Incandescent Bulbs Going Away

[Jim Boyd]

From the EPA

Because CFLs contain a small amount of mercury , EPA recommends the following clean-up and disposal guidelines:

1. Open a window and leave the room for 15 minutes or more.

2. Carefully scoop up the fragments and powder with stiff paper or cardboard and place them in a sealed plastic bag.

* Use disposable rubber gloves, if available (i.e., do not use bare hands). Wipe the area clean with damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes and place them in the plastic bag.
* Do not use a vacuum or broom to clean up the broken bulb on hard surfaces.

3. Place all cleanup materials in a second sealed plastic bag.

* Place the first bag in a second sealed plastic bag and put it in the outdoor trash container or in another outdoor protected area for the next normal trash disposal.
* Note: some states prohibit such trash disposal and require that broken and unbroken lamps be taken to a local recycling center.
* Wash your hands after disposing of the bag.

4. If a fluorescent bulb breaks on a rug or carpet:

* First, remove all materials you can without using a vacuum cleaner, following the steps above. Sticky tape (such as duct tape) can be used to pick up small pieces and powder.
* If vacuuming is needed after all visible materials are removed, vacuum the area where the bulb was broken, remove the vacuum bag (or empty and wipe the canister) and put the bag or vacuum debris in two sealed plastic bags in the outdoor trash or protected outdoor location for normal disposal.

[ejs1097]

I've been replacing my lights with CFLs as I go. So Far I like them but there is a difference in brands, etc. But I can never remember where they come from. That said, I sem to recall liking the Walmart Great value over GEs. I have one in my outdoor light in Pittsburgh and it hasn't failed to operate in the cold yet. Incadensants usually burn out every 2 months or less in that light and the CFL has been going strong for over 5.

I have some that come to full power right away and others do not. I tried a recessed light in the kitchen but it takes a while to come to full power so I won't be replacing the rest.

The speciality lights are hard to find which makes them impractical for most used fixtures in the house. 3-way lights and dimmers (previously mentioned) are available but very difficult to find.

What I like is using them in the shop. I have a small shop in the basement that was a home office. 14x10 lighted by a seiling fixture int he middle with 3 sockets 75W max. Pretty dim in there for woodworking. I replaced them with 100W equiv. They use less electric and teh shop is much brighter. They seem to cast more light with task lights in the shop as well such as the bandsaw and drill press lights.

I think as a whole they will and do save electricity, cash and resources but spread out over time. Can anyone claim to save $xx.00 on their monthly bill? I doubt it.

[pierhogunn]

one positive thing that I can think of for CFL's is that some do come in at a true 5000*K which is great for photography, painting, and in general just liking light that comes out of the sun at noon...

[Black wallnut]

Here is what I see. Absent this new legislation many have tried CFL's. The market is already working with makers trying to satisfy consumers needs. Since there is likely benefit of this newer technology it would have naturally taken over in time anyway. So what exactly is the need for governmental interference?

A simplistic analogy: heavy truck emission requirements were implemented prior to the technology was perfected. This resulted in three things; 1. too many trucks were purchased with the older engines in the final year of their availability which 2. glutted the market with over capacity, and 3. the new cleaner engines are suffering numerous breakdowns with not enough parts and service support causing delays that cost shipper's receiver's and carriers resources, i.e. time is money. Not saying that the new cleaner engine is a bad idea but when deadlines are set by political winds there is no guarentee of a smooth transition between technologies.

[maxparot]

I started my conversion to Florescent and CFL lighting over 7 years ago. As many have discovered at that time there were as many drawbacks as advantages. Slow warm up to full power, bulbs not reaching the rated life expectancy poor low temperature performance harsh lighting color.
Improvements have been made over ther years but some poor performers still exist on the market. If you do some research before purchasing you can get some quality lighting at reasonable prices that cost much less to operate.
I still use about 25% incandescent lighting in my home and don't see present CFL technology filling the gap. I have however switch over all my outdoor lighting to CFL fixture with good results. Since I live outside of Phoenix low temperature peformance is not a problem and the lumens per watt are great.
LED bulbs for retrofit are still way to pricey for consideration but I have switched over to their use for flashlites around the home shop and on the job. The battery savings pays for the new lights in a short time. The newest generation of LED emmitters are very bright and seem to be cost effective. I have a 9 watt LED dive light that is simply blinding. I don't know why cost effective retrofit bulbs for home use have not made it to market except the light may be too harsh or to difficult to focus properly for replacement bulbs.

[Garasaki]

We've been replacing our lights with CFL's where possible (unfortunately a lot of fixtures do not allow CFL's to fit which is rather annoying).

We have 5 can lights in our kitchen, in a vaulted ceiling. When they started going out, I insisted on replacing them with CFLs cause they are such a pain to replace. At that time, I did a quick analysis of the payback period - actually comparing them to a 0 dollar baseline.

Using actual electric costs in our area and conservative estimates of usage time, the CFL's payback period came in at less then 3 years. I found that quite interesting.

in my area of the world electric is produced by both wind and hydro. The major dams on the Columbia river never operate at 100% capacity mostly due to not enough demand to do so. Hence there is no shortage of electric power. We have such a surplus that we sell power to our southern brothers in California. This for me and my close neighbors makes the "green" arguement pointless. Unless it can be proven that by cutting back on power consumption used on lighting will enable us to remove dams and restore anadromous fisheries to before dam levels, and this is a big strech.

B dub, I quite respect you and your opinions, always have, always will - I found this statement a bit selfish though.

We are all in this together - every new coal burning power plant that is built pollutes the enviroment that we (yourself included) live in. Your air is my air. My air is your air. People in California's air is your air.

When your excess power is sold to california, that is a big plus for everyone. If your power plants could continuously sell power to them, that would help them to keep from building additional power plants.

So IMO you can't discount electric demand reduction just because your power plants aren't tapped out. It's helping someone somewhere somehow.

Having said that, I don't think CFL's will save the world - but I do firmly believe that every bit helps.

[crokett]

Jeffrey,

Surprised you would say that about the CFL. I have 2 floor lamps 1 with incandescent and one with CFL, both rated for equivalent of 60W and the CFL one is brighter. The only problem I've had is the light in the shed is CFL and the light at the front door is CFL. In the cold they are dimmer than an incandescent but I am not often in the shed in the dark and the one at the door is bright enough.

[Black wallnut]

Not meaning to hijack this topic but hydro produced excess energy is sold to California at I think 100% capacity of current transmission capabilities during peak demand. As with the world's food supply the problem is not that there is not enough it is that it does not get distributed to satisfy the need. Eletric power is IIRC generated in AC voltage, converted to DC for transmission over vast distances (this part I am absolutely positive about) then converted back to AC. Demand cycles but generation is almost constant assuming there is water flowing in the rivers and transmission is matched to the demand cycle. When there is peak demand in California we either can not produce enough or we can not transmit enough to fill the need. Areas of California at certian times have rolling brownouts and yet not a single major PNW dam is operating at 100% capacity. So granted my opinion seems on the surface to be selfish my energy use does not really impact the available supply available for long distance transmission. This is where the economics come into play. From Grand Coulee to LA it is about 1200 miles. The economic costs of building a transmission line between these two points is likely much higher than building a different source closer to LA. If it is not that it could be that the cost of power over a new line, including the costs involved in the matenience of such new line may be more than consumers are willing to pay. We are all in this together and we should be looking for ways to produce energy in clean ways. I just do not believe that cutting down on consumption is truely the answer, at least when renewable energy sources are the focal point.

B dub, I quite respect you and your opinions, always have, always will - I found this statement a bit selfish though.

We are all in this together - every new coal burning power plant that is built pollutes the enviroment that we (yourself included) live in. Your air is my air. My air is your air. People in California's air is your air.

When your excess power is sold to california, that is a big plus for everyone. If your power plants could continuously sell power to them, that would help them to keep from building additional power plants.

So IMO you can't discount electric demand reduction just because your power plants aren't tapped out. It's helping someone somewhere somehow.

Having said that, I don't think CFL's will save the world - but I do firmly believe that every bit helps.

[LCHIEN]

... Eletric power is IIRC generated in AC voltage, converted to DC for transmission over vast distances (this part I am absolutely positive about) then converted back to AC. ...

The vast bulk of electrical power transmission is AC. DC is sometimes used but only for VERY long haul distances, which is relatively rare. Mostly between grids (in the US there are only three major grids) where the AC is un-phase synchronized between grids.

Wiki:
HVDC or high-voltage, direct current electric power transmission systems contrast with the more common alternating current systems as a means for the bulk transmission of electrical power. The modern form of HVDC transmission uses technology developed extensively in the 1930s in Sweden at ASEA. Early commercial installations included one in the Soviet Union in 1951 between Moscow and Kashira, and a 10-20 MW system in Gotland, Sweden in 1954.[1]

[leehljp]

I think as a whole they will and do save electricity, cash and resources but spread out over time. Can anyone claim to save $xx.00 on their monthly bill? I doubt it.

Eric,

I will disagree 180 degrees on that statement. On replacing as you go or occasionally, as you are, you may not or will not notice a difference. I replaced 24 / 25 in my USA home all at once when I was there last May. We noticed an IMMEDIATE difference in AC usage because the rooms were not as hot as the day before. That also meant that for "lighting" purposes in 5 rooms (that stay on the whole time ) the electricity usage for the CFL bulbs was 1/4 th of Incandescents, but more importantly the heat generated was cut by 80/90% in my estimate, which cut down on AC usage. That is the USA side.

Here in Japan where electricity costs about double the USA side, I went all CFLs 2 1/2 years ago. The electrical savings was the equivalent of $100 a month due to the bulb changes alone in the summer months. Bear in mind, the amount of heat that we did not have to cool from 22 incandescent bulbs. We did not change anything else or cut back on AC usage. Electrical costs certainly did not go down.

IMO, The greatest savings is NOT from the bulb change but less AC cooling needed because of less heat generated. It would probably be close but I believe the heat reduction is its greatest feature in energy savings for someone that hates heat over 80°. This means that in our house, LOML starts the AC in April and turns it off in mid October, both in the US of A and in Japan.

[jackellis]

Y'all are on my turf (energy) and I'm musclin' in here

One thing we've learned about CFLs is that they're as susceptible to burning out as incandescents. If you install them in a recessed can, behind a glass diffuser, or with a shade that does not provide adequate air space around the base of the bulb, they eventually heat up while operating and this shortens their life. We have one chandelier in our kitchen that I'd like to replace for that reason but the wife says no. LEDs are equally problematic. The reason they're so expensive is because they use rare materials and are made like semiconductors using a costly manufacturing process.

I can also tell you that as expensive as electricity seems here in the US, it's still too cheap, even in California. I've just written a paper on this (available on request but be prepared for a snoozer) in which I argue that it would take power prices of at least $4/kWH (and likely a lot more) to compensate an oil refinery for lost gasoline production if it voluntarily shuts down so the rest of us can leave our air conditioners running. Average retail prices are about ten cents. We don't have ar conditioning and our bills run about $120/month. I leave 4 computers running around the clock (they do medical research while we sleep, www.worldcommunitygrid.org). when new, more efficient power supplies for computers come on the market, I'll replace all of ours.

Many of the alternatives (wind, wave, tidal) are nice ideas and they do displace fossil fuel, but they're also intermittent so they create all kinds of havoc for the poor guys who have to balance the grid. I think solar of all kinds has some inherent advantages, especially in desert climes, but it is still really expensive. If I can ever get to the point where I don't have to care about economics, I'll put panels on my roof.

As for government mandates, well I hate 'em too. In most cases, they're the result of compromises and clever lobbying that scratches the backs of the most powerful (read those that can pony up the biggest campaign contributions) groups rather than good public policy. However, as we've seen with autos, some industries need a bit of a push to encourage them to do the right thing. I wish the auto companies would stop moaning about how hard it is to build efficient vehicles and just do it. They either have the technology or could develop it for a lot less than they waste on other endeavors. But maybe that's because cars are not a purely emotional purchase for me. I used to own a Nissan Sentra (1983) that got 37 MPG and still rue the day we sold it after it had been hit twice. If someone built a hybrid pickup that got the same 28 MPG fuel economy as my 16 year old Ford Probe, I'd seriously consider it.

Rant off

[LCHIEN]

Eric,

...
IMO, The greatest savings is NOT from the bulb change but less AC cooling needed because of less heat generated. It would probably be close but I believe the heat reduction is its greatest feature in energy savings for someone that hates heat over 80°. This means that in our house, LOML starts the AC in April and turns it off in mid October, both in the US of A and in Japan.

Hank,
the question of how much power it takes an air conditioner to remove X watts of heat is a good one.

For example a 100 W incandescant puts out nearly 100W of heat.
A CFL 100W equivalent puts out the same amount of light for about, lets say, 30W.

IN addition you have relived your house of 70 watts of heat in the summer. That relieves a certain amount of Air conditioning. Air Conditioning works my transferring heat, not actually directly heating air or removing heat by turning it into energy (That would be great if we could do that). So it takes somewhat less than 70 watts to remove the heat from a 70W heat load.

Seo your net summertime savings will be somewhere between 70W and 140W.

[BrianStark]

Bulbs will be phased out starting 2012

I've already started replacing the incandescents in my house with CFLs.

Sigh... What does a CFL bulb for a chandelier look like? I don't think I have seen one. I like the small 25 watt bulbs that I have in mine.

I can't stand the warm-up time, or whatever you want to call it before the bulb is at full light. Often I need to go into a closet for a few seconds and I like having the bright light right away.

I do have CFLs installed in some places -- particularly in the outdoor lighting around my property. Figured it made no sense to have ten 40 watt bulbs outside when a lower wattage CFL would do.

I wonder how a CFL bulb in an exterior fixture will do in Minnesota during the winter when the wind chill gets downright chilly.

Brian

[Rslaugh]

Sigh... What does a CFL bulb for a chandelier look like? I don't think I have seen one. I like the small 25 watt bulbs that I have in mine.

I can't stand the warm-up time, or whatever you want to call it before the bulb is at full light. Often I need to go into a closet for a few seconds and I like having the bright light right away.

I do have CFLs installed in some places -- particularly in the outdoor lighting around my property. Figured it made no sense to have ten 40 watt bulbs outside when a lower wattage CFL would do.

I wonder how a CFL bulb in an exterior fixture will do in Minnesota during the winter when the wind chill gets downright chilly.

Brian

Brian - you can find some chandolier type cfl's here:
http://www.nam.lighting.philips.com/...533f9e495e7f19

Newer CFL's from a reputable mfg like Philips, sylvania or ge give you almost full light right away. CFL's outside in Minnesnowtah won't do well at all in the winter. They just are not designed for cold weather use. (the exception might be in an enclosed fixture that is on a long time so it can build up some heat inside the fixture - thought that might be problematic in the summer) (Jeez - After living there 20 years I really don't miss Minnesnowtah)

CFL's will also not do well in recessed lighting applications because of the heat build up. With that being said I've had one in my mudroom on constantly for 3 months now so it's at about 1/4 it's rated life so far.

[Jeffrey Schronce]

Newer CFL's from a reputable mfg like Philips, sylvania or ge give you almost full light right away.

CFL's will also not do well in recessed lighting applications because of the heat build up. With that being said I've had one in my mudroom on constantly for 3 months now so it's at about 1/4 it's rated life so far.

I have both Phillips and Sylvania that I got at the Lowes on Market Street and they both take quite a while to warm up. When I first flip them on they are pitiful.

All of mine are in recessed lighting application which, based upon what you are saying, would make them warm up quicker.

I don't know. I have them and use them but I hope they are a lot better when I have to replace them.