Energy-Efficient Bulbs ? well ...

[ncboman]

Study Casts Dim Light on Energy-Efficient Bulbs

They're billed as energy-efficient, but compact fluorescent bulbs are getting a dim review in a new study.

The study, published in Engineering and Technology magazine, shows the energy-efficient light bulbs lose on average 22 percent of their brightness over their lifetime, the BBC reports.

Compact fluorescents reduce energy consumption by up to 80 percent compared to traditional bulbs. But the study concludes consumers were being misled by the bulbs' packaging, suggesting that although the bulbs save energy that savings may come at the cost of long-term brightness.

"It may be deliberate, but because of the standards set, you end up with figures that are exaggerated compared to what people really experience," the magazine's editor, Dickson Ross, told the BBC.

Of the 18 bulbs tested by the magazine for over 10,000 hours, three stopped altogether. Traditional bulbs lose only up to 7 percent of brightness over 2,000 hours.

web page (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,575858,00.html?test=latestnews)

:rolleyes:

didn't every media outlet in the country continuously barrage us with the importance of getting a flu shot, er, expensive new light bulbs?

:confused:

[Bayrat]

I sure noticed a difference in my electric bills.

And I've seen quite a difference in how bright by brand. I've tried several brands, and so far, the Sylvanias are the brightest for the wattage rating and money that I've been able to find easily (at Lowes).

As far as life time brightness and how long they'll last, most of the ones I have now have been in use for over three years and are just as bright as new. What I do know is that by now I would have had to replace alot of incandecent bulbs, and payed ALOT more for electricity in that same time span.

Bayrat.

[LE]

Had a nice post till I hit the wrong key & deleted it. Her is the short version. Been there & done that. No noticeable electric savings. Higher initial cost with less brightness. They still burn out & have to be replaced, did I say higher cost. They do get dimmer over their life, but you don't notice it because it is gradual. Will I use them again? Nope, not until they improve them or stop making incandecent bulbs. Finally I belive the report ncboman reported.

[Bayrat]

LE,
Sorry to hear it didn't work out for you.

I wonder how old that test info is ? I would have agreed with all of it over four years ago, but not now.

There are some things about CF's that can turn one off to them in the begining. But having lived on Long Island where the electric rates were for many years the highest in the nation pushes one to look at anyway to lower an electric bill.

And having used CF's up until I moved off Long Island 18 years ago and then, started re-using them about four years ago , I would agree that many of the earlier CF's go noticably dim within a couple of years, but the ones I've been getting in recent years, I've yet to see any differance.

Because my business is also on the property I track my electric usage carefully, and have 18 years of electric usage to compare to. The shop is all fluorecent lights since day one, no change there. In the house, I swapped-over 19 of the most often used lights to CF's starting almost four years ago.

House uses electric heat so it's tough to figure during cold weather months, but when the heat is off for the rest of the year, usage has been fairly consistant from year to year. The kids have been gone for over four years, so electric bills have gotten even more consistant. Month to month in warm weather, the electric bills only vary about $5.00. Since the swap my non-heating time of year electric bills are down an average of $15.00 a month. Even this year with all the cold and rain where we've had the lights on a bit more each day, the bills are still lower than four years ago before the switch.

The CF's I've been buying, as I said, the differance in brightness of differant brands is noticable, but they all are just as bright as when I first bought them. Out of 19 that I use, I've only had one quit working, and that was after it had been in use about two years. And, it was one of the cheapest brands.

In almost four years, times 6 months a year that the heat is off, all the CF's are paid for and that's not even figuring for the cost of how many incandesents I would have had to buy in that time span.

The rooms are just as bright, and however long the CF's last from now on I'm saving even more because they owe me nothing. And if another one quits, it's replacement will be paid for within about two weeks with what I'm saving on my bill.

I've still got all the incandesect bulbs I took out. I tend to be a cheap SOB, and if the CF's didn't show a savings on paper, or were going dim and not giving me the light I paid for, I'd have put the incandesents back by now.

Paul.

[mack]

I would like to see some information on the energy costs to run the dead bulbs through re-cycling. The costs of dealing with the mercury in them has to be more than it is with the incandescent bulbs. Also they do seem to dim out more with use, (at least to my eyes).

[Altjaeger]

I would like to see some information on the energy costs to run the dead bulbs through re-cycling. The costs of dealing with the mercury in them has to be more than it is with the incandescent bulbs. Also they do seem to dim out more with use, (at least to my eyes).

I will bet 98% never get recycled going into the kitchen trash bag tied of from sight and out with the trash to pollute in a landfill..

[Bayrat]

I will bet 98% never get recycled going into the kitchen trash bag tied of from sight and out with the trash to pollute in a landfill..

Alt,
I wouldn't be surprised.

I called several months ago to see if our local landfill/recyling plant still takes flashlight batteries. They used to request that all dry cell batteries be bagged seperately and put out with the recyling for pickup.

When I called I was told they no longer do that. They said to just put them in with the household garbage. When I asked why, they said it wasn't worth the cost of recyling them and that since the new landfill was lined, they weren't worried about pollution of ground water.

They also don't care if flourescent tubes go in with the garbage so it may be the same with CF's.

Bayrat.

[LE]

Bayrat,
Good point made. I did my little test when they first came out. This was over four years ago, so i'm sure they have improved. Just don't know when I will try them again. You might say I still have a bad taste left in my mouth.

[Bayrat]

LE,


You might say I still have a bad taste left in my mouth.

Very understandable.
There are still some brands of CF's on the market that are not as good as others, and I think the differance in price between those and good Cf's is not worth it. Some of those cheaper CF's are not as bright as the incandecents they are advertised to be equal to. Plus, they often start out quite dim and then take at least a minute to reach however bright they were going to get.

I have a bunch of those sitting in the bulb drawer from when I firsat started replacing incandecents four years ago. Then shortly after that, I found a sale on the Sylvania CF's at Lowes and tried them. Of all I've tried, the Sylvanias come on to full brightness faster and are brighter than other brands of Cf's of equivelent wattage.

The exception is, I just got a 150 watt equivelent Sylvania to use next to a hobby table. Takes about 30 seconds to warm up to full brightness, but when it does, it's appears to be just as bright as any 150 watt incandecents I've used. But, only draws 40 watts of power.

Also, some people I've discussed using CF's with were disappointed with the lack of savings because they didn't know what's the best type of use for CF's. Because the CF's use more power than an incandecent when they are first turned on, they can actually cost more than an incandecent if used for short periods only - like bathroom and closet lights. The real savings value of CF's is when they are used for lights that are going to be left on for long periods. I heard a few years ago that the break-even point is about 15 minutes. After that the electric cost goes down quickly with CF's. The new CF's that start and warm up faster may even have reduced that break-even time by now.

Another savings. Our village is giving a $2.00 per CF credit on the next electric bill up to $500.00 total. Makes changing over to CF's even sweeter ! :D

Bayrat.

[ncboman]

I detest waste but light bulbs aren't a significant factor in my elect bills. Four tvs and 2 puters, sometimes all on at the same time kinda diminish the returns. :o

We've had 4 of the greeny bulbs a good while in our bedroom office here where I spend a good bit of home time. I sincerely hate the dim lighting and think I'll take care of it soon. :rolleyes:

[Bushman]

Interesting about the CF bulbs using MORE electricity when they are first turned on and not as efficient unless they are left on for longer periods. I've tried CF bulbs in the garage where I have motion detector bases and they do burn out much faster than the incandescent bulbs do. Lighting does not use nearly the juice that the larger appliances do, but as much as anything having those CF's around gives me a warm fuzzy feeling that I am helping to save the planet. Ignorance is bliss.

[Bayrat]

All flourecents draw more power at start up than what an incandescent of the same lumins rating will draw.

While the incandecent draw remains constant, within a short time the flourecents power draw drops way off in comparison. That's why, once they warm up, the newer CF's only use about 25% of the power an incandecent does to get the same light output (Lumins).

And they last alot longer than an incandecent. The 100 watt incandecents I have are rated to last about 1000 hrs for the expensive ones, and 750 hrs for the discount ones. The Sylvania 100 watt equivelents are rated for 10,000 hrs. The CF's are more expensive to buy, but are acutally much cheaper when comparing the life of the bulbs. And that's not even counting the savings on electricity used.

I can light a room with four of the Sylvania 100 watt equivelent CF's (they draw only 23 watts each) far brighter, and more evenly, than I ever could using just one 100watt incandecent, and all for the same electric cost. Or use just two, or three CF's, still have better light in that room, and save money on electricity cost and bulb life.

Because of the start up power draw differances, I don't use CF's in areas that only need light for a short time, such as over bathroom sinks, kitchen pantry, or closets. For those I still use incandecents.

Bayrat

[Wapitibill]

CF lamps do not use significantly more energy when first turned on. That's an old wive's tale. Of course, they also don't produce full light output on startup so the lumens-per-watt (efficiency) is lower.

Compact fluorescent lamps do save energy, there's no way around it, but they aren't really the environmental panacea that they're made out to be. Lighting accounts for a surprisingly small percentage of an average residential electric bill. Even if you could change all of the bulbs in your home to ones that used no electricity at all you'd probably not notice a big difference in your power bill.

When comparing energy use it's important to consider all parts of a product's lifecycle. It takes a lot more energy to make a compact fluorescent lamp than an incandescent light bulb. Since almost all CF lamps are made in China the energy needed to make them was probably produced by the dirtiest coal fired power plants in the world. And then the lamp had to be transported around the world before if found its way into a socket at your home.

Surprisingly, a lot of incandescent light bulbs are still made in the USA, Canada or Mexico. The materials are usually locally sourced and the energy used to produce the bulb came from cleaner sources than a Chinese coal fired power plant. It took nowhere near as much energy to make the bulb and get it into the socket at your home.

In use, the CF lamp's lifespan is somewhat unpredictable. They have a statistically high random failure rate. Most will last a long for their rated lifespan but many will die an early death. And after they die there is the issue of disposal. Much has been said about the mercury inside the lamp but there are other hazardous chemicals such as the phosphor coating that produces the light. There are lots of heavy metals and other hazardous and/or non-recycleable materials in the electronic components that make up the ballast.

[Bayrat]

Bill,


In use, the CF lamp's lifespan is somewhat unpredictable. They have a statistically high random failure rate. Most will last a long for their rated lifespan but many will die an early death.

Not sure where you heard that. What I've read, and my own experiance has been just the oposite. And based on it, I'd say that quote would apply more to incandecents. I've had many of them burn out early, or plain not work to begin with.

I've had only one out of nineteen CF's quit early in the past four years. Even the older ones I used many years ago had a very high rate of survival.

And as far as the waste stream is concerned ...
In those same four years I would have had to replace almost every incandecent that I changed over to CF's, about twice a year. That works out to around 150 incandecents and their packaging, manufacturing, and being transported and tossed into the waste stream in four years, verses one CF.

And, ever noticed how much solder is on the end of each incandecent - is that all non-toxic ?

And, speaking of looking at overall polution.
We use alot of coal and oil fired electric power in this country. Both of which are not clean burning. How much more coal and oil do we have to burn to produce the same amount of light with incandecents ???

My village has a long term contract for hydro electric power from the St. Lawrance Seaway project. It's cheap .. up until to the point the village as a whole goes over it's allotment, then we have to pay at a much higher rate to suppliment that hydro with oil and coal fired power which is alot more poluting than Hydro. CF's help bring the Village's total down to help cut down on the amount of oil and coal burned, thus helping reduce polution in this country.

That's why my Village and other manicipalities are offering substantial rebates for CF's, and that's in addition to more energy efficent appliances. If the CF's didn't make a differance you can bet our Village Electric Department wouldn't be giving that money back.

Bayrat

[Bayrat]

More about the non CF side of the mercury polution debate.. and where it's also coming from.

Incandescent bulb use is not as polution free as we sometimes are lead (pun intended) to believe.

http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=cfls.pr_cfls_mercury

http://www.epa.gov/mercury/

There's more info out there other than from Government agencies too.

Bayrat

[Bushman]

Not so much on energy saving light bulbs, but saving money in general on your utility bills. Have any of you ever checked with your local utility company to see if they offer off peak time discounted energy rates? We got on a program a number of years ago where the rate goes from $.21422 a KWH for peak power usage down to $.06182 a KWH for off peak usage. Off peak for the winter is anything from noon to 4 PM and 9 PM until 8 AM plus all weekends and holidays. It is pretty easy just to start the dishwasher after 9 PM or do the laundry on the weekend. Easily saves me $10. a month and we don't use that much electricity to begin with.

[Fuzzball3]

"Compact fluorescents reduce energy consumption by up to 80 percent .. study concludes consumers were being misled..although the bulbs save energy that savings may come at the cost of long-term brightness."

And safety, and the environment. But, what does all that matter to a greenie lobbiest buying the votes of politicians who are determined to save the world, no matter the cost to us or environmental damage it causes?

Next big green money thing will be to dig up all the land fills, move the mercury contaminated trash to another place and bury it again.

[Bushman]

I got looking around the house for energy wasters that wouldn't cost anything to fix. The front storm door was not closing all the way hanging up on the latch. A couple of squirts of Tri-flow and it closes all the way now. While I was at it, the door closed really slowly because of those two pneumatic pistons. A couple of counterclockwise turns with a phillips head screw driver at the end of those pistons and it closes faster now. Then I got to thinking that the refrigerator has been running a lot lately. One look at the coils with a flashlight and I was after it with a long brush. Then a quick blast with the leaf blower and let me tell you, it had some build up that was keeping it from cooling properly. What are some other things that you guys do to button up the house to help save energy?

[Rock Chuck]

A 1/4" gap around a storm window or door can be as much surface area as a brick sized hole in the middle.

[Bayrat]

I put shrink-wrap plastic on the insides of windows that even have storm windows. Glass is a pretty good conductor of heat, plastic isn't.

As an experiment, I took my infared heat gun and measured the surface temperature of the inside of a wooden window sash frame and a piece of masking tape stuck on the glass. Then an hour after the plastic went on, measured the same spots again (the gun reads through clear glass and plastic). The frame and glass were about 20 degrees cooler, which means less heat from the room was getting to the frame.

I stuck a piece of masking tape on the plastic and after a few minutes it read warmer than the wood of the frame had been before the plastic went on. Means it's staying warmer yet.

Those cheap heat guns can show you 'cold' spots around your house by just pointing at a wall, ceiling, floor, door, electrical outlets, etc. They just can't read clear surfaces like glass, but a piece of tape on the glass makes it readable.

Bayrat

[Bushman]

A good tip on the tape for the IR heat gun. I got the cheap one and wish that I'd gotten the one with the emissivity dial. I went to that plastic shrink wrap on the windows years back, but I didn't like what the tape was doing to the varnish when I took it off in the spring. Then I got to looking at my casement windows and saw that there was a narrow gap in the slot behind the screen, but in front of the window. We have an outfit in town called Midwest Plastics so I went over there and bought some 4x8 sheets of 3/32" thick polycarbonate. They pre-cut them for me to the exact size of each screen. It makes a perfect 2" invisible additional air space between the screen and each window. A year or two later I got to thinking why do I even want the screen there in the winter? I then bought some much thicker 3/8" polycarbonate and that clear panel takes the place of my screens in the winter on some windows. Kind of pricey for a big sheet of it, but it will pay for itself over time. Another reason to put that extra air barrier on is to prevent condensation on the glass that will rot your wooden window sills.

Menard's sells some stuff called Rope Caulk that you just press in with your fingers that seals up all the gaps around the inside of your windows. Highly recommended even if you are not putting plastic on the windows.

I had to replace a couple of leaking thermopane windows and the low E glass was worth the extra few dollars.

Last year I got to looking at the basement windows and since nobody ever looks out of them anyway, I cut 1" thick pieces of Styrofoam for each of them. For about $7.00 at Menard's for a 4x8' sheet I insulated a lot of basement windows.

[Rock Chuck]

I used to be a roofer. One time we were putting a silver reflective coating on a black torch-down roof. It was about 105F, less comfortable than I normally like. I used one of those heat guns to check the roof temp. The newly coated silver roof was miserable to work on as the heat was reflected back in our faces, but the surface temp was only 80F.
The black roof wasn't too bad to work on but our feet were burning. It was like walking on hot coals. The surface temp on the black roof was a full 100 degrees hotter at 180F as the heat was being absorbed instead of being reflected.

Those heat guns can reveal a lot sometimes. They're also useful to check an overheated car radiator to see if it's safe to open the cap or to check the thermostat to see if it's opening properly (when it opens, you'll see a big jump in the hose temp just in front of it).

[Bayrat]

I bought it for testing/tuning the aircooled motors I work on.

Found it's also very handy to check brake shoe adjustments, and check driveline parts for lube needs, etc.

And the cats love to chase the red lazer dot around the kitchen floor ! :D

Bayrat

[Bushman]

I used mine for taking industrial machine temperatures. A couple hundred dollars for one of these IR guns could save tens of thousands for checking bearing temperatures before they froze and tore up a roll shaft. I had one account that was going through a nitrile rubber roll a day on a laminating converting line. One check with that IR gun showed that he was running at over the 250 degree F. melting point of nitrile. We switched him to EPDM and he got another 100 degrees F. of temperature resistance for the same covering price as the nitrile.

It also came in handy taking the kid's temperatures when they wouldn't hold still long enough. You can really see where you are losing heat around the house with that thing.

Last time that I was at Menard's, I picked up one of those tube like things for about $8.00 that you put in front of the bottom of the door. It is supposed to stop the drafts from coming in under the door. Drawing the blinds over the windows creates another air space to prevent drafts.