The Cellar - Compact Fluorescent Bulbs

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Home Base (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=2)

- - Compact Fluorescent Bulbs (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=14028)

Compact Fluorescent Bulbs

Yes yes, they save money and energy and all that jazz. And the new mini bulbs fit in lamps that the older styles would not.

But am I the only person who notices that just like their long tubular predecessors, they have a "warm up" time before they are fully lit, sometimes as long as 10-15 minutes? This is the one reason I don't use them. I feel somewhat guilty, but I'm also not going to turn on a dim light and wait for it to bother to get brighter. Is there maybe a brand which is better about this than the others?

I have some in my lamps, and I don't notice a warm up time. Hmm.

However, I'm glad you brought this up, because my major problem with them is -- they don't dim. You can't put dimmers on them.

Right?

i have one in my bedroom the warm up time is annoying. I've actually changed my routine to allow it to get bright enough to differentiate between socks in order to get a real matched pair. such an impostion. i really resent it, now that you mention it.

Focus on your breathing for the next 3 minutes. Make sure you're doing it right.

I have one for my reading chair. I only seem to notice a 2-3 minute warm up time. I'm usually not in a hurry.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cloud (Post 339073)

Sure you can.

Warm-up is a pain, but oddly comforting on the eyes when you flick the lights on in the middle of the night and aren't blinded.

I haven't seen those in the stores--I'll look for them, thanks

Did you guys hear about the straight kind of fluorescent bulb? Instead of being curled up, it's straight - and it can be as long as 4 feet long, or even longer!

Because of that, it distributes fluorescent light over a larger area. Offices and stores are installing them everywhere!

Wild!

but they are among the worst "warmer uppers" aren't they?

and they hurt my eyes

I hadn't seen any dimmable ones that didn't require special circuits.
Maxlites are $17 for the 20 or 25 watt.
Greenlite's are currently not available at Amazon.
Westinghouse and GE don't show dimmables but you can print 2 $1 coupons at the GE site.

Thanks Kitsune

Yeah, the warm-up thing is annoying as all shit. I've got two CFs and two regular floods in my kitchen, and it takes about 3-4 minutes for the CFs to come up to full power. :rar:

I have 17 recessed lights in my kitchen, and the are all compact fluorescent. Everyone has their annoyances they can't live with, and I've got mine too, but the warm up time really doesn't bother me. The bulbs are shorter than the flood light that are supposed to go in the cans. They actually sell light bulb socket extenders, that bring the bulb down to the proper height. They cost about 5 bucks a piece. I don't know what you call them, but the things you screw into a light socket, that you can screw a light bulb into the end, and can plug in two cords on the side, are the perfect length. They cost about 33 cents a piece.

Be careful Harold, those 33 cent pieces are plastic that wasn't chosen to handle the heat of recessed cans. Make sure the compacts stay cool enough.

Weird. There was an article on the front page of the Washington Post this morning about just this "issue." Basically saying that wives hate compact fluorescents because of the color and the warm up time.

I don't mind the warm-up issue at all, but the high frequency buzz can be annoying if I make the mistake of noticing it and dwelling on it.

Okay that settles it. I'm not going to be some stereotypical ...wife. Nope, not me. CFs are great! Go team! :right:

It does sort of defeat the energy-saving purpose of CF if you have to leave it on so it stays bright enough.

Depends on how efficient they are... What's the electricity difference?

I used a fluorescent bulb in my reading lamp. It was neat because it was shaped like curly fries but I never noticed a warm up time for it. I just turned it on and it was bright enough to read under and didn\'t hurt my eyes at all. Another neat thing about it was it didn\'t put off nearly as much heat as an incandescent bulb of the same brightness.

Soon there will be cheap LED bulbs you can buy that will be bright enough for lamps and other household lighting needs.

interesting article, glatt, thanks

Quote:

Originally Posted by duck duck

Soon there will be cheap LED bulbs you can buy that will be bright enough for lamps and other household lighting needs.

That's what I'm telling myself, duck, I'm just holding out for LED technology. Compact fluorescents will be the 8-track of the electrical world, just you watch!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clodfobble (Post 339338)

That's what I'm telling myself, duck, I'm just holding out for LED technology. Compact fluorescents will be the 8-track of the electrical world, just you watch!

I found some flourescents that are inside those tear-shaped bulbs for outside lights. I use them there since they are on all night and the dim/warmup time is not really a factor. Hopefully, I'll save a buck or two.

I just bought 2 led flashlights for the house. Dang, those things are bright. If they last half as long as the package says, I'll be happy (the battery that is). We burn through flashlight batteries like there's no tomorrow (the ankle-biters turn 'em on and leave 'em on).

LED lights are coming - no doubt about it.

I've been pondering switching to compact fluorescents in the house. The only time I've ever had an issue with fluorescents in general is when they're about to go out. Of course, my energy bill is stupid low already, but I'll take extra pennies any way I can get them.

I say why stop at compact flourescents. Embrace the whole world of cold cathode lighting: embrace neon in the home, in the bedroom, in the bath. Wife upset by compact flourescent color and warmup delay? Turn her prized kitchen into an authentic tiki bar, pour yourself a margarita, put your feet up, and demand some pies.

Seriously, though, there's a whole world of colors out there. Done right, neon will last 30 or so years (you might have to replace the transformer a few times). And it's cooler than some silly miniature flourescent bulb.

Quote:

and demand some pies

i lol'd

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey (Post 339286)

Depends on how efficient they are... What's the electricity difference?

Seven times less electricity for the same light.

Fluorescent technology is not new. Before Edison developed an incandescent bulb, fluorescents had already been developed and demonstrated. Yes, the technology is that old. In one early experiment, that scientist was trying to determine how long a fluorescent tube could be. He had a tube many tens of feet long before his cat overturned his experiment.

Lightning industry made a big push in the 1960s to make incandescents as efficient and long lasting as possible. By 1970s, incandescents were considered as good as they would get. Eventually some of those better ideas appeared as 'new technology' such as halogens.

CFLs demonstrate again why, for example, the Macintosh could be developed in early 1970s and yet sit stifled for almost 10 years. Why Unix could be developed in late 1960s and early 1970s - and yet remain stifled by AT&T until rescued by AT&T self destruction and by Linus Torval. Why electric motors could be developed in the 1800s and yet not cause massive productivity gains until what we now call the Roaring 20s.

CFLs have been suddenly 'discovered' by Sylvania and Wal-mart. And yet still so many 'fear change'. Minor 'tactical' problems (noise, startup time, color) will become even less so as we finally reject our fears and innovate.

CFLs demonstrate how many of us fear innovation as we did computers in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

LEDs for lights? I was putting them into my mid 1980s designs to eliminate switch failure and (worse) failure of mission critical warning lights. Companies such as LEDtronics have been making LED incandescent replacements for maybe 20 years now. LED replacement for essential lighting such as Fire Exit signs are that old, that long available, and still some refuse to use the technology.

Opposition to CFLs is mostly silly as was my opposition to broccoli. Wrestling taught me to make broccoli one of my favorite foods. Logic prevailed. There are some situations where obsolete technology incandescents will still be necessary just as there are still places where horses are preferred.

CFLs are perfect example for the post-baby boomers here to learn and appreciate how opposed so many are to innovation - new ideas - change. That has always been a problem in America. The more widespread that fear, then recession occurs.

Light bulbs that use 1/7th the energy - and yet so many are still opposed. Watch the opposition that Wal-mart has from others, such as GE and Home Depot, when trying to promote innovation in America.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beestie (Post 339365)

I found some flourescents that are inside those tear-shaped bulbs for outside lights. I use them there since they are on all night and the dim/warmup time is not really a factor. Hopefully, I\'ll save a buck or two.

I just bought 2 led flashlights for the house. Dang, those things are bright. If they last half as long as the package says, I\'ll be happy (the battery that is). We burn through flashlight batteries like there\'s no tomorrow (the ankle-biters turn \'em on and leave \'em on).

LED lights are coming - no doubt about it.

I have an LED flashlight and I haven\'t changed the light or batteries in the two years I\'ve had it. I even left it on one night when I went to sleep because I was scared by a movie I watched.. lol

We have CF's all through our house and I don't notice a warm up time at all. I can't imagine we're that much futher advanced than you lot. ;) Surely you can get ones over there that don't have to warm up?

I have been trying to get my wife to change all the lights in the house to these. She can't stand the light difference. They put off a different color of light and the warm up thing annoyed her. I wanted to do it just because it would save electricity in our all electric house.

The dimmable Maxlites, in Kitsune's post 5 link, look like the color isn't that bad.

LED technology was invented at my university.

Carry on.

If you say so. Wikipedia doesn't mention your school.

Just bought 4 n:vision 14w soft white bulbs at The Home Despot for $7 and change. No apparent warm-up time...bright as can be.

Only some of our compact fluorescent bulbs exhibit this warmup behavior in a manner really noticeable to the eye.

Here's a pretty good article on current "green" lighting solutions from Mother Earth News:

http://www.motherearthnews.com/Alter...-Lighting.aspx

Two things from Clouds link...

Quote:

Not all CFLs are manufactured to the same standards, so to get the best bulb, start by looking for an Energy Star label. Wilson says there’s a surprising variation in the bulbs’ lifetime, because the technology is simply more complicated than incandescent bulbs. In the Energy Star tests, a certain percentage of the bulbs must last a particular length of time. “It’s a pretty good assurance that you’re getting a good quality product,” he says.

So don't shop price alone or you could get screwed in the end.

Quote:

“Consumers should know that the mercury in CFLs is not going to be detrimental to them in their home,” Reed says. “But it’s important to responsibly dispose of them, as you would any product that contains mercury — batteries, old thermometers and thermostats.”

Wilson has reached the same conclusion: “The take-home message is that when fluorescents have ceased to work properly, they shouldn’t just be thrown in the trash; you should dispose of them through your local solid waste agency.”

So if everybody changes to CFLs it's good... as long as you follow through with proper disposal.

I won't use them because of the mercury in them.
There is nothing "green" about them.
Saving a few bucks on electricity is not worth contaminating the groundwater when they do go bad and end-up broken in a landfill. Many of the "proper" disposal facilities, end-up in the fill just like much of our recycling as well.
(Fun for kids to play with too)
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partner...et_Mercury.pdf

Quote:

Light Bulb Lunacy
April 26, 2007
By Steven Milloy

How much money does it take to screw in a compact fluorescent lightbulb? About $4.28 for the bulb and labor — unless you break the bulb. Then you, like Brandy Bridges of Ellsworth, Maine, could be looking at a cost of about $2,004.28, which doesn’t include the costs of frayed nerves and risks to health.

Sound crazy? Perhaps no more than the stampede to ban the incandescent light bulb in favor of compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs) — a move already either adopted or being considered in California, Canada, the European Union and Australia.

According to an April 12 article in The Ellsworth American, Bridges had the misfortune of breaking a CFL during installation in her daughter’s bedroom: It dropped and shattered on the carpeted floor.

Aware that CFLs contain potentially hazardous substances, Bridges called her local Home Depot for advice. The store told her that the CFL contained mercury and that she should call the Poison Control hotline, which in turn directed her to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection.

The DEP sent a specialist to Bridges’ house to test for mercury contamination. The specialist found mercury levels in the bedroom in excess of six times the state’s “safe” level for mercury contamination of 300 billionths of a gram per cubic meter.

The DEP specialist recommended that Bridges call an environmental cleanup firm, which reportedly gave her a “low-ball” estimate of $2,000 to clean up the room. The room then was sealed off with plastic and Bridges began “gathering finances” to pay for the $2,000 cleaning. Reportedly, her insurance company wouldn’t cover the cleanup costs because mercury is a pollutant.

Given that the replacement of incandescent bulbs with CFLs in the average U.S. household is touted as saving as much as $180 annually in energy costs — and assuming that Bridges doesn’t break any more CFLs — it will take her more than 11 years to recoup the cleanup costs in the form of energy savings.

Even if you don’t go for the full-scale panic of the $2,000 cleanup, the do-it-yourself approach is still somewhat intense, if not downright alarming.

Consider the procedure offered by the Maine DEP’s Web page entitled, “What if I accidentally break a fluorescent bulb in my home?”

Don’t vacuum bulb debris because a standard vacuum will spread mercury-containing dust throughout the area and contaminate the vacuum. Ventilate the area and reduce the temperature. Wear protective equipment like goggles, coveralls and a dust mask.

Collect the waste material into an airtight container. Pat the area with the sticky side of tape. Wipe with a damp cloth. Finally, check with local authorities to see where hazardous waste may be properly disposed.

The only step the Maine DEP left off was the final one: Hope that you did a good enough cleanup so that you, your family and pets aren’t poisoned by any mercury inadvertently dispersed or missed.

This, of course, assumes that people are even aware that breaking CFLs entails special cleanup procedures.

The potentially hazardous CFL is being pushed by companies such as Wal-Mart, which wants to sell 100 million CFLs at five times the cost of incandescent bulbs during 2007, and, surprisingly, environmentalists.

It’s quite odd that environmentalists have embraced the CFL, which cannot now and will not in the foreseeable future be made without mercury. Given that there are about 4 billion lightbulb sockets in American households, we’re looking at the possibility of creating billions of hazardous waste sites such as the Bridges’ bedroom.

Usually, environmentalists want hazardous materials out of, not in, our homes.

These are the same people who go berserk at the thought of mercury being emitted from power plants and the presence of mercury in seafood. Environmentalists have whipped up so much fear of mercury among the public that many local governments have even launched mercury thermometer exchange programs.

As the activist group Environmental Defense urges us to buy CFLs, it defines mercury on a separate part of its Web site as a “highly toxic heavy metal that can cause brain damage and learning disabilities in fetuses and children” and as “one of the most poisonous forms of pollution.”

Greenpeace also recommends CFLs while simultaneously bemoaning contamination caused by a mercury thermometer factory in India. But where are mercury-containing CFLs made? Not in the U.S., under strict environmental regulation. CFLs are made in India and China, where environmental standards are virtually non-existent.

And let’s not forget about the regulatory nightmare known as the Superfund law, the EPA regulatory program best known for requiring expensive but often needless cleanup of toxic waste sites, along with endless litigation over such cleanups.

We’ll eventually be disposing billions and billions of CFL mercury bombs. Much of the mercury from discarded and/or broken CFLs is bound to make its way into the environment and give rise to Superfund liability, which in the past has needlessly disrupted many lives, cost tens of billions of dollars and sent many businesses into bankruptcy.

As each CFL contains 5 milligrams of mercury, at the Maine “safety” standard of 300 nanograms per cubic meter, it would take 16,667 cubic meters of soil to “safely” contain all the mercury in a single CFL. While CFL vendors and environmentalists tout the energy cost savings of CFLs, they conveniently omit the personal and societal costs of CFL disposal.

Not only are CFLs much more expensive than incandescent bulbs and emit light that many regard as inferior to incandescent bulbs, they pose a nightmare if they break and require special disposal procedures. Should government (egged on by environmentalists and the Wal-Marts of the world) impose on us such higher costs, denial of lighting choice, disposal hassles and breakage risks in the name of saving a few dollars every year on the electric bill?

Quote:

Then you, like Brandy Bridges of Ellsworth, Maine, could be looking at a cost of about $2,004.28, which doesn’t include the costs of frayed nerves and risks to health.

Snopes says partly true.

Great info UT, thanks.

I'm more worried about mercury in my fillings.

We have to drive to the next county to get rid of some fluorescents, fixture was in the house when we moved in, at the local landfill (hazardous home waste disposal unit). The gas, time and aggravation will cost us what the fluorescents have saved us.
They, clearly, are not worth it.
Seriously, how many of the whiny hippies do you think really do this instead of throwing them away so the mercury goes into our groundwater?

even in my poor, dusty corner of desert they have such a thing as recycling.

Not here, we spend our energy on Da' Lard!

Dumb question, is there mercury in the 4' long fluorescent tubes, or just the compact bulbs. I had never herd about the mercury before, and I need to change the tubes in my utility room

From here.

Quote:

Fluorescent lights and HID lamps have traditionally had one important drawback: relatively high environmental costs associated with their use, specifically, the disposal costs. Because they contain mercury and trace amounts of lead and other metals regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), fluorescent light tubes and HID lamps may be considered hazardous waste. Even small quantities of these metals may be potentially harmful to human health and the environment, especially when mass quantities of used tubes are landfilled. Used fluorescent light tube disposal in municipal landfills is, in fact, considered the second largest source of mercury pollution entering the environment. These pollutants can often migrate into groundwater supplies or even become airborne (due to mercury’s relatively high volatility), at which time they pose an even greater environmental threat. To combat that threat, the U.S. EPA has established separate regulations that control the collection and management of certain widely generated hazardous wastes, including fluorescent light tubes and HID lamps, known as universal wastes. Under the universal waste rule, the specified widely generated hazardous wastes remain hazardous wastes, but are not subject to the full hazardous waste management rules. Rather, EPA determined that these identified wastes can be more effectively managed under simpler rules that subject universal waste handlers (including generators) to less stringent standards for collecting, storing, and transporting the wastes. EPA's primary objective in designating hazardous waste lamps as a universal waste is to minimize releases of mercury to the environment, ensure safe handling of the lamps, and to keep the lamps out of landfills. Other major goals of the universal waste regulations are to reduce the regulatory burden on facilities that generate those wastes and to encourage facilities to recycle their universal wastes.

Facilities that wish to crush fluorescent tubes on-site prior to recycling should consult their local regulatory agency first. Crushing may be considered treatment of a hazardous waste, thereby subjecting the facility to numerous additional requirements.

Alto lamps have recently come on the market which are produced with low levels of mercury. These lamps have passed the EPA’s Toxic Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) and are considered non-hazardous waste.

I feel like I've been given a big head-fake by the compact fluorescent squad. But wait, a better alternative awaits us!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070513/...gGkswNd9IDW7oF

LEDs emerge to fight fluorescents

Quote:

Compact fluorescent bulbs are the only real alternative right now, but "bulbs" that use light-emitting diodes, or LEDs, are quickly emerging as a challenger.

LEDs, which are small chips usually encased in a glass dome the size of a matchstick head, have been in use in electronics for decades to indicate, for example, whether a VCR is on or off.

Those LEDs were usually red or green, but a scientific breakthrough in the 1990s paved the way for the production of LEDs that produce white light. Because they use less power than standard incandescent bulbs, white LEDs have become common in flashlights.

Established players in the lighting industry and a host of startups are now grooming LEDs to take on the reigning champion of residential lighting, the familiar pear-shaped incandescent light bulb.

Geeks have been watching the LED phenomenon... through better and better LED flashlights. The LED revolution is soon upon us... a light form that is efficient, cool, and environmentally-friendly. Already changing out your signal lamps, it's your home lighting solution any day now. ALL HAIL LED!

Quote:

[i]t defines mercury on a separate part of its Web site as a “highly toxic heavy metal that can cause brain damage and learning disabilities in fetuses and children”.

That explains a lot! When we were kids we had a bottle of mercury, which we would pour on the floor and play with. We did this for a whole summer. Well, it didn't seem to do us any harm, and we would hold the mercury in our hands. It's really fun stuff.

That's true, HLJ. In Jr High Science they passed around a pan of mercury so everyone could coat a coin to take home. Nobody knew how bad it is.

For a short while, we had one off those mercury maze games.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 343523)

That's true, HLJ. In Jr High Science they passed around a pan of mercury so everyone could coat a coin to take home. Nobody knew how bad it is.

That was right after they x-rayed your feet in the shoe store to get the proper shoe size. (A former cow-orker of mine once refused to believe this ever happened. Apparently she felt I had a reputation for making things up just to be a smartass.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveDallas (Post 343536)

That was right after they x-rayed your feet in the shoe store to get the proper shoe size.

Up to 75 rems/m! :whofart:

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkzenrage (Post 340918)

The mercury released by breaking a CFL once it reaches its end of life is less mercury released than what is output from your local power plant needed for the overhead energy to power an equivalent incandescent bulb over the same lifespan. Not a big deal.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...nvironment.svg

That's interesting, Kits. Got a source?

If it's a coal plant burning the right type of coal.

Here you go.

Quote:

It should be noted, however that the "EPA is implementing policies to reduce airborne mercury emissions. Under regulations issued in 2005, coal-fired power plants will need to reduce their emissions by 70 percent by 2018."[20]. This change will lengthen the term before CFLs are better than incandescents. If CFLs are recycled and the mercury reclaimed, the equation tilts towards CFLs, and if non-coal sources of electricity are used, the equation tilts toward incandescents.

Note that the manufacturing process isn't taken into account for the bulbs, either.

Tricky, huh? Its good to be skeptical of the push for these "green" technologies. Remember the big push to move fast food containers from styrofoam to paper? Guess which one consumes more natural resources, energy, and pollutes more overall.

I think a lot of these green ideas are good once the vast majority of the people get on board. Using the end justifies the means, they make a lot of dodgy claims to convince(fool) people into thinking it's already so.

Thanks, looks useful.