Compact Fluorescent Bulbs -- some are unreliable

[kazbates]

I haven't given my 2 cents about compact fluorescents in this thread because, well, they're really only my 2 cents and as I haven't a deep knowledge of the intricacies of the bulb, I didn't feel I could contribute that much to the discussion.

Having said that, though, coming from the main consumer in my household and the typical type of consumer at that, my biggest problem with the CFL's is the mercury inside them. As anyone with children and pets knows, they tend to be hard on a house and furniture. I can't tell you how many times a lamp in my family room has been knocked down by one of the kids when they are playing and usually a bulb gets broken in the process. There are plenty of places I could use CFL's where this would not happen, but not the room where my family spends the most time. If the only thing I have available is CFL's, that is going to cause me problems, since the clean up process is difficult and dangerous. Until a safer alternative to the CFL is developed, I think our government should stay out of the consumer's pocket (and conscience).

I do my part to sustain the earth for my children, etc. I own a hybrid and drive more fuel efficient vehicles, I turn off lights, recycle what I can, etc. I honestly don't think using CFL's is really going to make that big of a difference. As for cost effectiveness, I've lived in my home for 6 years. There are regular old light bulbs that we installed when we moved in that are still working today. That seems pretty cost effective to me. And that's my 2 cents.

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by kazbates

I haven't given my 2 cents about compact fluorescents in this thread because, well, they're really only my 2 cents and as I haven't a deep knowledge of the intricacies of the bulb, I didn't feel I could contribute that much to the discussion.

Having said that, though, coming from the main consumer in my household and the typical type of consumer at that, my biggest problem with the CFL's is the mercury inside them. As anyone with children and pets knows, they tend to be hard on a house and furniture. I can't tell you how many times a lamp in my family room has been knocked down by one of the kids when they are playing and usually a bulb gets broken in the process. There are plenty of places I could use CFL's where this would not happen, but not the room where my family spends the most time. If the only thing I have available is CFL's, that is going to cause me problems, since the clean up process is difficult and dangerous. Until a safer alternative to the CFL is developed, I think our government should stay out of the consumer's pocket (and conscience).

I do my part to sustain the earth for my children, etc. I own a hybrid and drive more fuel efficient vehicles, I turn off lights, recycle what I can, etc. I honestly don't think using CFL's is really going to make that big of a difference. As for cost effectiveness, I've lived in my home for 6 years. There are regular old light bulbs that we installed when we moved in that are still working today. That seems pretty cost effective to me. And that's my 2 cents.

BLASPHEMY!! BURN THE WITCH!!!

Thank you . Thats exactly what I've been saying for a year now.

I hear the "Well, there isn't enough mercury in a bulb to cause any problems and its people like you who are sending this world to hell in a handbasket" from other (s) on this board.

How does deliberately bringing into your home a bulb with such a poisonous material help the environment?

You say it lasts longer? And where, pray tell, is it made? Oh, in China? THE most polluting country with the fewest safeguards on earth?

Someone made a deal somewhere.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Halogens are much hotter than I-bulbs... they waste a LOT of heat compared to the light they put out.

Halogens do run the filament at a higher temperature. And they do get hot, because they are so much smaller than normal incandescents. But for the amount of light they produce, they give off less heat than a normal incandescent. (Otherwise they wouldn't be more efficient, which they are, at the lamp.)

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Halogens do run the filament at a higher temperature. And they do get hot, because they are so much smaller than normal incandescents. But for the amount of light they produce, they give off less heat than a normal incandescent. (Otherwise they wouldn't be more efficient, which they are, at the lamp.)

According to the Consumer Energy Center:

Unfortunately, these cheap and convenient halogen tubes waste energy by creating four times more heat than the average incandescent bulb. A 500-watt halogen reaches temperatures of over 1,200 degrees - creating a serious fire hazard. Curtains and other combustible materials can easily ignite if they get too close to the lamp.

Halogens are considered more efficient because they produce more light than an I-bulb for the same amount of power put into them. They will also last longer at the same light level as an I-bulb, and use less energy besides. (I almost specified "visible light," but of course, heat is the infra-red spectrum of light, and halogens put out more IR light for the same amount of power, too.) The amount of visible-vs-IR light emitted isn't really factored into their overall efficiency compared to other light sources, as far as I've been able to determine.

Halogens also have a significantly shorter lifespan at higher light levels, mainly thanks to that heat factor, so if you crank them up, you'll use the same amount of energy as an I-bulb and get more light, but you'll also be replacing them a lot more often.

Edit: Here's a good source of further info on the "facts and myths" concerning halogens.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

I hear the "Well, there isn't enough mercury in a bulb to cause any problems and its people like you who are sending this world to hell in a handbasket" from other (s) on this board.

How does deliberately bringing into your home a bulb with such a poisonous material help the environment?

Do you have a mercury thermometer in your house? That contains over 100x as much mercury as a CFL lightbulb. A lightbulb contains approximately 5mg of mercury - roughly the same amount as the ink in a "full stop" (period). The amount is negligible and no hazard to anybody.

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Do you have a mercury thermometer in your house? That contains over 100x as much mercury as a CFL lightbulb. A lightbulb contains approximately 5mg of mercury - roughly the same amount as the ink in a "full stop" (period). The amount is negligible and no hazard to anybody.

actually, no. We use the "stick it in your ear" kind.

Love those things. Indispensable for little ones.

One lightbulb contains that much. How much does a household contain?

The point here is not really about 'how much', but why even bring it into your house to begin with??

I am aware this is a very unpopular opinion.

[HarryT]

Why bring it in to your house? Because you are benefiting both yourself and the environment by doing so. What proportion of you lightbulbs do you typically break, as a matter of interest? 1 in 10? 1 in 100?

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Why bring it in to your house? Because you are benefiting both yourself and the environment by doing so. What proportion of you lightbulbs do you typically break, as a matter of interest? 1 in 10? 1 in 100?

How am I benefiting the environment by using something that, multiplied by the millions and millions being used, will really have an impact on the environment? Imagine dumps with this crap in it. Over time, the mercury build up could cause a real toxic dump.

In my neighborhood, lets say 12 homes, there are 5 that put their recycle can out weekly. Now....do the math.

So, until they make a real "environmentally friendly" bulb, I'll continue using what I have.

Oh, and I'm very good at breaking bulbs.

If you follow the directions on disposing of broken CFL bulbs, even breaking one would be a nightmare to clean up.

Harry. I know I'm beating a dead horse here. The idea is good. The end product isn't.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Fluorescent lights can't be used in dimmers. Every one that I've ever bought has clearly stated that on the box.

Actually, there are some now that can be used with a dimmer. Check your big box stores to see if you can find them.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

actually, no. We use the "stick it in your ear" kind.

Love those things. Indispensable for little ones.

One lightbulb contains that much. How much does a household contain?

The point here is not really about 'how much', but why even bring it into your house to begin with??

I am aware this is a very unpopular opinion.

The in-your-ear thermometers generate a lot of trash as every time you use it you have to put in a fresh ear thingy. I much prefer the digital thermometers.

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The in-your-ear thermometers generate a lot of trash as every time you use it you have to put in a fresh ear thingy. I much prefer the digital thermometers.

'sigh.

[kazbates]

Mercury thermometers went out of popular use by parents with the ease and safety of the tympanic thermometer. Most any one that has ever raised children knows that what can go wrong will. We install latches for cabinets, refrigerators and ovens, we lock away medicines, we put bumpers on table corners, and much more to provide a safe environment for our young children. Quite frankly, any type of glass light bulb is dangerous to a certain extent. Having said that, I would much rather minimize that danger by using a standard light bulb rather than maximizing it by now including the threat of a harmful substance. It may be an overprotective way of looking at it, but with the many dangers already prevalent in our homes, it seems to me to be the most prudent.

I must also admit that I am not convinced that changing the light bulbs in my home (or in all the homes for that matter) will actually make a significant change in our planet's environment. Conserving energy and looking for alternative sources of energy are, indeed, things that need to be accomplished. Government mandating a change to an alternative form of light bulb could be a good thing, if done for the right reasons, such as improved efficiency and safety. Not because the politicians want to show their constituents that they have jumped on the "Save the Planet" bandwagon.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Obviously, a lot of politicians are just jumping on the bandwagon. However, switching to more efficient bulbs can save a lot of energy. It's always hard to see the effect when looking at a single bulb, but like so many other things we can do to save energy, even small effects from single lightbulbs are cumulative, and measurable.

Now, if you want to talk about significant... no, changing every bulb in the world won't be enough to save the planet from runaway warming. However, the more bulbs you change, the less you have to do the other things that add up to that cumulative difference that would be enough. In comparison to some of the things we're regularly asked to do (driving less, switching to sustainable energy sources, better insulating our homes, replacing old windows, etc, etc), changing light bulbs is dead easy. Even if you can't manage the other things, you can at least do that, and put a dent in your energy use with minimal effort.

Personally, this is a case where it doesn't matter to me whether politicians are "outlawing" I-bulbs just to be on the energy bandwagon. As I consider it to be a good choice (like buckling up for safety), I do it regardless of whether or not a politician recommends it.

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

It's always hard to see the effect when looking at a single bulb, but like so many other things we can do to save energy, even small effects from single lightbulbs are cumulative, and measurable.

You can also say its hard to see the harmful effects of the mercury in just one or just a few CFL bults.

Multiply that by millions over the years, and what have you got?

We can't get most people to recycle paper plastic or aluminum if they pick it up weekly.

How on earth do you get them to "responsibly recycle" these things?

If you want to truly be environmentally conscious, come up with something that doesn't contain a poison.

Saving energy at the expense of even more pollution just doesn't make sense.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

Saving energy at the expense of even more pollution just doesn't make sense.

So... your answer is to just let the planet go straight to Hell, since everybody's too LAZY to do things right? Since it would be simply and literally impossible to remove every gram of chemicals that are considered poison from our lives (including most processed and some non-processed foods, clothing, cleaning products, PAPER, electronics, your car, your phone, etc, etc), how do you propose supporting almost 7 billion people in a way that is environmentally beneficial?

I suppose we could quite literally bomb ourselves back to the stone age...

(I apologize for leaving off there, as it came out just sounding crass... but I was hurrying to catch a train...)

The reasons you list for this being a difficult proposition is not, in themselves, reasons not to do them. Instead, it's an excellent reason to step up our efforts to recycle and properly dispose of things.

Sure, most people will have to go out of their way to more reliably recycle and dispose of things in a safe way, and a lot of lazy people won't like the extra work. A lot of non-lazy people won't like it either, because it is sure to cost more. But we can't afford to not do it because it will inconvenience us... it needs to be done, and the longer we delay, the worse the problem will become, and the more inconvenient it will be later.