Light Globes. Saving the Planet or Making Profits?

IrishPete said :

incidentally, I get a lot of radio interference from LED bulbs, and some CFLs too. Annoying.

IP

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

c_c™ said :

JC said :

I have some Philips MASTER MR16 (low voltage downlight replacments) that are dimmable using standard dimmers, in my case I have leading edge c-bus. Sure due to the current issues you mentioned I need two in the circuit for them to work, and their dim range is not linear like incandescents, in particular below about 20%, but they do work and work well for what they are. I have these in the hall because I don’t like the light they produce, I find that for reading there is a noticeable strobe effect and the colour is a tad cold.

Yeah, I guess I was over simplifying – point was there are no B22 LED globes on the market (that I’ve seen in Australia) that consumers just pick up and replace a dimmable CFL or energy saver halogen with easily.

All LEDs can be dimmable if they’re wired so that the load on the dimmer is above the minimum threshold the dimmer needs to operate, i.e putting more than one globe on the switch.

I am aware of a product called the Master LED D 12-60 which is from Phillips, a B22 globe that is dimmable by itself on a switch, but I’ve not seen it available anywhere and even Phillips themselves only market it to commercial customers and specifiers, it doesn’t even appear on their consumer materials. I’d buy a box of them tommorow if I could.

https://www.meethue.com/en-US

Those globes themselves dim internally, but they’re not compatible with an external dimmer (which I have on most switches and would need to have removed then).

breda said :

pags – just like in your previous post where you conflated different kinds of bulbs, here you go again about “mercury”.

25kgs (over 50 pounds, in old money) of pure mercury emitted from crematoriums? Given the price of pure mercury, it would be worth putting in a filter to catch it. Unfortunately, the website you cited has no capacity to search under a keyword like “mercury” – so why are you so shy about linking directly to the page you are referring to?

And, your statement that there is no discernable mercury coming from landfills (with the same unfindable source) means nothing. Why should mercury, an inert substance, emit from landfills?

As for the nonsense about coal-fired plants and mercury, let me refer you to the excellent post by Willis Eschenbach at WUWT about why this is a total crock:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/31/the-epas-mercurial-madness/

A few highlights:

– mercury is an element which appears in varying degrees in the natural environment;

– the biggest emitter of mercury is the sea;

– there is zero evidence of mercury levels being affected by coal-fired power stations.

Of course, mercury compounds hanging above us every day in our homes is nowhere near as evil as crematoriums (Godwin’s law prevents me from going any further on analysing this bizarre train of thought) and the amalgam tooth fillings which coincided with significant increases in the life expectancy of recipients.

Junk science rools, OK?

While somewhat in awe of your ability to find anything ‘excellent’ on WUWT, I’m a little disappointed you find the National Pollutant Inventory website too hard to navigate. But perhaps you are an economist, so I will be helpful.

The main mercury data page for 2011-12 is http://www.npi.gov.au/npidata/action/load/summary-result/criteria/year/2012/destination/ALL/substance/55/source-type/ALL/subthreshold-data/Yes/substance-name/Mercury%2B%2526%2Bcompounds If you then click on the ’emissions’ tab, you’ll get a ranked listing of the different source types. You’ll find electricity generation fourth in the list, crematoria at number 17, landfill down at 71. You can even export the data as a csv file for further enlightenment.

Landfill is the primary pathway for mercury in products at the end of their life to be at risk of causing harm to human health and the environment. So if the mercury in a whole heap of used CFLs is going to be a problem, it will be via landfill. There are ways mercury and different mercury compounds can be released from landfill (think about fires, solvent interactions and leachate leakage) but it really isn’t much of an issue to worry about with Australian landfills. As the data shows, other activities are much more significant as mercury sources in Australia.

As for your claim of ‘zero evidence of mercury levels being affected by coal fired power stations’, I’m sensing an affinity here with your climate change is bung, CO2 is plant food etc world view, but will point out that burning coal does release mercury. Much follows from basic chemistry and physics.

pags – just like in your previous post where you conflated different kinds of bulbs, here you go again about “mercury”.

25kgs (over 50 pounds, in old money) of pure mercury emitted from crematoriums? Given the price of pure mercury, it would be worth putting in a filter to catch it. Unfortunately, the website you cited has no capacity to search under a keyword like “mercury” – so why are you so shy about linking directly to the page you are referring to?

And, your statement that there is no discernable mercury coming from landfills (with the same unfindable source) means nothing. Why should mercury, an inert substance, emit from landfills?

As for the nonsense about coal-fired plants and mercury, let me refer you to the excellent post by Willis Eschenbach at WUWT about why this is a total crock:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/31/the-epas-mercurial-madness/

A few highlights:

– mercury is an element which appears in varying degrees in the natural environment;

– the biggest emitter of mercury is the sea;

– there is zero evidence of mercury levels being affected by coal-fired power stations.

Of course, mercury compounds hanging above us every day in our homes is nowhere near as evil as crematoriums (Godwin’s law prevents me from going any further on analysing this bizarre train of thought) and the amalgam tooth fillings which coincided with significant increases in the life expectancy of recipients.

Junk science rools, OK?

Deref said :

pajs said :

The key benefit of CFLs is reduced energy consumption, compared to incandescents. A reason for introducing lighting efficiency standards and phase outs of inefficient incandescents was that while CFLs were cheaper over the life of the light, the upfront purchase cost was greater. Even where CFLs have significantly longer lifespans than incandescents (which is a lot of, but not all, uses) purchasers were poor at factoring these benefits in to initial purchasing decisions.

Evidence, please, ensuring that the energy consumption involved in manufacturing and disposal is included.

I’m prepared to believe, but not until I see the evidence.

pajs said :

You can get good, fit-for-purpose lighting quality from CFLs for the most common lighting tasks at home. The widespread availability of electronic ballasted CFLs means you can get CFLs to work with a lot of dimmers.

Not in my experience, though that’s limited. Evidence, please.

pajs said :

As for the mercury, there is only a tiny amount in a CFL, mostly bonded in the phosphor powder/layers and not at risk of jumping out and killing your children. Large quantities of flouros from commercial buildings where big lighting changes happen all at once are about the only way you’d get a volume in the one place worth worrying about, and for that there is the Fluorocycle scheme for commercial properties run with the Lighting Council.

Yes, the amount of mercury is tiny. But let’s assume, say, an average of 10 per household times the number of households (no idea, but let’s say 100,000 in Canberra alone) – that’s a lot of mercury to safely dispose of.

pajs said :

Given the mercury emissions from coal-fired power & bushfires (not to mention any dental amalgam in crematoria), if you want to worry about mercury I’d be starting places other than CFLs.

This is a straw man. The valid comparison is between the amount of mercury in CFLs as opposed to that in incandescents, i.e. none.

I’m not focussing on mercury – you’re right – coal-fired power stations emit it too, and CFLs reduce that – but what’s the total load from CFLs against the savings from reduced coal burning? Evidence.

pajs said :

CFLs also have a lower heat-loading benefit, compared to older incandescents and some halogens. The heat loading from some compact halogen downlights (and direct contact heat risk) is significant. If you look at some of the installation safety requirements for halogen downlights, you are pretty much forced to cut holes through ceiling insulation to keep materials back from them. While they are not on, those cut-throughs can cause significant winter heat loss into your ceiling space, compromising your insulation. You then end up running more heating, using more energy.

Yep – CFLs are efficient to run but, again, you have to look at the total cost including manufacturing and disposal before you make comparisons like these.

pajs said :

While CFLs are not perfect, there is not really a perfect lighting technology. With a bit of research, thought & shopping effort, you can get decent CFL lighting for domestic uses (and not having to pay $7 a pop either).

Same for incandescents. I used to get 100W non-halogen incandescents for $0.30, so let’s compare apples with apples, eh.

Rhetoric is no substitute for proper analysis. Show us the honest and complete figures and none of us will be able to argue.

I’m a bit busy at the moment, but this might help you out.

For an example of some life-cycle analysis applied to the CFLs vs incandescents comparison, see http://www.thewatt.com/?q=node/175 Key points: if you get 50 hours operation out of your CFL, you break even in life cycle energy terms; over a full lifetime the CFL consumes 3.9 times less energy than the incandescent.

Maybe I shop at different places, but I’ve not had trouble finding dimmable CFLs. OzLighting has a couple of different dimmable CFLs, the Phillips ones are widely available, places like Bunnings and Officeworks stock the Nelson ones, etc. It does depend a bit on what type of dimmer you have, but there are options. I only use LEDs in portable lights, so can’t comment on them in fixed uses & dimming LEDs there.

I’m not sure how you get ‘straw man’ from the mercury comparison, while also asking for life cycle energy data. Put simply: mercury is emitted from coal-fired power stations. Old style incandescents use more electricty than CFLs. Therefore more coal is consumed to fire them up, producing more mercury emissions from the stack, than is the case with the lower energy use situation. Pretty straightforward, I think.

If you want to know more about point sources and diffuse sources for mercury emissions in Australia, we have the very useful National Pollutant Inventory. You can go there and have a look. http://www.npi.gov.au/ is the website.

2011/12 mercury emissions data from the NPI has 2,200 kg of mercury emitted to Australian airsheds from electricity generation. There are 25 kg emitted to air from crematoria, by the way. And more than 0.000001 g/L is enough to contaminate drinking water (according to the 1996 drinking water quality guidelines for Australia). Landfill, which is where the bulk of domestic CFLs end up, barely makes the list as a mercury source in Australia (NPI).

Deref said :

Same for incandescents. I used to get 100W non-halogen incandescents for $0.30, so let’s compare apples with apples, eh.

Let’s say we replace a 100W incandescent with a 25W CFL (being generous with the CFL as Philips says a 20W is equivalent in light output). Every hour the light is on the CFL uses 75W.h less electricity which means, in the ACT where electricity is 20c/KW.h, you save 1.5c/h. Over the first thousand hours of the life of the bulb you’ll save $15 and if the CFL cost you $7 everything after the first ~500 hours is pure profit.

Deref said :

Rhetoric is no substitute for proper analysis. Show us the honest and complete figures and none of us will be able to argue.

You must be new here.

c_c™ said :

JC said :

I have some Philips MASTER MR16 (low voltage downlight replacments) that are dimmable using standard dimmers, in my case I have leading edge c-bus. Sure due to the current issues you mentioned I need two in the circuit for them to work, and their dim range is not linear like incandescents, in particular below about 20%, but they do work and work well for what they are. I have these in the hall because I don’t like the light they produce, I find that for reading there is a noticeable strobe effect and the colour is a tad cold.

Yeah, I guess I was over simplifying – point was there are no B22 LED globes on the market (that I’ve seen in Australia) that consumers just pick up and replace a dimmable CFL or energy saver halogen with easily.

All LEDs can be dimmable if they’re wired so that the load on the dimmer is above the minimum threshold the dimmer needs to operate, i.e putting more than one globe on the switch.

I am aware of a product called the Master LED D 12-60 which is from Phillips, a B22 globe that is dimmable by itself on a switch, but I’ve not seen it available anywhere and even Phillips themselves only market it to commercial customers and specifiers, it doesn’t even appear on their consumer materials. I’d buy a box of them tommorow if I could.

https://www.meethue.com/en-US

davo101 said :

Roundhead89 said :

It is worthy to note that the outer bulb on the halogens serves no purpose

Other than protecting the user from the extremely hot inner glass bulb.

And providing something to hold while inserting the ‘push and twist’ style of globe. They are much sturdier than the CFLs, which was the main reason I started using them.

…which is to say B22 LED globes that are mains voltage too I should clarify.

JC said :

I have some Philips MASTER MR16 (low voltage downlight replacments) that are dimmable using standard dimmers, in my case I have leading edge c-bus. Sure due to the current issues you mentioned I need two in the circuit for them to work, and their dim range is not linear like incandescents, in particular below about 20%, but they do work and work well for what they are. I have these in the hall because I don’t like the light they produce, I find that for reading there is a noticeable strobe effect and the colour is a tad cold.

Yeah, I guess I was over simplifying – point was there are no B22 LED globes on the market (that I’ve seen in Australia) that consumers just pick up and replace a dimmable CFL or energy saver halogen with easily.

All LEDs can be dimmable if they’re wired so that the load on the dimmer is above the minimum threshold the dimmer needs to operate, i.e putting more than one globe on the switch.

I am aware of a product called the Master LED D 12-60 which is from Phillips, a B22 globe that is dimmable by itself on a switch, but I’ve not seen it available anywhere and even Phillips themselves only market it to commercial customers and specifiers, it doesn’t even appear on their consumer materials. I’d buy a box of them tommorow if I could.

c_c™ said :

What a dishonest post. Funny thing is it makes things up that even the lighting manufacturers don’t try to BS about.

CFLs take minutes to warm up, and they continually grow more dim throughout their life, along with losing their tint and adopting a colder colour. After a year or so, they will be emitting a lot less light, and that gradual decrease could potentially make eye strain worse, not to mention the colour shift will affect paint colours.

There are not a wide selection of dimmable CFLs on the market. Philips makes just one for example (and they’re one of the major brands in Australia), the 75w equiv Tornado. That’s because dimmers require a certain minimum current to work. That’s why there are currently no LED globes that are dimmable on the market. Even the dimmable ones have draw backs, they buzz horribly even when the dimmer is at maximum output and only work with certain types of dimmers.

LED globes are the future, and are near perfect, and the ones I’m running are wonderful. The shelf price may look steep, but given their life rating and tiny power usage, the overall cost is very attractive. Dimmers need to catch up and beam width needs improvement, but that shouldn’t take long.

Whilst I do agree with the jist of your post it is not true that there are NO dimmable LED ‘globes’ out there.

I have some Philips MASTER MR16 (low voltage downlight replacments) that are dimmable using standard dimmers, in my case I have leading edge c-bus. Sure due to the current issues you mentioned I need two in the circuit for them to work, and their dim range is not linear like incandescents, in particular below about 20%, but they do work and work well for what they are. I have these in the hall because I don’t like the light they produce, I find that for reading there is a noticeable strobe effect and the colour is a tad cold.

That said I have had them now for over two years and in that time there is a lot more product on the market, especially dimmable LED’s, including those with standard bayonet fittings. I cannot recall the brand by TLE at Belconnen has a display of LED fittings all of which are dimmable.

pajs said :

The key benefit of CFLs is reduced energy consumption, compared to incandescents. A reason for introducing lighting efficiency standards and phase outs of inefficient incandescents was that while CFLs were cheaper over the life of the light, the upfront purchase cost was greater. Even where CFLs have significantly longer lifespans than incandescents (which is a lot of, but not all, uses) purchasers were poor at factoring these benefits in to initial purchasing decisions.

Evidence, please, ensuring that the energy consumption involved in manufacturing and disposal is included.

I’m prepared to believe, but not until I see the evidence.

pajs said :

You can get good, fit-for-purpose lighting quality from CFLs for the most common lighting tasks at home. The widespread availability of electronic ballasted CFLs means you can get CFLs to work with a lot of dimmers.

Not in my experience, though that’s limited. Evidence, please.

pajs said :

As for the mercury, there is only a tiny amount in a CFL, mostly bonded in the phosphor powder/layers and not at risk of jumping out and killing your children. Large quantities of flouros from commercial buildings where big lighting changes happen all at once are about the only way you’d get a volume in the one place worth worrying about, and for that there is the Fluorocycle scheme for commercial properties run with the Lighting Council.

Yes, the amount of mercury is tiny. But let’s assume, say, an average of 10 per household times the number of households (no idea, but let’s say 100,000 in Canberra alone) – that’s a lot of mercury to safely dispose of.

pajs said :

Given the mercury emissions from coal-fired power & bushfires (not to mention any dental amalgam in crematoria), if you want to worry about mercury I’d be starting places other than CFLs.

This is a straw man. The valid comparison is between the amount of mercury in CFLs as opposed to that in incandescents, i.e. none.

I’m not focussing on mercury – you’re right – coal-fired power stations emit it too, and CFLs reduce that – but what’s the total load from CFLs against the savings from reduced coal burning? Evidence.

pajs said :

CFLs also have a lower heat-loading benefit, compared to older incandescents and some halogens. The heat loading from some compact halogen downlights (and direct contact heat risk) is significant. If you look at some of the installation safety requirements for halogen downlights, you are pretty much forced to cut holes through ceiling insulation to keep materials back from them. While they are not on, those cut-throughs can cause significant winter heat loss into your ceiling space, compromising your insulation. You then end up running more heating, using more energy.

Yep – CFLs are efficient to run but, again, you have to look at the total cost including manufacturing and disposal before you make comparisons like these.

pajs said :

While CFLs are not perfect, there is not really a perfect lighting technology. With a bit of research, thought & shopping effort, you can get decent CFL lighting for domestic uses (and not having to pay $7 a pop either).

Same for incandescents. I used to get 100W non-halogen incandescents for $0.30, so let’s compare apples with apples, eh.

Rhetoric is no substitute for proper analysis. Show us the honest and complete figures and none of us will be able to argue.

pajs said :

Hard to know where to start with the misinformation in this thread.

The key benefit of CFLs is reduced energy consumption, compared to incandescents. A reason for introducing lighting efficiency standards and phase outs of inefficient incandescents was that while CFLs were cheaper over the life of the light, the upfront purchase cost was greater. Even where CFLs have significantly longer lifespans than incandescents (which is a lot of, but not all, uses) purchasers were poor at factoring these benefits in to initial purchasing decisions.

You can get good, fit-for-purpose lighting quality from CFLs for the most common lighting tasks at home. The widespread availability of electronic ballasted CFLs means you can get CFLs to work with a lot of dimmers.

Start up of CFLs and incandescents is pretty much indistinguishable. Some CFLs take further seconds (not minutes) to get up to full brightness, but not so much as to mean you’d walk into something.

As for the mercury, there is only a tiny amount in a CFL, mostly bonded in the phosphor powder/layers and not at risk of jumping out and killing your children. Large quantities of flouros from commercial buildings where big lighting changes happen all at once are about the only way you’d get a volume in the one place worth worrying about, and for that there is the Fluorocycle scheme for commercial properties run with the Lighting Council.

Given the mercury emissions from coal-fired power & bushfires (not to mention any dental amalgam in crematoria), if you want to worry about mercury I’d be starting places other than CFLs.

CFLs also have a lower heat-loading benefit, compared to older incandescents and some halogens. The heat loading from some compact halogen downlights (and direct contact heat risk) is significant. If you look at some of the installation safety requirements for halogen downlights, you are pretty much forced to cut holes through ceiling insulation to keep materials back from them. While they are not on, those cut-throughs can cause significant winter heat loss into your ceiling space, compromising your insulation. You then end up running more heating, using more energy.

While CFLs are not perfect, there is not really a perfect lighting technology. With a bit of research, thought & shopping effort, you can get decent CFL lighting for domestic uses (and not having to pay $7 a pop either).

What a dishonest post. Funny thing is it makes things up that even the lighting manufacturers don’t try to BS about.

CFLs take minutes to warm up, and they continually grow more dim throughout their life, along with losing their tint and adopting a colder colour. After a year or so, they will be emitting a lot less light, and that gradual decrease could potentially make eye strain worse, not to mention the colour shift will affect paint colours.

There are not a wide selection of dimmable CFLs on the market. Philips makes just one for example (and they’re one of the major brands in Australia), the 75w equiv Tornado. That’s because dimmers require a certain minimum current to work. That’s why there are currently no LED globes that are dimmable on the market. Even the dimmable ones have draw backs, they buzz horribly even when the dimmer is at maximum output and only work with certain types of dimmers.

LED globes are the future, and are near perfect, and the ones I’m running are wonderful. The shelf price may look steep, but given their life rating and tiny power usage, the overall cost is very attractive. Dimmers need to catch up and beam width needs improvement, but that shouldn’t take long.

pajs, thanks for the sales schtick and Greens propaganda, but you carefully gloss over the salient points.

Firstly, you disingenuously jumble up halogens with CFCs. A halogen which looks like the old incandescents and essentially performs similarly costs three times as much. For what? Why?

If the mercury compounds in CFCs are not an issue, then why is it that mercury compounds in every other aspect of life are as a red rag to a bull to greenies? And why is it that in other countries the bulbs are regarded as toxic waste, not suitable to just be put in the bin like the old bulbs? Your glib rationalisation:

“Given the mercury emissions from coal-fired power & bushfires (not to mention any dental amalgam in crematoria), if you want to worry about mercury I’d be starting places other than CFLs.”

Well, there are no crematoriums (hilarious!), bushfires or coal fired power stations in my house, where CFCs can break or explode and spray mercury compounds around. Not that I am worried about the mercury emissions from crematoriums (wipes tears of laughter from eyes) anyway, even if there was one next door. Just like it is OK to kill birds and bats with windmills “for the Cause”, apparently there is good and bad exposure to these things, as long as it helps to Save the Planet.

Could you please let us know what the reduction in world temperatures will be as a result of us losing our choices about lighting alternatives?

pajs said :

some facts, common-sense, and evidence of both knowledge and thought

Better watch out, pajs, the villagers with pitchforks have burnt plenty as witches for far less than your provocation.

breda said :

If CFCs and other alternatives to cheap incandescents are so wonderful, why did we have to be forced to buy them?

If having a minimum-wage, a 40-hour-week, and paid sick leave are so wonderful, why did employers have to be forced by law to implerment them?

Hard to know where to start with the misinformation in this thread.

The key benefit of CFLs is reduced energy consumption, compared to incandescents. A reason for introducing lighting efficiency standards and phase outs of inefficient incandescents was that while CFLs were cheaper over the life of the light, the upfront purchase cost was greater. Even where CFLs have significantly longer lifespans than incandescents (which is a lot of, but not all, uses) purchasers were poor at factoring these benefits in to initial purchasing decisions.

You can get good, fit-for-purpose lighting quality from CFLs for the most common lighting tasks at home. The widespread availability of electronic ballasted CFLs means you can get CFLs to work with a lot of dimmers.

Start up of CFLs and incandescents is pretty much indistinguishable. Some CFLs take further seconds (not minutes) to get up to full brightness, but not so much as to mean you’d walk into something.

As for the mercury, there is only a tiny amount in a CFL, mostly bonded in the phosphor powder/layers and not at risk of jumping out and killing your children. Large quantities of flouros from commercial buildings where big lighting changes happen all at once are about the only way you’d get a volume in the one place worth worrying about, and for that there is the Fluorocycle scheme for commercial properties run with the Lighting Council.

Given the mercury emissions from coal-fired power & bushfires (not to mention any dental amalgam in crematoria), if you want to worry about mercury I’d be starting places other than CFLs.

CFLs also have a lower heat-loading benefit, compared to older incandescents and some halogens. The heat loading from some compact halogen downlights (and direct contact heat risk) is significant. If you look at some of the installation safety requirements for halogen downlights, you are pretty much forced to cut holes through ceiling insulation to keep materials back from them. While they are not on, those cut-throughs can cause significant winter heat loss into your ceiling space, compromising your insulation. You then end up running more heating, using more energy.

While CFLs are not perfect, there is not really a perfect lighting technology. With a bit of research, thought & shopping effort, you can get decent CFL lighting for domestic uses (and not having to pay $7 a pop either).

breda said :

Anyway, when I go to the loo in the middle of the night, my cheery incandescent bulb produces instant light for the minute or two that I am there, and cost me less than a dollar more than 5 years ago. Think on it next time you grope your way around using a product that cost nearly ten times as much, and enjoy the smugness, greenies. Don’t give the cost another thought, unless you are on the dole or a pension, where the difference between $7 and 80c for the same thing makes a very big difference indeed.

Where are you paying $7 for a light globe?

At Bunnings you can get a six pack of 53W (same light as an old 75watter) globes for $8.00 which is about $1.35 each. They should last longer than the traditional globe too.

No one is forcing you to buy CFL’s, which are around $7 per light.

http://www.bunnings.com.au/products_product_brilliant-53w-frosted-warm-white-bayonet-eco-halogen-globes-6-pack_P4340331.aspx?filter=categoryname–Halogen+Globes

Dr Koresh – the actual phaseout of incandescents didn’t happen until some years after the announcement, and lots of retailers stocked upon them because they knew people would baulk at the price of the alternatives. I was still adding to my stocks from my local IGA about 18 months ago – and they were about 80c for a 100w bulb.

In fact that was a ripoff, because as China is now the biggest manufacturer of incandescents, they were until recently (when they were banned by idiot legislators there) available for US$0.50c.

Because of the long lead time before they were finally eliminated from the market, I suspect that most people weren’t even aware of it till they started disappearing from the shelves, years after Turndill’s announcement.

Anyway, when I go to the loo in the middle of the night, my cheery incandescent bulb produces instant light for the minute or two that I am there, and cost me less than a dollar more than 5 years ago. Think on it next time you grope your way around using a product that cost nearly ten times as much, and enjoy the smugness, greenies. Don’t give the cost another thought, unless you are on the dole or a pension, where the difference between $7 and 80c for the same thing makes a very big difference indeed.

DrKoresh said :

Why is this suddenly a problem now? I mean, fair enough if you want to have a gripe but it’s been 6 odd years, it’s a bit late to start voicing your dissatisfaction now. And to everyone saying “I could buy an incandescent globe for 80c back in the good old days, and still have enough change leftover from a dollar to catch the Clapham omnibus and get an ice-cream cone” you have to consider inflation. Incandescents would still probably be cheaper but nothing like 80c.

Indeed especially when there are alternatives available to the traditional incandescent that are not CFL’s, such as the halogen incandescents.

As mentioned I didn’t even realise there was a ban, I had thought the halogen incandescent was just technology moving on rather than a ban on the traditional globe. Sure as someone mentioned they do cost more, but at the end of the day it isn’t like a dozen globes are on the weekly shopping bill, so if I have two globes fail in a year the extra $2 each isn’t going to break the bank.

Why is this suddenly a problem now? I mean, fair enough if you want to have a gripe but it’s been 6 odd years, it’s a bit late to start voicing your dissatisfaction now. And to everyone saying “I could buy an incandescent globe for 80c back in the good old days, and still have enough change leftover from a dollar to catch the Clapham omnibus and get an ice-cream cone” you have to consider inflation. Incandescents would still probably be cheaper but nothing like 80c.

tim_c said :

And by the way OP, that “white powder” in your fluoro lights is phosphorus

No, it’s not. They’re compounds called “phosphors” (i.e. light emitters) and don’t contain, AFAIK, any phosphorus. They do, however, contain other nasty substances including a small amount of mercury.

JC said :

Deref said :

Maybe JC’s gone from turning water into wine and is now turning CFLs into incandescents.

You can, though, buy quartz-halogens that are designed to look like the old incandescents.

Halogen light globes are still incandescent

Yes – I knew that. I realised when I’d just posted that I’d been lazy and inaccurate, but you beat me to it. 😉

Roundhead89 said :

It is worthy to note that the outer bulb on the halogens serves no purpose

Other than protecting the user from the extremely hot inner glass bulb.

JC said :

Deref said :

Maybe JC’s gone from turning water into wine and is now turning CFLs into incandescents.

You can, though, buy quartz-halogens that are designed to look like the old incandescents.

Halogen light globes are still incandescent, the difference is the halogen globe which is inside the outer globe is filled with halogen rather than a vacuum. The halogen gives greater light intensity, this means to get the same light intensity you need less power, so a 42W incandescent halogen is the same light output as an 60W vacuum incandescent.

So I will reiterate there is no such ban on incandescent light globes. What the legislation did however was ban “inefficient incandescent light bulbs”.

So incandescent lights are still very much onsale, and they have NOT been replaced by CFL’s as the OP stated.

http://ee.ret.gov.au/energy-efficiency/lighting

It is worthy to note that the outer bulb on the halogens serves no purpose and is purely ornamental, intended to make the globe look like an old school incandescent. I’ve had the outer globe come off on a few of the halogens in lamps and it is a bugger – you have to turn the power off and grab the sharp base to remove it from the socket (after it has cooled down). Although the bulb still works without the outer globe it is more vulnerable and could pose an electric shock risk.

tim_c said :

It didn’t even do that. It might have banned non-halogen incandenscent globes but consider which one is inefficient – my lounge room can be very adequately lit with 2x 75w 240v incandescent globes, but when the previous owners decided to replace these with so-called “efficient” low voltage downlights, at least 6 x 50w to light the same area. Assuming you’re not one of these naïve types who think they’re more efficient because they’re only 12v instead of 240w, perhaps you could explain to me how 6x 50w can be more efficient than 2x 75w?

Hey don’t go me I am just quoting the legislation and no, being trained in electronics at the old Belconnen TAFE I am not naive as you have suggested to thing that low voltage downlights are efficient because they are low voltage. Obviously 50watts is 50watts regardless of power (what is changing is the voltage and current to draw 50watts), and as such if 2x75watts @240v have been replaced with 6x50watts then that is double the power.

But that is not what is being debated anyway and I don’t think there is any one definition of what is energy efficient because it is all relative to what your comparing with.

So for example lets compare a 60watt ‘traditional’ incandescent with a halogen. The halogen can produce the same amount of light using just 42watts, so relativly speaking the halogen IS more efficient. But compared to a CFL or LED it is not as efficient. So as I said it is all about what you are comparing to.

incidentally, I get a lot of radio interference from LED bulbs, and some CFLs too. Annoying.

IP

Just to clarify: old-school incandescent bulbs are still commonly available only up to 40w, usually in compact candle or round styles. Otherwise your choices are halogen (traditional light and looks but short life and not cheap for what they are), CFL (awful light, can be slow to reach full light, can buzz, odd shapes, longer life and low power but 2-3x the cost of a halogen) and LED (decent but narrow light, expensive, very long life, low power).

JC said :

…So I will reiterate there is no such ban on incandescent light globes. What the legislation did however was ban “inefficient incandescent light bulbs”….

It didn’t even do that. It might have banned non-halogen incandenscent globes but consider which one is inefficient – my lounge room can be very adequately lit with 2x 75w 240v incandescent globes, but when the previous owners decided to replace these with so-called “efficient” low voltage downlights, at least 6 x 50w to light the same area. Assuming you’re not one of these naïve types who think they’re more efficient because they’re only 12v instead of 240w, perhaps you could explain to me how 6x 50w can be more efficient than 2x 75w?

Those little halogen globes are good for converting electricity into heat, and one of the by-products just happens to be light…

And by the way OP, that “white powder” in your fluoro lights is phosphorus – while I wouldn’t try eating or inhaling it, as far as I’m aware there’s nothing particularly hazardous about coming into contact with it.

JC, what you fail to mention is that a 42W Osram quartz halogen globe from Bunnings costs $2.40, whereas my 100W old fashioned incandescents cost about 80c each. That triple the price – and for what?

As for the absurd comments about horses and carts earlier, I tried CFCs and found them to be inferior and exhorbitantly expensive. Buying CFCs is like buying a car which performs worse than your “horse and cart” for nearly ten times the price. It’s all about value for money.

If CFCs and other alternatives to cheap incandescents are so wonderful, why did we have to be forced to buy them?

Deref said :

Maybe JC’s gone from turning water into wine and is now turning CFLs into incandescents.

You can, though, buy quartz-halogens that are designed to look like the old incandescents.

Halogen light globes are still incandescent, the difference is the halogen globe which is inside the outer globe is filled with halogen rather than a vacuum. The halogen gives greater light intensity, this means to get the same light intensity you need less power, so a 42W incandescent halogen is the same light output as an 60W vacuum incandescent.

So I will reiterate there is no such ban on incandescent light globes. What the legislation did however was ban “inefficient incandescent light bulbs”.

So incandescent lights are still very much onsale, and they have NOT been replaced by CFL’s as the OP stated.

http://ee.ret.gov.au/energy-efficiency/lighting

Nightshade said :

JC said :

Wow, I didn’t know that CFL where brought in as the OP put it as “mandatory replacement for those energy wasting and cheap incandescent bulbs”. Last time I looked said bulbs where still available, well in the ACT at least, though I do know overseas some countries have indeed outlawed them.

Really? Where can you buy them in the ACT?

Maybe JC’s gone from turning water into wine and is now turning CFLs into incandescents.

You can, though, buy quartz-halogens that are designed to look like the old incandescents.

CFLs are poor technology, thankfully LEDs are on the cusp of being viable alternatives and should be available economically in the next year or two. As well as exceptionally poor lifespans CFLs render inaccurate colours and are harder on the eyes.

LEDs have potentially much better lifespan and reliability but like CFLs will be at the mercy of the quality of associated electronic drivers; we can only hope that market forces eventually focus on reliability.

I agree with above comment too — use new halogens instead of CFLs, until LEDs take over.

Nightshade said :

JC said :

Wow, I didn’t know that CFL where brought in as the OP put it as “mandatory replacement for those energy wasting and cheap incandescent bulbs”. Last time I looked said bulbs where still available, well in the ACT at least, though I do know overseas some countries have indeed outlawed them.

Really? Where can you buy them in the ACT?

Bunnings for one.

But to clarify something though after reading this thread I did some googling and found some stories on the ban and incandescent globes are still very much allowed. They have not, as asserted in the OP been replaced by CFL’s. Their sale though is subject to strict requirements about energy efficiency however.

The incandescent globes on sale today are have halogen inside rather than a vacuum, which make them burn brighter with less energy. So an old 60W standard incandescent is now a 42w halogen incandescent. Now must admit when that change came in I must have been ignoring politics, I had just assumed the change was technology driven rather than law.

So as mentioned their is no ban on incandescent lights as such, as halogen are 100% incandescent, they are just filled with halogen gas, and there is certainly no ban in favour of CFL’s.

Nightshade said :

JC said :

Wow, I didn’t know that CFL where brought in as the OP put it as “mandatory replacement for those energy wasting and cheap incandescent bulbs”. Last time I looked said bulbs where still available, well in the ACT at least, though I do know overseas some countries have indeed outlawed them.

Really? Where can you buy them in the ACT?

Yeah, I think certain types are stil available, e.g. The candle-style ones. The ban must have been very specific to the classic shaped ones, knowing that CFLs come in a limited range of shapes and sizes (though a much better range now than six years ago).

Is Turnbull the ALP’s favourite Liberal? I doubt it – with Turnbull as leader, the Libs would win the election. With Abbott they will get trounced like in 2007.

Anyway, back on topic, CFLs may be better for the environment than incandescents, but what Howard and co failed to do was what you always have to, full life cycle analysis. Saying they use X% less electricity isn’t sufficient if they’re going to give us all mercury poisoning. Maybe Howard did have mates in the Mercury business as well as the Ethanol business.

Peter

breda said :

The ban on incandesecents was

I have incandescents which were in place when I bought this house more than ten years ago, …blablabla…my bulbs of the early 1990s that cost maybe 50c are still working just fine …blablabla…there will be none of the horrible things in my house for many years to come

I hope you’ve also stocked up on horse-and-carts so you don’t get any of those smoke-belching horrid motorised conveyances foisted on you.

In fact, what on earth are you doing using electricity in the first place? A kerosene lantern is way cheaper and much more practical!

This is why the PS is full of consultants and contractors – this town is jam-packed full of people who are positively averse to progress or change of any description. The slightest hint of an improvement in the offing sends them into paroxysms of confected nostalgia and road-block building.

So, thank you, breda, I owe it all to you.

JC said :

Wow, I didn’t know that CFL where brought in as the OP put it as “mandatory replacement for those energy wasting and cheap incandescent bulbs”. Last time I looked said bulbs where still available, well in the ACT at least, though I do know overseas some countries have indeed outlawed them.

Really? Where can you buy them in the ACT?

I’ve found that the lifetime of the CFLs seems to vary a lot depending on the manufacturer. I have some Philips ones installed that are going on 4 years of very frequent use. (It might also help if you try not to touch the glass part while installing them, I’m not sure).

Dimmer switches definitely kill them quickly though.

The ban on incandesecents was driven by the ALP’s favourite Liberal, useful idiot Malcolm Turnbull when he was Environment Minister. It was a shockingly bad policy – punitive for the poor, environmentally irresponsible (see the comments about mercury and disposal), and removing choice by substituting an often inferior by much more expensive product.

I have incandescents which were in place when I bought this house more than ten years ago, still working fine. They are in well ventilated and lightly trafficked spots, but nevertheless it makes no sense to force people to buy products which are many times more expensive, don’t deliver as good an outcome (funny colours, slow to switch on, like a valve TV, etc) when my bulbs of the early 1990s that cost maybe 50c are still working just fine.

Having stocked up on incandescents when the ban was announced, there will be none of the horrible things in my house for many years to come, thank goodness.

Well, one of the light bulbs turned on in 1901 at the Livermore Fire Department in California are
still working.

HiddenDragon said :

Thanks to IrishPete for pointing out that incandescent bulbs were banned by the Howard Government – a timely reminder that even a (supposedly) down to earth, in-touch-with-average-Aussies politician can fall for PC bulldust.

Remember John Hunt the Coward’s mandatory selling of ethanol-blend petrol? He said it was for the environment, but it soon became known that the only maker of ethanol in Australia in sufficient quantities was a mate of his and a big contributor to the Tory Party.

I wonder whether he has shares in or is mates with the CFL manufacturers.

HiddenDragon said :

I’ve been wondering for some time whether Abbott’s “Direct Action” plan might also involve some expensive, compulsory embuggerances for households (in addition to tree planting, carbon sequestration etc. etc.). If so, when federal Labor finish congratulating themselves on the political smartness of the early move to a floating carbon price (and explaining how they will pay for that), they might be wise to give some close attention to exactly what “Direct Action” will mean for the typical household – there could be some highly exploitable nasties tucked away in there, which would be ironic, coming from the party which says it believes in markets and choice.

They do believe in markets and choice! Politicians operate in a free market where the highest contributor buys them and in which they’re free to make choices about whose businesses they’ll support based on party contributions.

That Turnbull character may had been involved too http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/household-light-bulbs-get-the-flick/story-e6frfkp9-1111113024346

The article leads me to believe that it was a desperate attempt to make the Liberal/National coalition look like they were doing something about climate change, as an election approached with Saint Kevin looking like a shoe-in. They might have been better to subsidise home insulation. But banning incandescent light bulbs was free to the Government, with all the cost borne by you, the punter. Typical “regressive” taxation, just like the GST.

IP

curmudgery said :

I doubt the life expectancy testing of CFLs included much ‘on-off’ cycling – that’s what kills a flouro. I’ve found that with normal use they don’t last anything like the advertised time. Then, as other Rioters have pointed out, there’s mercury, phosphor and electronic components to safely dispose of. You get good mileage from the 2 and 4 foot fluros in your garage largely, I think, because there’s better air flow around them – those CFLs run hot inside any light fitting . . . I’ve had one explode!

No. They’re an expensive failure.

The catch with the long fluros (and partly why they last longer) is they contain a far larger amount of mercury. Though if they last enough times longer to offset that against shorter lasting CFLs, they may still be a good proposition.

Thanks to IrishPete for pointing out that incandescent bulbs were banned by the Howard Government – a timely reminder that even a (supposedly) down to earth, in-touch-with-average-Aussies politician can fall for PC bulldust.

I’ve been wondering for some time whether Abbott’s “Direct Action” plan might also involve some expensive, compulsory embuggerances for households (in addition to tree planting, carbon sequestration etc. etc.). If so, when federal Labor finish congratulating themselves on the political smartness of the early move to a floating carbon price (and explaining how they will pay for that), they might be wise to give some close attention to exactly what “Direct Action” will mean for the typical household – there could be some highly exploitable nasties tucked away in there, which would be ironic, coming from the party which says it believes in markets and choice.

I doubt the life expectancy testing of CFLs included much ‘on-off’ cycling – that’s what kills a flouro. I’ve found that with normal use they don’t last anything like the advertised time. Then, as other Rioters have pointed out, there’s mercury, phosphor and electronic components to safely dispose of. You get good mileage from the 2 and 4 foot fluros in your garage largely, I think, because there’s better air flow around them – those CFLs run hot inside any light fitting . . . I’ve had one explode!

No. They’re an expensive failure.

i recall a documentary called ‘the light bulb conspiracy’ that featured an incandescent globe made by the east germans that was designed not to fail. it also went into detail on the collusion between light bulb manufacturers to create shorter life bulbs.

google provides a link: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/light-bulb-conspiracy/

Bloody Peter Garrett!

IrishPete said :

The ban on incandescent light globes/bulbs was introduced by that well-regarded environmentalist John Howard. Why would you be suspicious?

I have also had lifespan problems with CFLs, CFL spotlight bulbs are complete crap, and lots of the LED bulbs I buy fail (but are replaced with new ones, in one case twice!). Even the 10w LED spotlights in my kitchen are pretty weak. I have lots of spare CFL spotlight bulbs that wouldn’t fit in my fittings too – the non-standard shapes is a problem.

IP

Even John Howard fell for the “green” spin.
He also banned responsible people from owning firearms which wasn’t very smart.

Wow, I didn’t know that CFL where brought in as the OP put it as “mandatory replacement for those energy wasting and cheap incandescent bulbs”.

Last time I looked said bulbs where still available, well in the ACT at least, though I do know overseas some countries have indeed outlawed them.

The problem I have with CFL is dimming. I have a C-bus lighting system (which use electronic switching rather than mechanical) and if you connect a CFL to any light on a dimmer it will flicker even when ‘off’, due to the way the dimmer works and when on cannot be dimmed anyway. Houses with the traditional dimmers won’t be able to dim them either.

LED’s are getting there, but still need another year or two to fully develop as a genuine replacement of incandescent. I have trialled LED’s in some of my low voltage downlights and whilst it produces a nice light and can be dimmed I find they are not suitable in area’s where you want to read due to a slight flicker that is noticeable only when reading (but like a fast strobe) and the colour of them is still a little cold compared to normal downlights.

Hatter64, this is a great observation, its something that I have though of since having problems with my the halogen lights in my house.

It always struck me that manufactures use automated machines, so why is there such a disparity between claimed usage hours to actual hours and failure rates of a light bulbs.

I had recently seen an article on the Discovery Channel that Osram have a light bulb that is filled with a mixture of gases that prolong the life of the tungsten filament and they use these bulbs for airport landing lights. These lights last for thousands of hours and the technology could easily be adapted for commercial and home use.

So it really does beg the question is profit being put over the environment. I think so

I would say that CFL lights are priced the way they because the wholesalers and the retailers can get away with it. I read somewhere that when they first appeared in the Australian market (early 1990s?) they were imported under an arrangement with the govt of the day that supported higher pricing. Some kind of deal to get them here fast or something given the move to incandescent phase out. Maybe another rioter will have better recall than Scentednightgardens. But I would suggest that 20 years forward, on a scale with “rip-off” at one end and “fair return to the producer given high R&D investment” at the other, the pointer is at the former..

The ban on incandescent light globes/bulbs was introduced by that well-regarded environmentalist John Howard. Why would you be suspicious?

I have also had lifespan problems with CFLs, CFL spotlight bulbs are complete crap, and lots of the LED bulbs I buy fail (but are replaced with new ones, in one case twice!). Even the 10w LED spotlights in my kitchen are pretty weak. I have lots of spare CFL spotlight bulbs that wouldn’t fit in my fittings too – the non-standard shapes is a problem.

IP

c_c™ said :

Aeek said :

CFLs a) aren’t bright enough – I need 100W equivalent

You can get CFLs up to 150w equiv very commonly.

However I concur that CFLs have a lot of draw backs, the major one being that what you buy isn’t what they’ll be in even a short while. The brightness of CFLs fade continually from the moment they’re turned on, and in addition, the tints added to CFLs to make different colour temps, also fade, meaning you will get a stronger greenish hue over time. Add to that a mercury and they’re not all the greenies have them cracked up to be.

LED globes are without a doubt fantastic, but the dimmer issue will hold them back for a long time even though the prices are now good. Dimmer manufacturers should be releasing new LED compatible models more widely in coming years, but it’s still a lot of investment to replace existing dimmers. Also LED globe makers need to improve on the field of light, which remains narrower than CFLs and halogens.

No need for dimmer with smart lights.

Aeek said :

CFLs a) aren’t bright enough – I need 100W equivalent

You can get CFLs up to 150w equiv very commonly.

However I concur that CFLs have a lot of draw backs, the major one being that what you buy isn’t what they’ll be in even a short while. The brightness of CFLs fade continually from the moment they’re turned on, and in addition, the tints added to CFLs to make different colour temps, also fade, meaning you will get a stronger greenish hue over time. Add to that a mercury and they’re not all the greenies have them cracked up to be.

LED globes are without a doubt fantastic, but the dimmer issue will hold them back for a long time even though the prices are now good. Dimmer manufacturers should be releasing new LED compatible models more widely in coming years, but it’s still a lot of investment to replace existing dimmers. Also LED globe makers need to improve on the field of light, which remains narrower than CFLs and halogens.

Deref said :

I’ve long nursed a suspicion that they’re a scam.

The propaganda says that they’re cheaper in the long run than incandescents since they use so much less electricity and last so much longer. On the latter I call shenanigans. In my experience they rarely, if ever, last as long as incandescents and, as you say, they cost around 20 times more (say around $0.30 for a 100W incandescent against $7 for an equivalent CFL).

I agree about the short lifespan of currently available bulbs. I’ve being using halogen bulbs in the traditional shape because they are easier to put into my light fittings than the coil-shaped CFLs (the lifespan is certainly short when you break them trying to get them into the light socket!). I wondered if the short life was my imagination so I started recording the date when I changed one. The one in my bedlamp, used for perhaps 30 min per day, lasted from 18.8.12 – 3.4.13. Less than 8 months. The box claims it should last 2 years with usage of 3 hours per day. In contrast, I still have incandescent ones in use that were installed before the ban.

CFLs a) aren’t bright enough – I need 100W equivalent b) burn out ridiculously fast in my light fittings.
I switched to halogen bulbs, much happier.

While CFLs out perform the 100 year technology, LEDs are far superior.

CFLs have a number of disadvantages compared to LEDs including disposal (they contain mercury) and that the light takes several minutes to reach full brightness. LEDs also use less watts per lumen and CFLs can’t beused in dimmer light fittings or touch lamps.

For more info see here: http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/guide_to_energy_efficient_lighting.pdf

i prefer the light from an incandescent globe for reading. CFL’s are too harsh.

All you chuds need to invest in Phillips hue like I have.

Makes you feel like a real 1 percenter. It’s rad.

I’ve long nursed a suspicion that they’re a scam.

The propaganda says that they’re cheaper in the long run than incandescents since they use so much less electricity and last so much longer. On the latter I call shenanigans. In my experience they rarely, if ever, last as long as incandescents and, as you say, they cost around 20 times more (say around $0.30 for a 100W incandescent against $7 for an equivalent CFL). To calculate the financial as well as the carbon economics you’d have to take into account the short lifespans as well as the savings in electricity, so CFLs could work out 40 times more expensive to buy if they last half as long (which they often seem to).

Of course that’s only the financial cost factor – you have to take the carbon savings into account, but to do that honestly you also need to add in the manufacturing and disposal costs. I’d love to see someone do it – I have a sneaking suspicion that, from a green POV, the manufacturing costs as well as the costs of safe disposal of the mercury-containing phosphors may well outweigh the undoubted benefits in the operating carbon savings.

I could be totally wrong. Has anyone done the maths?

“I’m sure the powers that be did all the appropriate research and are only looking out for our best interests”
No, they just wanted to be able to say we were the first country in the world to make them compulsory, aren’t we clever and caring.
Ironic that while our government forced us to adopt them, in order to get any proper info on clean-up of broken ones I had to go to overseas websites, where I also learned that other countries already had collection/recycling schemes for used ones while our environmental leaders were still saying ‘er, we’re still working on that question’ and trying to catch up. And the “slow to come to full brightness” is annoying too.