read at night) I prefer the softer light of incandescent.

I'd be pretty annoyed if the government told me I could only use one type of bulb.

Though maybe the restriction will spur development of other alternatives, but I hate the idea of banning things.

[Psephos]

55. Simplest and best post on this thread n/t

[Dave From Canada]

56. I agree. Well said.

[Lurking Dem]

57. Apparently it is going to take

having everybody with lupus and related inflammatory diseases prisoners in their own homes before somebody develops an LED bright enough for general use. Necessity is the mother of invention.

And that's assuming they will allow people to have different light sources for medical reasons. If not, it's back to candlelight.

What's the cholofluorocarbon output of a candle?

[slackmaster]

58. I'm right there with you, davepc

I replaced almost all of my incandescent bulbs with CFs back in the summer of 2000, when California experienced rolling power blackouts. It was at the time marginally cost-effective to do so over the expected 10-year lifespan of the CFs - Basically an economic "wash" but I did it because it was the right thing to do, and the convenience of not having to change them as often.

I still have a few lamps and fixtures in which no existing CF will fit, and because of the color temperature/spectrum issue I am installing halogen lights in my slow-motion kitchen remodel operation. Those are much more efficient than traditional incandescents, and I think I have a right to choose that type of lighting, and pay a little more for power, where quality of seeing is most important to me.

I believe LED based bulbs will eventually be viable replacements for the halogen bulbs, but I'll be damned if I let government force me to use a particular type now or at any time in the future.

Though maybe the restriction will spur development of other alternatives, but I hate the idea of banning things.

Government-imposed bans always lead to unintended consequences - Some good, some neutral, and some bad. Economic incentives usually provide better ways of getting people to change their behavior.

[iverglas]

62. hey, I'd love to have a choice!

I'd choose not to live in a world with people who think that their holy right to choice trumps the human race's right to survive ...

[NickB79]

71. Because millions of consumers make very bad choices every day

And because of all the bad choices we've made, from what vehicles we drive, what foods we eat, where we get our energy, and also what lightbulbs we use, the climate is now changing enough to kill millions, if not BILLIONS, of people over the next few decades.

The replies here boggle my mind. Why is there even a debate about this anymore? We've pushed our planet's climate to the point that even if we completely eliminated all CO2 emissions TODAY, we would still see global warming for decades to come as the lag effect continues, and it would require centuries for nature to remove the excess CO2 from the atmosphere. Hasn't anyone here watched An Inconvenient Truth, or read at least a summary of the IPCC report? If this raises issues, wait until the truly draconian measures will have to be implemented just to prevent completely catastrophic climate change.

"I have about 60% fluorescent bulbs in my house, but for some applications (like my desk lamps and other lights that I use primarily to read at night) I prefer the softer light of incandescent."

I'm sure that 20 yrs from now, when children are starving in Bangladesh after rising sea levels flood their fields, that they can take comfort in the fact we had nice soft light to read by.

[wuushew]

64. There is much unreasonable fear of UV emissions

http://www.gelighting.com/na/business_lighting/education_resources/learn_about_light/distribution_curves.htm

Several emission spectra are listed on GE's website, most of the light is in the visible wavelengths.

[slackmaster]

67. Very interesting Web page - Thanks for posting that link!!!

:hi:

[Lurking Dem]

68. Not all of it is unreasonable.

For some of us it is very serious.

I can be outside, unprotected, for 3 to 5 minutes this time of year -maybe 2 minutes in the summer.

Under tube fluorescents I can last about 2 hours, tops. I would suspect longer with CF's but probably not by much.

With sunblock, which I have to wear even under my clothing, I can go about 30 minutes outside or next to a window or 4-5 hours under fluorescents.

I develop bright red lesions wherever my skin was exposed. My joints swell. The glare causes intense eye pain (and the UV will worsen my cataracts) and headaches. This is not what I'm "afraid" will happen. This IS what has happened to me under fluorescent lighting.

If change to fluorescent is mandated, it will very much limit my lifestyle. I won't be able to spend an entire day or an entire evening someplace that is so lit without wearing head to toe special clothing and covering my face and head completely.

As it stands now, to go out in the summer I have to be completely covered, including my hands and a headwrap. This is WITH the aforementioned sunscreen. It is almost unbearable in the heat.

If I can also no longer do inside activities, what is left?

[bushcrab]

74. It's EMF you should be worried about, not UV (lol)

Electromagnetic Fields. Fluorescents emit this, incadescents don't. Your choice, but you might want to read this first:

http://www.mercola.com/article/emf/emf_dangers.htm

[Tesha]

76. What makes you think incandescent lamps don't emit EMFs? (NT)

[bushcrab]

77. Uh, because I KNOW

Every wire that carries current is going to emit an electromagnetic field, but in the case of the hair-size filament of an incadescent bulb that figure is "nothing".

Motors, transformers, ballasts within the flourescent fixtures and within the new fluorescent bulbs, these all emit EMF at noticeable levels. The level drops off rather quickly as you distance yourself. My computer monitor, for example, has concentrations of EMF at each corner, especially just upper left of center, for some reason internal, but the level really drops off at a distance of a foot or so. Television sets are much stronger--- five feet away minimum would be more like it, either side of the wall it's up against.

Check out the link above

[Tesha]

78. What you "KNOW" is wrong.

> Every wire that carries current is going to emit an electromagnetic
> field, but in the case of the hair-size filament of an incadescent
> bulb that figure is "nothing".

Oddly enough, that eentsy-weentsy filament is carrying
exactly the same amount of current as the wires that
lead to the filament.

Tesha

[bushcrab]

84. lol, I'll tell you what

you go ahead and worry about the nano-problems. I'm thinking right now I could care less about whether you take my advice on this, or not. I do hope others look into this though. Thanks for the kick.

[Tesha]

85. Actually, what I'm starting to worry about is...

Actually, what I'm starting to worry about is how
many DUers implicitly believe stuff that is just
pseudoscience, stuff that is patently, blatantly
wrong.

"OMG, the mercury in CFLs will kill me!" they say,
but go right on easting their tuna-fish sandwiches.

"The batteries in electric cars are deadly in a
crash!" they shout, but fill their tanks with 20
gallons of high-test gasoline.

"A solar collector on the roof of a car can provide
the power to run it hundreds of miles a week".

"The World Trade Centers were brought down in a
controlled demolition!", not because steel loses
most of its strength even at temperatures reached
in a house fire.

"Chemtrails!"

Its like half the people here need medication and
another half either never had any science education
or slept through all of it.

Tesha

[superconnected]

69. oh gosh, does anybody HAVE normal lightbulbs anymore?

Do you LIKE paying 75% more on energy bills for lighting?

I remember when I changed my bulbs, my power bills went down to less than half what they were before, and it never came back up.

If you are only paying for lights it's a 75% decrease in cost. I have people living with me watching tv all the time, so I saved half of my bill.

People above mentioned things like air conditioner, hot tubs etc. I don't them since I live in seattle in an apartment. They may try getting energy saver appliances if they do that crap. I don't even cook.

[IndyBob]

72. I need to get a few CFLs

Don't have any now, but they make a lot of sense. I guess I will replace an incandescent as they go out, and see how I like them.

In the winter, the fact that incandescents waste energy as heat isn't as much of an issue. In the summer, totally different of course.

My only concern is light quality. Are the CFLs getting better? How would CFLs work for track lighting directed at framed art for example?

This does not apply often, but the rule used to be DO NOT use fluorescents around any rotating machinery. Fluorescents turn on and off at the same frequency as the incoming juice, 60 times a second. Motors tend to run at the same speeds, or a multiple of that speed. Bottom line, a machine could be spinning at 60 rev/second, but to the eye it is standing still. The same as a strobe light effect. Machine looks off, stick fingers in, lose fingers, OUCH.