What are the guidelines for CFL's in recessed lighting?
Oven or fridge bulbs?
Why do CFL's quickly croak in sideways sockets?
Will CFL's be used for automotive headlights?
Will the old school fluorescent shop lights be banned too?
Will Tungsten Halogen quartz light tubes be banned also?
If these new and efficient technologies are so great, then why do they depend on a government ban rather than succeeding in the free market because they save so much money?
The CFL that burned out on me mounted sideways cost me over 5 bucks and died within 3 months.
Old style incandescents can still be had at 4 for a buck.
I coulda bought 20 of those and each one would have lasted MUCH longer.
Most light sockets in the USA are socket up. This overheats and burns up most CFL's, right?
Nobody wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@nowhere.com:
Well if the whole idea behind CFL's is to reduce the "carbon footprint" then transmiision losses have to be considered when compareing them against incadescents.It not just lu/W that is just the financial benifit to the end user but we are talking which has a smaller carbon footprint.
How so if the utility is haveing to generate the same amount of power to supply a 60W incadesent as they have to generate to supply a 40W cfl?The consumer may be saving money because their real power usage is down but the carbon footprint is'nt reduced significantly if at all.The PF is just one small part of the equation when considering any net benifit of CFL's carbon wise.
This site has a pretty good write up and I agree with the majority of it.
formatting link
Well what are you supposed to do with the used CFL's they will end up in the landfill each one has a small amount of mercury but after a couple of years you start having billions of discarded CFL's in landfills then the minuscule mercury isnt so minuscule anymore contaminateing water the fooodchain etc.
Well in a utopian society everybody would behave responsibly with their waste but we dont live in a utopia so that also has to be considered when determining any carbon benifit.
Then their is the manufacturing process which will have its own cost asscoiated enviromently and health care cost. In order to get CFL's produced at a price people will pay they are built in China and third world countries. Needless to say thse Countries arent exactly known for enviromental policies. Do you think they will be following established procedures here; for hazourdous waste disposal and handling there? Who do you think is eventuially going to be paying for this your kids or grandkids.
As to whether or not their is a net carbon benifit using CFL's it would be extremly complex to determine and would take years. At best I dont think it is as spectaculiar as CFL marketing departments would have you think and at worse I think it could very well be a net loss enviromentally.
The problem is their is no independent long term study done taking into account all variables so both sides just have opinions and I just gave mine.
Agreed. But 15W with a 0.5 PF still only works out at maybe 16W once you consider transmission losses (obviously, the actual figure depends upon the transmission loss percentage, but they aren't going to be 50%).
Those figures are way off. A 60W incandescent is more like a 15W CFL plus another watt or two for added transmission losses due to poor PF.
I'm familiar with that site. The guy has an axe to grind, and he isn't above gross distortions in order to do it. We've discussed his rantings on PSUs before.
The same thing that you do with any waste electronic equipment: dispose of it separately (whether it's recycled or buried in landfill which is isolated from the water supply). Obviously, if the state is going to force the adoption of CFLs, it needs to consider the disposal issues, but it also needs people to get over their entitlement issues.
The same issues apply to mercury released into the air (it doesn't stay in the air), and so long as most of the US' supply uses coal, incandescents will cause more mercury to be released than CFLs.
Power consumption is volts times amps times PF. .5 is high enough to get the amps down by using CFLs, which means that wiring and transformer and generator winding losses (in watts) are reduced - along with power consumption by the load.
Because they don't know how much life is currently on average lost by power cycling a fluorescent. That figure is mere minutes nowadays, and in the bad old days was only a couple hours.
My experience is that nearly all people converting to CFLs either keep the light output about the same or increase it by a factor of less than 2.
In most household incandescent lamp wattages and design voltages, upgrading from argon to xenon will improve efficiency by only 10-15%. Higher pressure requires smaller sturdier bulbs - halogen capsules.
For that matter, Sylvania "Capsylite" halogens have krypton rather than argon. They are still only 7-10% more efficient than low pressure argon non-halogen "standard" incandescents (but with 3x the life).
My experience, not only of myself but also ther CFL users, is much better than that.
Businesses often do because the lights are part of the heating system. Unfortunately, this applies to the summer months, too. Others, particularly retail, use lights as part of the security system.
Greenies, and leftists in general, have never been good at dynamics. Their "economics" is proof.
Well, there was the "one sheet" crowd.
Similar, but no curtains. ;-)
They have *many* problems, but that's one I've never heard.
In recent years, most CFL makers (including Osram/Sylvania, GE, Philips, and TCP) have been maing their ordinary consumer grade CFLs with electrolytics that are up to this tough task.
Reflector flood and spot incandescents are exempt from the upcoming ban.
Those are exempt from the upcoming ban.
I have a lot of experience with this not being the case at all.
Incandescents of design voltage less than 110V are exempt from the upcoming ban. So are ones with bases other than E26/E27 size screw.
No.
No, not counting them as incandescents. Incandescents are exempt from the upcoming ban if they are tubular, have base other than E26/E27 screw, or have light output at design voltage exceeding 2600 lumens.
formatting link
There are some things that turn out to be good and cost effective, but only after a government mandate gets us mass production of them. For example, automotive airbags.
Sample size 1 unit?
Plenty of CFLs are OK in those nowadays, probably most 23 watts or less, as well as all rated for use in recessed ceiling fixtures.
CFLs wind up in the landfill because no other options are given; cities that have recycle bins do not accept glass in that generic bin, and only necked bottles are allowed in a separate recycle container.
However, there are options of convenient "proper disposal" of CFLs.
For example, last time I checked, Home Depot accepts dead CFLs for proper disposal.
Also, much of USA's population is close to at least one university, and many of those offer "green CFL disposal". Though, it helps to know someone who is a student there or works there or works near there for convenient "proper CFL disposal" by that route.
Traditionally conventional fluorescent lamp time has been quoted around 10000 hours with 3 hour switching cycle.
The output from any fluorescent tube drops about 20 % at 10000 hours and sometimes after that drop quite rapidly, even if the tube will still start normally.
Extending the switching cycle from 3 hours does not really help. If the lamp is currently on for 12 hours each day, it will last more than
2 years, keeping it constantly on, the light output will drop considerably after 1.5 years.
For at least 11 years now, 4-footers of any of the "Big 3" brands have been rated 20,000 hours or more.
F32T8 tends to be no more than 15% degraded at 10,000 hours, due to being a non-compact fluorescent that uses rare earth phosphors. Furthermore, fluorescents with rare earth phosphors (including most compact ones) tend to degrade more slowly as they age.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.