Banning Incandescent Light Bulbs?

[Bri]

That's quite a few "ifs".

Yup, a lot of "if's." Such is the nature of human nature. All we can do is our best estimate based on the evidence we have. In this case, the evidence seems to indicate that on average CFL's result in less mercury than incandescent bulbs in the United States.

-Bri

 

[Christian Klippel]

BTW, all that reminds of the "Energy Star", "TCO '95", "EPA" etc. stuff that was pushed on computers and computer periphery (especially CRT monitors) many years ago.

At least here in Germany they conducted some studies (at least the ones i knew about back then were German studies) about that and the final conclusion was that, yes, the owner of such equipment would save some bucks on electricity (and thus pollution). But in the overall accounting for manufacturing the computer, CRT, etc. they all found that it was around one percent or so. I think it was even less, but i'm not 100% sure.

And no, i can't find them anymore. It was over 15 or so years ago...

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Christian Klippel]

Incidentally, you do know you can get a 25000 hour rated incandescent bulb for $1.50 right? I doubt if it gets 25000 hours under normal use, but neither do CFL's.

Simple trick, if you feel like it: Put a suitable diode in series of the bulb. that way it gets only one half-wave of the AC. The reduction in light output is acceptable, but the bulb will last multiple times over. You can get suitable diodes for a few bucks per 100 or more.

And if you really feel like it, also add a suitable NTC in series. That is a resistor that decreases resistance the hotter it gets. Due to it being in series it will heat itself. That implements a soft-start for the bulb then (most of the time incadescents "blow out" when switching them on, due to the high current inrush to the filament).

Implementing both can give you bulbs that last virtually for your lifetime in your home, at a price of a few cents per pop. Assuming you are willing and comfortable to use a soldering iron...

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Bri]

No it depends on the cost. You have to look at the cost per hour (or year) of light.

The cost per hour (or year or minute or second) is less for CFL bulbs than for incandescent bulbs because they last significantly longer. Therefore, you don't have to buy as many of them.

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

No it depends on the cost. You have to look at the cost per hour (or year) of light.

Incidentally, you do know you can get a 25000 hour rated incandescent bulb for $1.50 right? I doubt if it gets 25000 hours under normal use, but neither do CFL's.

I've got a group of incandescent that I'm leaving in service and they are well on their way to something like the 25k hour figure. Reason is they are on a couple of dimmers and are left on low most of the time. Lifetime goes up exponentially with incandescent at fractional power settings.

 

[Furcifer]

The cost per hour (or year or minute or second) is less for CFL bulbs than for incandescent bulbs because they last significantly longer. Therefore, you don't have to buy as many of them.

-Bri

Not really.

Let's compare bulbs, you said there were bulbs with 1.5mg of mercury. Could you please like to them, because it's my understanding they're much more money than the $2 ones I see everyone buying.

If the bulbs cost 10 times as much, but only last 8 times as long you do have to buy more of them (or more accurately pay more per hour of use)

 

[Furcifer]

I've got a group of incandescent that I'm leaving in service and they are well on their way to something like the 25k hour figure. Reason is they are on a couple of dimmers and are left on low most of the time. Lifetime goes up exponentially with incandescent at fractional power settings.

CFL's suffer from the same duty cycle life depreciation. Not only that but they dim as well. Not a problem if they're on a dimmer, but it still affects efficiency.

 

[Christian Klippel]

CFL's suffer from the same duty cycle life depreciation. Not only that but they dim as well. Not a problem if they're on a dimmer, but it still affects efficiency.

Careful here! Regular CFL's can not be dimmed. You need special CFL's (which in turn have a far more sophisticated and complex electronic) to be able to dim them. Plus, they usually cost a lot more than regular ones.

In fact, on most CFL packagings you can read that they are explicitly not usable in conjunction with dimmers. At least over here that is the case.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Bri]

Not really.

Let's compare bulbs, you said there were bulbs with 1.5mg of mercury. Could you please like to them, because it's my understanding they're much more money than the $2 ones I see everyone buying.

If the bulbs cost 10 times as much, but only last 8 times as long you do have to buy more of them (or more accurately pay more per hour of use)

Where did 1.5 mg of mercury come from? And why are you only including the cost of the bulb and not the cost of the electricity saved over the life of the bulb?

-Bri

 

[Furcifer]

Careful here! Regular CFL's can not be dimmed. You need special CFL's (which in turn have a far more sophisticated and complex electronic) to be able to dim them. Plus, they usually cost a lot more than regular ones.

In fact, on most CFL packagings you can read that they are explicitly not usable in conjunction with dimmers. At least over here that is the case.

Greetings,

Chris

True, I forgot about that.

 

[Furcifer]

Where did 1.5 mg of mercury come from? And why are you only including the cost of the bulb and not the cost of the electricity saved over the life of the bulb?

-Bri

Trying to compare apples to apples. Some of the CFL's are a buck or two, but I don't know what the average is. I thought you mentioned bulbs with 1.5 mg of mercury, but I can't find a price on these bulbs.

This isn't as complicated as you seem to be making it. The last package of incandescent bulbs I bought was $1 for 4. If they average 1000 hours that's 4000 hours of lighting for $1. If I buy a CFL rated for 4000 hours for $3 it's 3 times as much.
That extra $2 is pollution. I have to work to make that $2 and generally that means an expenditure of energy. I have drive that much further or make more cars or build more bridges to get the $2 to pay for the bulbs.

So how are you accounting for that?

 

[Bri]

Trying to compare apples to apples. Some of the CFL's are a buck or two, but I don't know what the average is. I thought you mentioned bulbs with 1.5 mg of mercury, but I can't find a price on these bulbs.

I said there are some with 0.8 mg of mercury, but why would you use the CFL bulb with the lowest amount of mercury in your expense calculation (which is likely one of the more expensive ones) rather than the CFL bulb that costs the least? It's difficult to find the mercury content of individual bulbs listed on the Internet, but I believe that Walmart no longer sells bulbs that are above 5 mg, which is the amount assumed in the study you cited. So even CFL's that are a buck or two are probably going to be under 5 mg of mercury.

This isn't as complicated as you seem to be making it. The last package of incandescent bulbs I bought was $1 for 4. If they average 1000 hours that's 4000 hours of lighting for $1. If I buy a CFL rated for 4000 hours for $3 it's 3 times as much.
That extra $2 is pollution. I have to work to make that $2 and generally that means an expenditure of energy. I have drive that much further or make more cars or build more bridges to get the $2 to pay for the bulbs.

So how are you accounting for that?

Simple, you're not counting the cost of the electricity saved over the life of the bulb, which is almost certainly going to be more than $2.

ETA: I don't really buy the "that extra $2 is pollution" argument, but I'll go with it for the sake of discussion. If a difference in cost is really pollution, then CFL use results in even less pollution than an incandescent because it costs less to operate. You have to make more cars or build more bridges to pay for the difference in your energy bill.

-Bri

 

[Christian Klippel]

If a difference in cost is really pollution, then CFL use results in even less pollution than an incandescent because it costs less to operate.

And again you talk about less pollution and make it look general, while (as we just found out a while ago) you are not aware of any study/report that really does say so. All you are aware of (and all that seems to exist) are studies that only consider mercury. Which is simply misleading.

A few posts ago you managed to state it so that it was clear that this "less pollution" is only for mercury. It would be nice if it could stay that way. Unless, that is, you actually can find studies that do indeed point toward CFL's causing less pollution in general, _including_ production, operation and disposal.

I know that it can be hard to get rid of old habits. But it's pretty clear that you can't say that it causes less pollution just because it uses less energy, since that is only a very small part of the complete picture.

BTW, have you managed to read into the stuff around pollution, resource requirements, etc. of producing electronics and electronic components?

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Bri]

And again you talk about less pollution and make it look general, while (as we just found out a while ago) you are not aware of any study/report that really does say so.

We were talking only about cost, and about Furcifer's theory that cost in and of itself causes extra pollution. Furcifer's logic is that you would have to work harder to get more money to pay for the extra cost, and that the extra work would produce pollution. I don't really buy the argument, but I thought I'd go with it for the sake of the discussion. But using Furcifer's logic, an incandescent bulb costs more to operate than an equivalent CFL, and therefore would produce less pollution, not more.

-Bri

 

[Furcifer]

I said there are some with 0.8 mg of mercury, but why would you use the CFL bulb with the lowest amount of mercury in your expense calculation (which is likely one of the more expensive ones) rather than the CFL bulb that costs the least? It's difficult to find the mercury content of individual bulbs listed on the Internet, but I believe that Walmart no longer sells bulbs that are above 5 mg, which is the amount assumed in the study you cited. So even CFL's that are a buck or two are probably going to be under 5 mg of mercury.

Are they? I'm just trying to figure out what the average price of the bulbs used in the EPA study cost. I know I get 60W 4 for $1 on sale and 2 for a $1 regular price.

Simple, you're not counting the cost of the electricity saved over the life of the bulb.

That's a different calculation.

ETA: I don't really buy the "that extra $2 is pollution" argument, but I'll go with it for the sake of discussion. If the extra cost is really pollution, then CFL use results in even less pollution than an incandescent because it costs less to operate.

-Bri

Again it depends on the application. I have a light in my attic that gets used so infrequently that it will take 150 years to burn out according to the averages. Th CFL will never pay for itself, even if it's a $2 bulb. Not only that but it will never offset the mercury.

I should point out it's a bit disingenuous to talk about the legislation and use current prices for CLF's. The price drop over the last few years has made them significantly more feasible.

 

[Bri]

Are they? I'm just trying to figure out what the average price of the bulbs used in the EPA study cost. I know I get 60W 4 for $1 on sale and 2 for a $1 regular price.

Well, here are some 60 watt eqivalent CFL bulbs for around $1.66 each:

http://www.walmart.com/ip/GE-13W-CFL-Soft-White-Light-Bulb-3-Pack/15040860?findingMethod=rr

I usually get them cheaper myself (around $1.50 each). Let's say that they have 5 mg of mercury (although it shouldn't matter as far as your argument goes).

We could compare 25-cent incandescent bulbs that last 1,000 hours to a $1.50 bulb that lasts 10,000 hours and say that the CFL costs less ($1.50 for 10,000 hours compared to 10 incandescents at 25 cents each, or $2.50).

But let's be extremely generous to the incandescents and compare your 25-cent incandescents to a $2.00 equivalent CFL. Want to make it $3.00? How about $4.00? Really, it doesn't matter much.

Let's say your incandescent bulb lasts 2,000 hours (which is very generous), so the CFL lasts 5 times as long. So you have to buy 5 incandescents to last as long as the single CFL. At 25 cents a piece, that's $1.25, which is $2.75 cheaper than a $4.00 CFL for the same 10,000 hours of light.

Now, let's look at energy savings...

That's a different calculation.

A different calculation? Why wouldn't you considering the monetary savings on your energy bill over the life of the CFL compared to the cost of the energy used by the 5 incandescent bulbs over the same period of time? You're easily going to save more than $2.75 in energy costs over the 10,000 hours using a CFL compared to an incandescent.

If you're considering how much more you're going to have to work to make up the difference in costs between the two, you would certainly include how much more you'd have to work to pay your energy bills if you're using incandescents.

Again it depends on the application.

Of course it depends on the application. That's why it goes without saying that we'd be talking about average usage.

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

CFL's suffer from the same duty cycle life depreciation. Not only that but they dim as well. Not a problem if they're on a dimmer, but it still affects efficiency.

Not for the same reasons, and not the same curve over time. Any flourscent dims linearly over time to the point where it gets tossed a couple years after purchase (likely based on certain number of hours of use, not years of lifetime).

 

[Brian-M]

Here in Australia, incandescent bulbs aren't actually banned. There's only a minimum efficiency requirement, so the more efficient incandescent (ie, halogen) bulbs are still allowed.

• They can not be used with conventional dimming circuits.
• They take about 3 minutes to achieve maximum brightness (so they are unsuitable in bathrooms/toilets etc).
• They contain mercury and phosphorous which means that large scale disposal of old globes will be an environmental problem in the future.
• If a CFC globe is broken then the room needs to be evacuated and aired out (ie they are dangerous).

• You can buy dimmable CFLs.
• I use a CFL in my bathroom. It might not reach maximum brightness straight away, but most good CFLs reach a high enough percentage of their maximum brightness straight away that it doesn't matter.
• This is also something that I've wondered about too.
• You don't need to evacuate a room if a CFL is broken. That would be an absurd overreaction.

And its CFL, not CFC. We're talking about Compact Fluorescent Lights, not chlorofluorocarbons.

I can just see all of these householders trekking to the recycling centre with burned out CFCs in hand and resisting the temptation to just drop it in the rubbish bin.

We do have household recycling bins as well as garbage bins. Maybe they could start an advertising campaign informing the public they should put burned-out CFLs in the recycling bin instead of the garbage bin?

ETA: Just realized I'm mistakenly replying to posts from page 1 from 2011 as if they were new posts. I've confused this thread with the more recent one: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8588780#post8588780

(And how the hell did this old thread get back onto the main page for me to click on it?)

 

[mhaze]

Here in Australia, incandescent bulbs aren't actually banned. There's only a minimum efficiency requirement, so the more efficient incandescent (ie, halogen) bulbs are still allowed.

....

So let me repeat again: The ban is a ban is a ban.

 

[tcseacliff]

Would you make it illegal to do so?

It doesn't matter exactly why some people prefer incandescent bulbs, the fact is that they do. There is no need to ban such bulbs. It's stupid nanny-statism, for very small gains.

exactly! my neighbor has them, so he is greener than me! well, so what! I pay for the use of my incandescent. so, they are saying we are all paying for incandescent,extra power to run , blah, blah. why does my use of bulbs cause problems for everybody, but my neighbors use of them does not benefit me inversely?

I would like to see the market dictate the use, not the government forcing a market on every one. look at the electric cars, if I am not mistaken, the public has spoken. why can't both bulbs be put on the shelf and see what happens? not fair to ban one and tell everybody the banned ones are not selling well? crap!