Dim Bulbs
Print This Post
• 
Email This Post
• 23 comments • 
Filed Under: Featured
Tags: CAFE standards • compact fluorescent light • consumer advocates • consumer choice • doe • energy • environment • environmentalism • epa • government intervention • jane harman • light bulb • michele bachmann • pollution • samuel bodman
Edison’s words may have been true in the 1800s. Today, however, we have plenty of rules, thanks to the U.S. Congress. Some are so bizarre that you have to question the judgment of those who come up with them. One rule in particular is probably causing Edison to spin in his grave. His most famous invention, the incandescent light bulb, a mainstay in every American household for over a hundred years, has been banned by an act of Congress and will be replaced with the government-approved compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulb.
U.S. Rep. Jane Harman announced in a 2007 news release that her provision “bans Thomas Edison’s favorite oldie, the 100-Watt incandescent, by 2012, and will phase out inefficient light bulbs by 2014. By 2020, it requires that all light bulbs be 300 percent more efficient than today’s incandescents.”
Unfortunately, the federal government’s ban on products that happen to work just fine is nothing new. In writing about government-mandated products, I have noticed remarkable similarities in each case. They proceed through four phases and the light-bulb mandate is no exception.
Phase 1: Bureaucrats, “consumer advocates,” and environmentalists trumpet how wonderful the new product is. The extensive hoopla surrounding it can be boiled down to just two claims: big savings for the consumer and benefits to the environment.
The Department of Energy (DOE) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began to promote CFLs in 1999 with their “Change a Light, Change the World” program. The DOE’s and EPA’s promotional (lobbying?) efforts were directed at members of Congress and governors, plus state and local officials, to encourage their constituents to participate. In 2006 then-Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman said: “Here’s a simple step we can take to preserve energy resources, save money and help the environment.” This is the typical approach that the government uses to influence the marketplace. The government never states that its chosen prod-uct is better.
The “big savings” never refers to the retail price. This is because the government-endorsed products are always more expensive than the consumer-endorsed alternatives. A 75-watt incandescent bulb at my local Kroger store costs 22 cents. The 20-watt CFL (advertized as equivalent to the 75-watt bulb) costs $5.49–25 times more expensive. A three-way incandescent bulb (50-100-150 watts) costs $1.25. A three-way CFL (12-23-32 watts) costs $13.12. That’s ten-and-a-half times more expensive. So when the government, environmentalists, and consumer advocates talk about big savings, they are obviously not talking about the upfront cost. They mean the operating cost over the life of the product. CFLs are advertised to last up to ten times longer than the incandescent bulb and use 75 percent less energy.
In the not-too-distant past, patriotism was exploited by the government to elicit a desired response from its citizens. Today, it is environmentalism. This has become our de facto state religion. When the government says that we need to do something because it is good for the environment, we are expected to take it on faith. We are not to question the government’s motives or logic for taking away our freedom of choice, but are expected to feel good about forgoing our selfish consumer desires because there is no higher calling in this country than saving the environment.
Rejected by Consumers
Phase 2: Consumers weigh the advantages and disadvantages of this wonderful product and decide that it is not really that wonderful after all.
CFLs have been on the market for some time, but so far consumers have not been impressed. Besides being expensive and strange looking, the light quality doesn’t seem to please people. They are not as good for reading as incandescent bulbs are, for example. Many also complain that the bulbs flicker and buzz. Dimming the intensity of CFLs also poses a problem. It would appear that consumers have a very clear choice: They can pay more for the new inferior government bulb or pay far less for a superior existing product. This might help to explain why CFLs made up only 5 percent of the light-bulb market last year, according to H. Sterling Burnett of the National Center for Policy Analysis.
I have been trying one of these bulbs above the sink in our kitchen. When I get up in the morning to make coffee, I flip the switch—but the light doesn’t really turn on. It starts off with a faint glow that gradually brightens for two to three minutes until fully illuminated. To get the lighting I want I must also turn on the light over the stove (one of those bad incandescent bulbs) because it brightens immediately. So now I am using two lights instead of one. Because turning the CFL on and off is so annoying, it is the one light in the house that we tend to leave on all the time. Why not? It’s so cheap! This situation is analogous to what happened when the government imposed CAFE fuel-efficiency standards: People drove more.
Mandated by Government
Phase 3: Hating to have their recommendations ignored by the ignoramus class, the miffed elitist class takes steps to mandate their beloved product.
Here is a question that never gets a direct or honest answer: If these economical and environment-friendly products are so wonderful, why is it necessary to outlaw competing products? The unsaid answer appears to be: The government, consumer advocates, and environmentalists know what’s best for the consumer.
As Ed Feulner, president of the Heritage Foundation, put it, “It’s only inferior or unnecessary products that require congressional intervention to survive. Useful or innovative products thrive on their own.”
When Rep. Harman introduced the bipartisan ban on the Edison light bulb, she said, “Only 10 percent of the power used by today’s incandescent bulbs is emitted as light, while the other 90 percent is released as heat.” Let me see if I have this right. Here in Michigan, where we have long, cold winters, the incandescent light bulbs in our family room actually help keep my wife, daughter, and me warm while we watch TV and read. Since the lights in the rest of the house (except for the light over the sink) are all off, why is this considered a problem? In the summer, when it gets dark later, we hardly use the lights. So I fail to see why this issue demands heavy-handed congressional intervention.
The Energy Independence and Security Act, signed by President Bush in 2007, contained the incandescent ban, but it also included a Consumer Awareness Program, authorizing $40 million to help consumers make energy-efficient lighting “choices.” Thus as the government takes away our freedom of choice, it also spends our money to convince us that we really have a choice.
Bad Product
Phase 4: It becomes clear that the consumer’s reluctance was justified. The product is in fact bad. But it doesn’t matter because the old product that worked has been outlawed.
The DOE guidelines for CFLs suggest that they be left on for at least 15 minutes after they are turned on, prompting Andrew Ferguson of the Weekly Standard to comment, “Odd, isn’t it—an energy-saving device that you’re not supposed to turn off?” It turns out that the lifespan of a CFL depends on how many times you turn it on and off. Failure to keep the light on causes the bulbs to burn out just as fast as the Edison bulbs. There go those big savings. So try to get in the habit of not turning off the lights after using the bathroom, a closet, or the laundry room. However, plan to come back 15 minutes later to turn off the light.
And while CFLs that are left on may last ten times longer than incandescent lights, no one is saying that they will fully perform for that long. A Department of Energy study found that after 40 percent of the advertised service life, a quarter of the CFLs started to become dim bulbs. If you don’t mind having dim bulbs for 60 percent of the service life, then CFLs should make you happy.
While these mandated lights may be great for the environment, they are not so great for humans. In some people they trigger headaches or even migraines because of the nearly imperceptible flickering. The BBC reported that the bulbs can also increase the risk of seizures in people with epilepsy. According to the Winnipeg Free Press, the United Kingdom’s Health Protection Agency recommends that people be no closer than about a foot from these lights for more than an hour a day. The ultraviolet radiation emitted by CFLs is like direct sunlight on bare skin. Thus the government is mandating that we all have miniature sun lamps throughout our homes.
But maybe the government light bulb is not really good for the environment after all. It turns out that the each CFL contains five to ten milligrams of mercury. Mercury is one of the most toxic substances on earth; it can cause serious health problems, including nerve and kidney damage. The mandate will result in millions or billions of CFLs ending up in landfills where the mercury will leach out to contaminate the soil and groundwater.
So how do CFLs fit with the EPA’s recommendation that we purchase mercury-free products? It explains that the amount of mercury in the bulbs is much smaller than the amount in old-fashioned thermometers (which are disappearing from households) and watch batteries. Both statements may be true; however, I have never had a thermometer or watch battery explode, shatter, or break the way a light bulb does. It was also my choice to have, or not to have, a mercury-filled thermometer or watch battery. The EPA’s final defense is that the health and environmental risks of CFLs are insignificant compared to the risk presented by the mercury put out by coal-burning power plants.
So what happens if a CFL next to my daughter’s bed breaks? According to the EPA guidelines, I am to: 1) open the windows and evacuate the room for 15 minutes; 2) shut off the heating or air-conditioning system; 3) carefully scoop up the glass using stiff paper and place it in a glass jar or sealable plastic bag; 4) after vacuuming, wipe the canister and put the bag or debris in a sealed plastic bag; and 5) throw away clothing or bedding that comes in contact with the broken glass or the mercury-containing powder. I must not wash contaminated clothing or bedding because mercury fragments may also contaminate the washing machine or pollute the sewage.
Has this convinced you that the health and environmental risks of CFLs are minor?
As a result of the Energy Independence and Security Act, we will be forced to buy new light bulbs for every room in the house that are more expensive, of lower quality, dangerous to our health, and bad for the environment. Given this government mandate, the consumer has three options. The first is to go out and buy up all the old-fashioned Edison bulbs before they become illegal. The second option is to try to get a family discount on hazmat suits. The final option is to just say no to dim bulbs. U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann has proposed the Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act. She is facing extensive opposition from the green lobby, big government, and consumer groups. Sadly, fighting for freedom in this country has become an uphill battle.
Comment by R Esquivel on 30 June 2009:
I hate CFL’s. They suck. Just what idiot designed them and when did the nightmare happen that led to this disaster? Enter this is any “design” competition and it would be laughed off the stage, at least by serious, unbiased judges. Government backing of this idea is just as bad, if not worse, as the “lo flow toilet.” What a waste all the way around, especially to our freedom.
And now they want to design cars? ha ha ha ha ha, I’d cry if it was so ridiculous!
Comment by David Spellman on 30 June 2009:
Thank you for this article. I will make sure I buy a couple of cases of incandescent bulbs before they are illegal. Hopefully I can make them last a few years before I am subjected to endless headaches and health problems courtesy of the totalitarian state.
Comment by scott g on 1 July 2009:
FYI regarding mercury: Elemental mercury is not toxic – it’s mercury salts that are. Government propaganda influences even the fabulous writers on these pages.
Comment by Joe Hamlet on 1 July 2009:
In the end, I think it is less a matter of how toxic the bulbs are. It is more (to me anyway) a matter of the government once again requiring something not necessary to be required. It is a matter of gov’t wanting to control every facet of my life, and I am going to push back. I don’t need the gov’t dictating to me on all things. I know they don’t get it, but I can think for myself. And concerning the comment by Mr Spellman above, I have already stocked up on more regular light bulbs of 40, 60 and 100 watts than I will use for the rest of my life. Every time I went to the grocery store I would just throw a few in the cart. Did that for six months.
Comment by Bruce Bishop on 14 July 2009:
Excellent article.
I would suggest that we will see parallels to the bans on DDT and Freon-12, where the poor will suffer at the hands of the do-gooders who are supposed to be looking out for them. Will the poor resort to candles and kerosene lamps because they can’t afford those damned $4.00 twisted Algore lightbulbs? And, if they do, won’t that be worse for the environment? Someone needs to introduce Congress to the Law of Unintended Consequences and the Implications Wheel.
Comment by Dave Undis on 21 July 2009:
Send your light bulbs to Washington!
It’s easy to dispose of dangerous CFL bulbs properly. Just send them to your Senator or Congressman in Washington. Or send them to the EPA.
You can find your Senator’s mailing address at http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
You can find your Congressman’s mailing address at http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml
Or send your used light bulbs to EPA headquarters in Washington:
Environmental Protection Agency
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Washington has been throwing its problems in our laps for too long. Here is a chance to return the favor.
Please spread the word about our web site:
http://www.SendYourLightBulbsToWashington.com
Comment by solinox on 22 July 2009:
We actually switched our house completely over to CFLs several years back, when we started finding them available in bulk at warehouse clubs. Our family has several visually impaired members, and CFLs allowed us to get a higher lumens for less wattage, giving us better lighting for the blind folks without having to rewire the house and buy special fixtures.
However, I’m sorely tempted to go to the trouble and then stockpile the incandescents instead. I’ve been very dissapointed in the lifespan of the CFLs (they don’t seem to last any longer at all), I haven’t noticed any difference in my electric bill that would make up for the extra cost, and the thought of haz-mat cleanup in a house with six children (and 3 blind people) is insane!
Comment by Andrew_M_Garland on 22 July 2009:
The CFL Advertising Account
My research says that average CFL will turn on 2000 times before its electronics fail. The recommendation to leave them on for 15 minutes is a crazy interpretation of that fact. Leaving them on doesn’t heal them. But, hey, at least if you leave them on for 15 minutes each time, you will get 500 hours use out of them before they fail.
If you do that, when you don’t need to have them on, you are just wasting electricity along with watching them fail.
Comment by James Madison Fan on 23 July 2009:
What I\’m trying to figure out is the logic in making standard bulbs illegal? If standard bulbs had a chemical that caused kids to be born with flippers that would make sense but that\’s not the case.
The only reason Washington loves this new bulb is because it supposedly doesn’t consume as much energy. Even if that were an unimpeachable fact, and as Solinox so deftly points out it isn’t, the last I checked I\’m paying the electric bill not them so why in the nine sweltering hells are they passing any sort of bill making a perfectly good product illegal when there isn’t some public benefit from doing so?
I have an air conditioner. Are they going to make those illegal because they consume too much energy and force me to get a more – energy and economically prudent – fan instead? How about we get rid of refrigerators and freezers and go back to the good old days when the ice man came by in his horse drawn carriage and dropped off a block every week? That would save energy and be far less polluting, except of course for the methane from the droppings.
What\’s worse is these bulbs are an ecological fad without any real understanding of the long term effects. It reminds me of when the Uber Greenies were screaming about paper bags causing deforestation and destroying the planet so they forced plastic bags on supermarkets. Here we are a couple decades later and plastic bags are an environmental nightmare that dwarfs any concern the paper bags represented into insignificance.
Another environmental time-bomb being marketed as “green” is the electric car. What happens when the Lithium batteries start leaking into the water table? Why are they allowed to market them as “green” when 80% of the power grid is run by fossil fuels, including coal, so charging one from a socket puts far more CO2 into the air than would be released if it was burnt at the source?
It would really be nice if we taught our kids science, logic, and critical thinking in schools. You don’t need Nostradamus or a crystal ball to look into the future, just a well trained noodle between your ears.
Comment by macbeach on 23 July 2009:
I’m no greeny, but I started using the CFLs many years ago when they were relatively unheard of but started showing up at places like Costco, where people engage in conspicuous consumption.
My goal was to avoid the regular replacement of light bulbs that were inconvenient to change, involving ladders screw drivers, etc.
Yes, some of them burned out sooner than I thought they would. Others did not. After about three cycles of bulb changing I hardly ever had to deal with these again, and the worst offender, that involved mounting a ladder at the top of a stairway and dealing with three stubborn screws, was still working when I sold the house 10 years later.
In a condominium now, with several hundred light fixtures that come on every day, it was a constant struggle to get the maintenance people to keep up with burned out bulbs. I suggested and eventually obtained the approval to try CFLs and over the next two years we replaced burned out bulbs with CFL. Again, there were a few cases where the CFLs themselves had to be replaced too early, but again, after getting past these “lemons” the need to change bulbs goes WAY down. According to our treasurer our electric bill went way down too. Our maintenance staff now has more time to trim hedges and clean up the pool.
By the time analysts figure out the details of the costs of CFLs vs incandescent bulbs we will have moved on to the new LED bulbs, which I’m already using in a few cases. My guess is that CFLs won’t be around that much longer. LED bulbs are mostly being made for special case uses right now, but that will change soon enough. The fact that you can put your hand on an LED bulb after it’s been on for an hour and it is hardly warm tells you a lot about how efficient they are.
I am of course against any government intervention in what consumers chose to buy.
Some things I also want to point out that I’ve seen misleading comments about: The companies that make (or brand) CFLs and the ones who make or brand incandescents are mostly the same, GE, Phillips, followed by companies less well known. I doubt anybody is being put out of business over all this. CFL’s only cost upward of $5 if you seek out the highest priced retailer you can find. The discount stores have 6 and 8-packs that make these things cost less than $2… in my mind a small price to pay for spending less time on a ladder in precarious places. Finally, almost all businesses and most homes are now equipped with old familiar fluorescent tubes that contain the same materials used in the CFLs. Are the opponents of CFLs suggesting that those all be replaced with billions of incandescent bulbs too?
Again I’m all in favor of letting the market work things out, only in this case I’m pretty sure the old incandescent bulb will fall by the wayside eventually, even without a meddlesome government.
Comment by peter dublin on 24 July 2009:
Re Lifespan… it’s even better (or worse):
http://www.ceolas.net/#li15x
Switch on, switch off, leave on:
Modern CFLs are still slow to come on in the cold,
they have a switch on power surge,
and every time they are switched on and off their lifespan is lowered, far more than doing the same with ordinary light bulbs.
Frequent on and off use can bring lifespan right down to light bulb levels: More in the following section.
For all these reasons CFLs tend to be left on, which itself of course also increases energy usage and running cost.
More about lifespan:
“Part of the problem, it turns out, is that the “lifespan” of a CFL bulb has been artificially measured. International standards currently require a manufacturer to run the bulb in three hour cycles in the lab, only switching it on at the beginning and off at the end. In other words, the bulb burns for three hours straight with no interference.
In the real world, things are very different. Many householders, particularly in these energy-conscious times, switch on and off lights frequently as they enter and leave rooms. Many modern CFLs are not built to withstand short switching cycles. One recent study shows the lifespan of a CFL can be shortened by a massive 85% under normal domestic household use conditions. In other words, if the lab lifespan was 2,000 hours, you might get only 300 hours (four months) out of that CFL if you were unlucky. A 6,000 hour bulb (five years) would give you only 12 months or so of light before dying unceremoniously.” [my emphasis]
See the long and referenced New Zealand analysis (scroll half way): http://www.thebriefingroom.com/archives/2008/08/mercury_in_cfls.html
The recent US Lawrence Livermore Lab study echoes the above, showing that for realistic household use where a light is used for an hour before being turned off, it suffers a 50% reduction in its rated lifetime. The loss to incandescent lifetimes was about 20%. Even worse, if the use of the light is only a half hour, the life of a CFL is reduced by 85%, whereas incandescent bulb lifetimes suffer only a 25% loss.
Meanwhile the official advice…like you say, is (generally) if you leave a room for more than 15 minutes according to USA Dept of Energy, which goes on to list several situations when leaving lights on for longer may be better or worse – so of course the lights will tend to be forgotten about and left on more.
The encouragement of cheap Chinese imports may have lowered quality, including lifespan.
German consumer testing October 2008 in any case showed lifespan problems (in whatever way multiyear lifespans are measured!). In the USA, the Lawrence Livermore Labs study concluded that the lifetime of the average CFL on the consumer market had a median life well short of its reputation or rating.
Loss of brightness also reduces effective lifespan, like you say.
More about the Maine breakage – and other – mercury reports,
see http://www.ceolas.net/#li19x (also, why the old chestnut about “coal power mercury being worse” doesn’t hold)
Comment by James Madison Fan on 24 July 2009:
Macbeach,
You make some good points and I’m glad you have had a good experience with these alternate types of bulbs. Unfortunately I haven’t.
The first time I tried to use CFL bulbs (chain store 4 pack) two actually blew up scattering glass and white powder all over my bathroom and living room. The two that didn’t blow up put out around 75% of the light they were supposed to. One lasted a couple weeks the other lasted around a year. I get that out of standard bulbs so I wasn’t impressed. A long time has passed so the product is probably better now and I might give them a second chance but that should be my choice, not Pelosi’s and Obama’s.
I also bought one of the LED hands free lights (elastic strap around the head) at OSH. It has three LED’s and it is supposed to put out as much light as my 4 AA incandescent but it doesn’t. It never burns out and the batteries last forever but it doesn’t do the job it is supposed to do. Why carry around an LED light that puts out 75% of the light my other lamps do and pay more for it?
All I ask a company to do is to give me what I want – not close – exactly the same or better, especially if I’m paying more. If not, then I’m sticking with the old product until they can provide a proper replacement.
As a Libertarian and a Constitutionalist, my biggest problem is there really isn’t any reason to illegalize incandescent bulbs. This is as inappropriate as illegalizing Hummers because they are gas hogs or illegalizing MP3 players because they burn through too many batteries.
If the CFL’s and LED make incandescents obsolete that’s fine with me. If I have to drive down to Mexico to find one because no one is buying them anymore then I’ll give them another try under the assumption all the bugs have been worked out.
On the other hand if the Government is going to pass a nanny law and force me to give up a legitimate product for one that I don’t like and is more expensive, I’ll drive to Mexico and bring back a van-load or buy them on Ebay and have them shipped here from China or India and consider it my own personal Boston Tea Party.
This kind of nonsensical law is exactly what the Founders hated. I’d expect it to be struck down by the Supreme Court but I doubt anyone is going to spend the money necessary to fight a court battle over their right to buy a particular kind of li
Comment by peter dublin on 25 July 2009:
Good to see the thought put into this article!
Amazingly, so few people question the BASIS of the bans:
there is no energy shortage, and if there was, the price rise would mean people buying more energy efficient products anyway
(compare with cars).
No need to legislate for Obama Cars and Obama Light Bulbs!
As for emissions: Light bulbs don’t give out gases, power stations might.
Even if it’s (wrongly) assumed that power stations and low emission distribution can’t be dealt satisfactorily, light bulb tax would give government money and keep choice, though it’s also wrong in principle (why should emission-free households be taxed).
For anyone interested:
Why All Energy Efficiency Regulation is Wrong
http://www.ceolas.net/#cc2x onwards
The Consumer Side
Product Performance — Construction and Appearance
Price Increase — Lack of Actual Savings: Money, Energy or Emissions
Choice and Quality affected
The Manufacturer Side
Meeting Consumer Demand — Green Technology — Green Marketing
The Energy Side
Energy Supply — Energy Security — Cars and Oil Dependence
The Emission Side
Buildings — Industry — Power Stations — Light Bulbs —
A New Car Deal for America: All cars available and their emission output lowered
Comment by Jose Penate on 7 August 2009:
The argument that heat is a by-product of Incandescent bulbs and that that is a good thing for cold regions is pathetic.
Otherwise, this is a great article.
-Jose
Comment by Untermensch on 6 October 2009:
Late to the party, but my experience with CFL’s is pretty bad. It is, at least in part, because I live in one of those areas of the country where the electrical grid’s capacity is just a bit inadequate and the line voltage has been pushed up to about 125–130 volts to get more juice in the grid (a not uncommon situation around the country). It gives shorter life on incandescent bulbs, but I buy 130-volt bulbs (available at most home improvement stores) and I get better life at the price of a very small reduction in light output. However, what I noticed with the CFLs is that the higher voltage really seemed to hammer them even worse. I put in about twelve in the house (at a cost of ~$6 each) and all but one failed within two months (the one that didn’t fail lasted about two years). I got at least three months out of the incandescents, so the CFLs were a total waste for me. I’ve not bought them since. I’ve seen no reason to buy them since and unless I hear of a dramatic improvement in their quality (so far I’ve not), I don’t want to try them again.
Regarding macbeach’s comment about them being ideal in hard-to-reach places, you can also get ultra-long-life incandescents for that same space. They are, in essence, higher voltage bulbs that you run at standard line voltage. They are dimmer than they would be at the higher voltage they can take, but they run at a lower efficiency and don’t wear out nearly as fast. So there are alternatives for those spaces. In fact, in my case, the CFL would require replacement much *sooner* than the incandescent in the same spot (unless I get really lucky).
It’s too bad no major media source ever questions the government mandates for things like this. Instead they simply accept that our overlords know best.
Pingback by Reason.tv: Light Bulbs Vs. The Nanny State - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine on 6 October 2009:
[...] lights (CFLs), which use less energy than conventional incandescents. Although CFLs present any number of problems (even beyond a much higher initial cost), governments all over the globe are determined to [...]
Comment by KBM on 6 October 2009:
The only CFLs that I have found provide nice light are sold by Home Depot. The other ones don’t cut it. I’m also prone to migraines. I was working in a government office building and the light was so bad that after 30 minutes in a conference room I had developed a screaming migraine. Not fun.
Pingback by Recently at Reason.tv: Light Bulbs vs. The Nanny State - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine on 7 October 2009:
[...] lights (CFLs), which use less energy than conventional incandescents. Although CFLs present any number of problems (even beyond a much higher initial cost), governments all over the globe are determined to [...]
Comment by Steve Heising on 8 October 2009:
Here Here.
When you can show me peer reviewed proof that Burning Fossil Fuels at an ever increasing rate is not having an impact on climate change, that Ice does not melt at 32 Degrees, and that mercury released in burning coal and all the other contaminants from coal ash, not to mention mountain top removal mining are safe, you will not convince me that saving energy by phasing out the current inefficient lighting is not a good idea.
We did not ban Incandescent lights here in the US. One can still get them for heating chicken coops. Instead, we increased the efficiency standard for lighting products. There are incandescent, inefficienct flourescent technologies and a number of products that exploited loopholes in current standards that no longer make the cut or provide a new minimum lumens per watt.
We can no longer afford to continue burning coal and releasing CO2, HG and other compounds into the atmosphere as if they were of no consequense. Since incandescent lamps costs just 25 cents but come with a $50 utility bill, you are free to continue to stockpile and use your incandescents. We can only hope that energy costs continue to rise so that your shortsighted choice to stock pile edison lamps costs you 100 in utility bills before you see the light.
If you are concerned about the mercury and your electricity is supplied by “not so clean coal”, for each incandescent lamp you use, more than 5 Mg of mercury is emitted into the environment at the power plant. So this means the amount of mercury and other pollutants that are kept out of the air, out of the watershed, and out of the food chain (in the form of less pollution from not using the incandescent lamp) is actually greater than the amount of mercury in a modern CFL. So if you use one and recycle it you net less mercury released in the environment. If you throw it in the trash, it end up in the landfill where it could form methyl mercury (reacting with the methane) and thus escape and contaminate everthing every where but you still have less mercury in the environment.
The amount of coal that is not burned is significant in that the whole coal to steam to electricity to transmission energy conversion process is more than 50% waste before the electrons even get to your meter. Then you want to waste another 90% as heat, it’s your choice. You can use your toaster to heat your kitchen too.
CFL’s cost a $1 or $2 or so here, but you can spend more and get a better product. If you are not happy with a CFL take it back and try a different one. If you put more than a 20 watt cheap one in a can upside down in the ceiling, the heat will rapidly kill the electronics in the lamp.
Sure the industry is all hip to the governments efforts to kill off their 125 year old cash cow. If I could sell you 10 regular light bulbs 1 per year for 10 years, or just sell you 1 lamp that actually lasted 10 years, I would go for the 10 lamps. Its good for the sales numbers. And then I would make the other lamp as cheap as I can, But I would charge more for it cause I dont make that many relatively speaking. And maybe I wouldn’t make it so good so that you’d go back to buying the 10 lamps I’d rather sell you cause they have such a high profit margin.
Then I would generalize about how bad the 1 was and that therefore all others like the 1 are bad. Keep on keeping on. Climate change is a hoax anyway. Glaciers are not receeding, the polar ice is not melting, and nothing bad could possibly happen to all the coral reefs and plankton in the ocean related to my personal preference for the incandescent lamp.
Or maybe quit buying the cheapest CFL’s that China, Inc. can make.
Problem is that practically 100% of all CFL’s are made in China. Even all the CFL’s lamps that have a power factor >.9 are also made in China. There is no standard that requires anything better than .5 or that requires manufacturers to properly recycle their products or to actually make them last as long as the UP nine years clams on the label. So you get what they want to sell you.
There are CFL’s that actually print useful information on the packaging. Lamp color temperature and color rendering index are two commonly used lighting metrics that are missing on most packaging. Most marketers are content to claim warm white, soft white, day light or other terms that have no meaning, (kinda like natural or green) on their packaging. Marketing types are pretty creative with terms like soft white, warm white, and every other possible description of daylight or a more natural white… when 2700K is yellow. warm yellow, fuzzy yellow. just doesn’t have the same ring to it.
A CFL with a magnetic ballast (120 cycle flicker) with a single yellow phosphor (and the green from the Mercury) is going to be horrible.
On the other side of the spectrum, a DAYLIGHT 5000 – 6500K COLOR, 85 CRI with electronic three-way ballast (30,000 cycles/second with 15, 23 and 27 watt positions) with a three phosphor RGB blend is going to be better for reading, while a 15 or 20 watt 3500K color or even a 2700K color is going to be better for relaxing by the fire.
A CFL with an electronic ballast with .91 power factor, 5550K, 93CRI (with the addition of 2 more rare earth phosphors) would be still better for a daylight color match with a higher Color Rendition Index
CFL’s that will start down to -20 degrees are still going to take time to warm up to full brightness when its cold. New elecronic ballasts will typically strike instantly but will still require some time to warm up to full brightness as the lamp warms up to proper operating temperatures. More expensive phosphor blends will last longer and produce a fuller spectrum and higher color rendition index for brighter more natural looking colors.
A CFL’s that give you a sunburn could also stimulate the skin to produce vitamin D. So don’t sit within one foot of a cheap lamp all day. And I think UV should be listed on the label. Some lamps add UV shields to prevent UV emissions. Too much UV is certainly bad, but so is too little. There are “Locker Room” CFL’s that actually kill odors and germs with UV (typically not the UV from the Mercury, but uv produced with additonal rare earth phosphors. The UV then reacts with a titanium dioxide catalyst to oxidiize chemicals and kill bacteria and viruses. There are also grow lamps and animal health lamps that are designed to emit some UV to better mimic natural sunshine. There are specific UV lamps for sterilizing water and air in air handling units.
Many CFL’s come with Energy Star ratings, but many that do not are also excellent choices as the Energy Star rating only requres a 0.5 ballast factor and does not differentiate those that have a 0.9 ballast factor. It would be easier to tell the bad apples from the good ones if there were more standardized labeling.
There are CFL lamps rated for 15,000 hours or more than 2x as long as the average cheapest crap that China can make and the big boxes can stock. There is variation in any production batch and some lamps are more likely to fail in particular applications. Add together cheap electronics, cheap phosphors and cheap parts and you get what you pay for. It traveled a long way to get here from China and it could have been damaged in transit. Or it could have been a bad batch or it could have been a failure of a lower quality component to begin with. If you don’t take it back and make the manufacturer/retailer honor the warranty, they won’t get any better cause they don’t have to and they dont want to.
Most stores that sell CFL’s take them back for recycling and proper handling. Home Depot, Ace Hardware, Wal-Mart, Ikea, and more all offer CFL recycling. So unless you never go back to the store, and can’t remember to take back a bad CFL, there is no excuse not to take them back where you purchased them. You can even mail them in for recycling if you prefer. Or even mail them to the EPA, if you want to risk mailing a suspicious white power and a electronics package to the government. Maybe the best thing is to stick then in a bag in a box with a Business Reply Envelope from a bank credit card offer you don’t want and drop it in the mail.
New dimmable reflector CFL lamp designs are better but still have issues. New cold cathode CFL designs however are perfectly suited for dimming and flashing applications and come in all kinds of Las Vegas colors.
Yes you can break the lamps. And you should take some precautions if you do. If you are particularly clumsy or just unlucky, you can buy CFL that are contained in a shatter proof coating. I personally like the ones that are enclosed in the round ball format with an outer glass bulb. I use them in the bathroom. The light starts out dimmer and then warms to full brightness which i personally find to be an advantage when coming in from the dark. I also like the new smaller reflector style bulbs that reflect more of the light out of the fixture. Both these formats minimizes the chance for breakage of the inner fluorescent tube.
It doesn’t really work all that well to put a standard spiral lamp in a fixture like a 6 inch ceiling can if most of the light never makes it out of the fixture. So you put in a higher wattage CFL, and the heat (which rises) trapped in the can cooks the electronics. The new BR30 and BR20 choices for ceiling cans can be enhanced by adjusting the depth of the socket, and by replacing dark trim rings with white or specular colored trim rings. While your at it, consider the air tight gasketed trim insert to cut down on the chimney effect of cans in ceilings. Hot lights in small chimneys tend to create a stack effect that pulls conditioned or heated air out of the room costing you twice. In the summer, you pay more for airconditioning to remove the heat from the lamps.
Again, repeat after me. CEO’s, accountants and sales managers do not kill cash cows, snakes don’t eat their tails, and mercury pollution and CO2 from coal fired power plants doesn’t matter and marketing people never make stuff up.
If you want to stockup on incandescent lights go for it. We’re not going to make them any more because after 125 years we can’t make them work any better than 10 lumens per watt. The companies that make them are not going to stop making them and the people that can’t connect the dots between the inefficiency of the light bulb and a higher electric bill won’t stop buying them. So the only force left that can impact this problem is government. You know protect the common good of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations. I can hardly wait for the Light Bulb police to come knocking on doors in my neighborhood.
Compare 10 lumens per watt the light produced by an incandescent to 3rd generation 4-foot linear T8 fluorescents in offices and schools which produce nearly 100 lumens per watt. CFL’s are in the 40-60 lumen per watt range, LED’s are also in the 40-60 lpw range). The same companies make all three kinds of light bulbs and they don’t pay the utility bill or worry all that much about Climate Change Implications or Pollution. All that matters is short term profit and cash cows that never die are very profitable. GE was working on a better higher tech version for the incandescent light bulb, but has since dropped the effort to focus on LED’s. because you can violate the laws of physics any more than by denying the existance of gravity makes one weight less.
So in the mean time, write the date on the base of each CFL/LED you install, the store you bought it from and the number of years it is supposed to last. That way, you’ll know which store to take it back to and what brand not to buy next time. If enough of us did this, the retailers would quit selling the inferior products.
Were seeing a lot of LED Chistmas lights over the last few seasons. There have been problems with the CHEAP ones. Cheap LED’s BR30 style spot lights are now coming out in the $15 to $45 range. The good ones however cost $85 – $125, so lets all rush out and buy the cheapest ones. If we don’t like them, then all LEDS are bad.
LED’s have issues too. They are great for flashlights, not so great for general glare free shadow free illumination. Many claim specifications that are purely fiction (according to LBL, CLTC, LRC and others.) It’s as if the salesmen and the marketing department just made up something to adorne the packaging because the engineering specifications were not all that stellar. The color shits as they age, and many have heat related parblems and premature failures.
So go ahead continue using incandescents as long as possible. Deliberately plan ahead to waste energy and natural resources, ignore any pollution and carbon emitted at the source, and send too much money to the utility each month. Harping about the nanny state banning your favorite sushi flavor because it happens to contain toxic bacteria, heavy metals and could be fatal is nothing to worrying about. You likely bought some cheap crap that failed in the first 2 weeks. Your probabally to busy to recycle all those plastic water bottles.
You got some bad lamps, you got taken. Why not try a better product next time. Even a couple of “better” products side by side. If you don’t like them after 2 or three weeks, take them back and try something else. (I always reserve final judgement on the color of a new fluorescent lamp until after a 100 hour burn-in for the phosphors to stabilize. Otherwise new lamps even the good ones often look dim or harsh.)
Otherwise, if you’re still too lazy (or too dissappointed) to take back bad bulbs or turn off the lights when you leave the room, get an occupancy sensor and a dimmer. That way you will have complete control and energy efficiency because the occupancy sensor will turn off the lights automatically (or after 30 seconds to 30 minutes) Might as well add automatic and remote control the inefficient light source. The more time its off, the less it costs to run.
Cheap LEDS are coming. It is kind of like betting your children’s future on Carbon Capture and Sequestration and safe handling and storage of Nuculear waste (which are both myths) while you continue down a road that ultimately leads to mutually assured planetary wide habitat destruction.
May organic LED’s or some other new technology will win. For me, I’m betting on daylighting, an old technology that is new again, and on Electron Stimulated Luminescence (TM). If this flies, it promises to make both the LED’s and CFL’s look like bad dreams. It is reported to lasts 6000 hours. It is fully dimmable, it looks like an incandescent, it contains no mercury, it costs less than $20 and it should be in retail stores in 2010.
But, for any meaningful progress now on Carbon Reduction efforts, and for the sake of economics and cash flow, (you keep more money in your pocket each month, and send less each month to the utilities), using the average or better CFL’s is the way to go.
As Americans, we amount to nothing more than wasteful energy hogs. We use 2x as much per capita as any other nation. It doesn’t have to be this way except for the profits in fossil fuel energy and the inefficiency inherent in the least first cost 125 year old technology. What would happen if everyones energy bill was reduced by half? not everyone will stockpile lamps and buy and sell at flea markets and in the black market. The us electicity consumption will drop significantly when the good old incandescent is no longer on store shelves everywhere.
Why the world will fall apart, our utilities will have to stop building so many new coal fired power plants, they will have to lay off people, our economy will be shattered. Our god given right to privatized the profits and exclude all externalities in the accounting is threatened. Or we could become energy efficient and we could all stop bowing to the Chineese Owners of our debt, the Arabian Oil Sheiks (they don’t like us, they like our oil money that we borrowed from the Chineese), and the Corporate overlords who don’t kill the cash cows and take their profits over seas. Or Not. Each of us gets to decide how it is going to go. History will surely record our generation(s) as the one(s) responsble for destroying the only habitable planet we have. For if we don’t each get started fixing the problems, there’s going to be no turning back the clock for future generations for all the species that inhabit this planet.
Comment by Jim Pier on 9 October 2009:
Sheesh. Somebody has too much time on his hands. The point of the article, which apparently escapes Mr. Heising, is that we ought to be free to decide for ourselves what is in our interests, so long as in so doing we do not injure others or infringe on their legitimate rights. (The presumption that the “overconsumption” of fossil fuels does so, as posited by alarmists such as Heising, does not hold water with a great many Americans, myself included.)
Mr. Heising’s comment, as long-winded and banal as it is, so sanctimonious and loaded with sarcasm, addresses not a whit this primary consideration. It may prove to be true that the CFL bulb is the way to go. That decision ought to be left to consumers and producers, and implemented by way of unfettered exchange rather than at the point of a gun. State coercion of such decisions tramples on our most basic private property rights, a threat to modern society much more imminent and real than any global warming nightmare.
Clearly, however, Mr. Heising, self-appointed seer, knows best, and since the government happens to see the light, he enthusiastically supports its tyranny, at least in this instance. I wonder if there are liberties of his own with which he is unwilling to part – even in the event that someone else should determine that for him to do so is for the greater good?
Comment by peter in dublin on 24 October 2009:
Agree with Jim Pier
While Steve Heising makes some interesting points,
CFL right-or-wrong doesn’t justify banning the alternatives
(and re mercury,
http://www.ceolas.net/#li198x
deals in depth with why the “coal power emissions are worse” argument doesn’t hold up – including that EPA enforcements and recent new technology implementation means USA is well on track with 90% mercury emission reduction target by 2018 anyway )
Put another way:
Americans (like Europeans) choose to buy ordinary light bulbs around 8 to 9 times out of 10 (depending on light industry data used, 2008-9)
Banning what people want gives the supposed savings – no point in banning an impopular product = little savings!
If new LED lights – or sufficiently efficient incandescents, CFLs etc – are good,
people will buy them – no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (little point).
If they are not good, people will not buy them – no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (no point).
The arrival of the transistor didn’t mean that more energy using radio tubes were banned… they were bought less anyway.
Also see my earlier comment…
Comment by peter in dublin on 25 October 2009:
The taxation alternative
As seen from my earlier comments, I agree that the targeting of ordinary incandescent light bulbs is not justified
(and not warranted as “promoting innovation”, fot the reasons just given, above)
But OK:
Let’s say politicians remain determined about this and other efficiency based bans.
Is there a better way for all concerned?
Sure there is – taxation on products based on efficiency.
Now, noone likes taxes.
But these are taxes that people would accept.
Firstly, since they know – and would be reminded – that bans are the alternative,
Secondly, since politicians can give them less sales tax on efficient alternatives.
Taxation is better than bans because:
– Bans are normally applied to products unsafe to use.
But we are not talking about lead paint here.
The object is simply to reduce energy consumption, like the use of electricity.
Throughout all markets,
taxes, levies, duties are more common and more acceptable than bans to reduce consumption.
– Taxation allows continued purchase of products or product versions which offer other advantages to
consumers. Energy efficiency isn’t all they want in a product!
– Like bans, taxation lowers sales.
Unlike bans, taxation gives direct government income with the lowered sales.
– Government income can be massive,
since these are often cheap popular products that can absorb a large taxation.
Take ordinary incandescent light bulbs:
Much cheaper than the opposition,
high sales (2 billion in USA),
high turnover (relatively short 1000 hour lifespan),
so sales reduction from a 1-2 dollar tax raises future government billions of dollars
- and that is just from light bulbs.
– Government income can be used to lower energy use and emissions (home energy and insulation
schemes, renewable energy projects etc) more than remaining product use (like light bulbs) raises them.
– Sales taxes on efficient products can be lowered, making them cheaper
– Taxation is easier than bans to apply without having to worry about product variety and availability,
easier to adjust, and to adapt to new market conditions with new products,
and can be lifted when no longer required (such as when electricity emissions are judged to be low enough)
So, while taxation is still wrong for the rerasons given,
if bans are the alternative, a tax is better all round.
For more see http://www.ceolas.net/#gg5x
Comment by Theresa Nash on 7 January 2010:
Thank you Mr. Heising. Beautifully stated.