Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Climate Change Forum CFL - tempers in the house of (representatives ? )

I have a light that I keep on 24/7. I had an incandescent bulb in there, it lasted three years. My brother changed it for a compact fluorescent light a little less than a year ago. The compact fluorescent light burned out two months ago. It did not last longer than that incandescent bulb, it lasted definitely shorter, and now I have a hazardous material to dispose of. I'm not so impressed. My brother said it was due to a voltage spike, which we are prone to in this area. The only thing that would have saved it would be a full house surge protector, which I cannot afford. The compact fluorescent light bulb is not the answer to every man's prayer. At four times the price of a regular light bulb, it should have lasted at least 12 years. Does anybody know what I can do with a blown out compact fluorescent light bulb? Before I wrap it in newspaper in plastic and send it to the landfill. :-(

Hi A~R,
In our town the local hardware stores all accept CFL's for recycling. Any place that sells them should, but....

Even our landfill accepts them for recycling. Just call around a bit.

Good luck.

p.s. Is that 24/7 bulb exposed to temperature changes? When they first came out, I think I heard that the CFL's don't do as well in garages, porches, etc. because of the temp. extremes, but I'm not sure about that anymore. But you're right about the power too, CFL's need a strong steady supply--no dimmer switches either!

The bulb is in my kitchen, in an alcove. It gets no cooler or warmer than the rest of the kitchen. We have power outages and surges due to lightning on a relatively frequent basis. I guess it took one hit too many. That's why my computer runs on an uninterruptable power source. I can't get ups's for all my lights, though. It simply wouldn't be practical.

CFL's are usually rated between 5,000 and 7,000 hours. Sounds like you had a 5,000 hour bulb. The claim that they last for years is based on 4 hours per day usage. I had one break while it was on, and my cat knocked one off of the table last week. I don't plan on using them again. Too much of a risk.

"I don't plan on using them again. Too much of a risk." Max wrote.

We have to use them in Oz, as the regular bulbs are being phased out. I don't know how it was done but they work on dimmer switches and there are different sorts of shadings. For instance I don't like the operating table glare of the originals and now there are other less glary ones available. We are able to take the old bulbs to the Tip for recycling without problem. They also have different shapes for different light fittings and the only big problem is that people who have those tiny down-lights still have to use halogen bulbs I believe.

I like to think I am helping the planet! And since Paul convinced me I am doing the right thing with his statistics, I think these bulbs are a step along the way.

Sorry for the late reply. I just don' visit on week-ends just too busy with house work. So here I am on Monday. Hey, that's nice of you. Thanks a lot!! Same to you . . .

Regards,
comparatif simulation taux credit auto - Taux crédit auto. Comparatif des offres! Les meilleurs taux crédit auto sont sur le net !comparatif simulation taux credit auto

You are helping the planet , thank you

I wanted to update my CFL bulb usage.

I just happened to tune to cspan today and in the house
they are discussing HR 2417 energy efficiency for light bulbs.

the republicans are focussing on the difference in the cost of the light bulbs and the Democrats are focussing on the benefits of the light bulbs.

well after using these bulbs for several years now , I have only had to replace 3 bulbs , and CFL bulbs are the only bulbs I use.

normally as I recall when I used to use the standard incandescent bulbs I would need to replace a bulb every month or so.

so even though they do cost a little more , it sure does save me the money and time I used to spend driving to the store and shopping for the old crappy bulbs we all used to use.

Plus as an added savings so far I have saved apx $9.00 because I havent had to buy more incandescent bulbs , in fact when I bought the CFL bulbs the first time apx 3-4 years ago I also purchased 4 extra 4 packs of these CFL bulbs and the CFL porch and flood light bulbs.

I am absolutely satisfied with these bulbs , however after hearing the republicans bitching about them and never telling the real reason they are bitching about them
( the real reason being that they will cause their constituents , the large energy suppliers to loose millions if not billions in energy sales )

any way I have now decided that the LED lighting is my prefered choice , knowing that it bothers the republicans so much.

and the fact that the LED bulbs use much less energy than even the CFL bulbs means that those who fund the republicans wont have as much to fund republicans with.

which should help to ensure a cleaner safer and better world to live in.


LOL

Really?! I guess LEDs have come a long way since my day when they were about as good as halogens. You are talking about white light, right? Colored LEDs are relatively very efficient but are colored.

The true winner of efficient light bulbs is what's used by people for whom the cost really matters. People with huge power bills for lighting. Those are gas discharge lamps. Very old technology, but still trumps and modern fancy stuff. They're used in warehouses and other large buildings, streetlights, and even car headlights.

Well, some cars use them, but not very many. I'm not completely sure why, but they mostly seem to have been a flash in the pan. One thing, they are too bright and can blind oncoming drivers.

Bill Gill

yes they did , here is a 35 Watt street light for instance
http://gloplus.com/commercial/street.html




and here are some spot and flood lights
http://gloplus.com/commercial/flood.html



and here are residential 8 Watt lights

http://gloplus.com/residential/bulb.html





so if you were using the old crappy 100 watt incadessant bulbs and you switch to the 60 watt equivalent LED lights you are saving 92 Watts for every bulb you use.

11 of these bulbs can save you a killo watt hour every hour you use them.

use them 10 hours a day and you save 10 kwh a day

365 days using them = 3650 kwh a year.

at 12 cents per kwh you would save apx $443.26 a year using them.

the cost to run the CFL bulbs 10 hrs a day x 365 days
$38.54

11 8 watt bulbs = 88 watts
88 watts x 10 hpd = 880 watts
880 watts x 365 days = 321,200 watts

321.2 kwh x .12 cents pkwh = $38.54

to run the incandesant bulbs 10 hrs a day x 365 days
$481.8

11 100 watt bulbs = 1100 watts
1100 watts x 10 hpd = 11,000 watts
11,000 watts x 365 days = 4,015,000 watts

4015 kwh x .12 cents pkwh = $481.8


$443.26 a year

thats a vacation , or a new tv , or groceries , clothes
some other product to support other industries.

the government is always going broke , could you even begin to figure how much of the taxpayers dollars are wasted on inefficient street lights?

Atlanta alone for instance lets just estimate that they use 1,000,000 street lights just in the city , probably a very low estimate.

they burn apx 12 hours a day or longer.

they are usualy 125 watt bulbs

1,000,000 x 125 watts = 125,000,000 watts per hour

125,000,000 x 12 hours = 1,500,000,000 watts per day

1,500,000,000 x 365 days = 547,500,000,000 watts per year.

cities usualy get discounted electricity rates so I will use .04 cents per killo watt hour.

547,500,000 killo watts x .04 cents kwh = $21,000,000 U.S.

using the LED street lights they would have a cost of only $6,132,000 and a savings of apx $14,800,000 a year.

talk about trimming budgets , theres a great place to start.

but do you ever hear a republican talking about using more efficient lighting?

no , you only hear about how they want to deprive the citizens of any type of help programs and assistance
and the constant removal of benefits to the citizens.

oh and of course all the tax breaks to the rich so that the rich can afford to build more factories in china to produce the products sold in the U.S.

Another might have been the stupendous cost. $2000 added to the price of a car could really make it uncompetitive.

Stop there, that's complete rubbish. They do produce more heat energy than light energy. And the cool operating temperature is not an advantage, it's an impediment imposed by the small size of the light source and it's poor ability to withstand high temperatures.

Those streetlights claim to have luminous efficacy (sic) of 50-60 lumens/watt while conventional sodium streetlights are in the 100-200 range. Flourescent tubes are better than LEDs too.

I have flourescent tubes (not just CFLs) in my house. But I think they're generally unpopular because they remind people of work! It's just silly aesthetic reasons like this that people haven't been save money and power on lighting for decades.

Yea , the above Sodium street light uses 600 Watts and has 100 lm/W efficiency.

but here is a GE sodium street light it has
a mean lumens of 8550 and they use 100 watts

http://genet.gelighting.com/LightProduct...ge&sortkey=

8550 lumens / 100watts = 85.50 lumens/watt

why dont you post a link to the sodium bulbs you are talking about.

or should we just take your word for it?

BTW 2100 lumens / 35 watts = 60 lm/watt

LOL



its a good thing that the page stated



nearly 100% doesnt mean 100%

100 Watts for 85.5 lm (sodium)
vs
35 Watts for 60 lm (LED)

looks like they are more efficient than the sodium bulbs

otherwise the sodium bulbs would get 171 lm / 100 watts
and would be as efficient as the LED bulbs.

Something's gone wrong with your maths and units. Divide lumens by watts and you get:
86lm/W for the high pressure sodium streetlight you linked to
60lm/W for the LED streetlight you linked to


Here's a more efficient one at 135 lm/W
http://bilebo.en.made-in-china.com/produ...HPS-1000w-.html




No, but "nearly 100%" does imply more than 10%. Check out wikipedia for the distinction between luminous efficacy and luminous efficiency. These LEDs streetlights really are around 10% efficient, other kinds of lights aren't much better, but are still better.

when I divide 8550 by 100 I get 85.5

you can simply move the decimal two places to get 85.5

you must be rounding it off or your calculator isnt working right.

and where are my units wrong?

130,000 lm / 1000 W = 130 lm/W efficiency not 135 lm/W
your maths must be wrong somewhere.

and it consumes 1000 Watts...


plus the description says the bulb uses 110 volts @ 9.8 amps , that totals 1078 Watts which brings the lm/W down to 120.59 lm/Watt

I had much rather be paying taxes to burn 35 Watt light bulbs than 1078 Watt light bulbs.

from wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_efficiency#Efficacy_and_efficiency



I see what your saying , I suppose that wikipedia is right when they say that " The distinction between efficacy and efficiency is not always carefully maintained in published sources"


luminous efficacy of radiation has a maximum possible value of 683 lm/W so you would need to achieve 683 lm/W
in order to claim 100% efficacy.

but we are discussing efficiency not efficacy.

of course if they made street light bulbs that used
5000 Watts to get less than 10% efficacy then there are plenty of republican governors that would mandate that these bulbs be used so that there puppet masters could get richer.

and the 1078 Watt bulbs you placed a link to could very well be a hedge for utility companies , to be used by current republican puppets and an incentive to elect even more republicans so that any reduction of energy usage by the public because of the CFL and LED light bulbs are not realized.

I think it would be a great idea to check into this and see just what types of streetlamps are being used by states that have republican governors.

You're picking at nits. Even the 100W sodium light is more efficient than the LEDs. The more powerful one even more so. The published numbers from all sources we've posted show that.

Furthermore, fluorescent tubes can also be more efficient than LEDs. So LEDs aren't a power saving for room lighting.

However there are applications where they do have advantages. Where a tightly focussed beam is all that's needed they can save scattering light all over the place. When colors are needed they're much more efficient than filtering a white light. At very low powers (mW) they could be much better than incandescents. But generally they can't yet compete with the big ugly old fashioned bulbs for room lighting at low power cost because nearly 100% of the electric power that goes into them comes out as heat.