Slashdot Mirror

To me it epitomizes irrational luddite environmentalism. The idea that our modern and technological ways are bad, and the old agrarian ways are good. A good example was when I was up in Vancouver. A restaurant announced that for Earth Hour they'd turn off the lights and use candles instead.

If you figure that each table had one bank of ceiling lights with four 36" T8 bulbs, that's 4*25 Watts = 100 Watts. 4*1950 lumens = 7800 lumens.

A candle on the table is about 80 Watts for 13 lumens. So basically they were burning 80% as much energy for 1/600th the light. Even if you ignore that Vancouver gets most of its electricity from hydro and assume the electricity for the bulbs came from a 40% efficient coal plant, that's less than 0.5% the light per Watt of entropic heat generated (with a corresponding amount of CO2 production). Burning candles for light is just about the worst possible thing you can do for the environment.

The technologically advanced choice is almost always the more environmentally sound choice. The problem isn't technology. It's Jevons' paradox - improved energy efficiency tends to increase overall energy consumption rather than decrease it.

>>> The solution to pollution is dilution.

Mercury bio-accumulates - concentrates in animals higher up the food chain - leading to things like our seafood having dangerous levels of it. So that's not a very good solution.

>>> The manufacturer demands that I ship the dead bulb to them, AT MY COST

Buy from a different manufacturer - people here have mentioned ones that replaced the bulbs quickly, freely, and with no shipping required. That your supplier sucks is not the fault of the product.

>>> All at inordinately inflated prices

They're not inflated if that's the cost of the product. Moreover, given that a $4 bulb will save you about $30 in electricity, complaining about the price is perhaps the least persuasive thing you could do.

>>> I've had CFLs get hot enough to melt their plastic bases.

Something was wrong with either the bulb or the lamp, as no bulb (incandescent or CFL) should do that. Again, buy from a decent supplier.

>>> Do you realize that 20 bucks is an hour and a half's labor for the median family in the US

And 50 watts saved x 8,000hrs rated life x $0.10/kWh = $40, representing a net savings of $20.

>>> And I suppose that you can buy these in the grocery store next to all the other bulbs, right?

I don't know about the original poster, but I certainly do. ~$3 each

Unless you're talking about the ones which are rated for termperatures of 0F; if your indoor lights need that rating, though, I would argue you have bigger problems to deal with.

>>> And I'm SURE they're price-competitive with a regular incandescent.

They're about 1/4 the price, once you take powering them into account.

>>> Do you expect me to open my clothes closet and stand there with my hands in my pocket for a
>>> minute before the bulb has warmed enough that I can tell a green shirt from a blue one?

I expect you to be able to tell immediately; I can. Our eyes are so enormously adaptive - we run through about 5 orders of magnitude of light levels on a daily basis - that even the reduced light available instantly from a CFL is going to be more than enough for anything other than reading or similar detail work.

>>>>>> * CFLs with electric ballasts don't "hum" like the old ones did.
>>>
>>> That's right, our products were crappy before, but don't worry, they're slightly less crappy now.

"Slightly less crappy" would be "they hum less"; they don't hum at all now.

It sounds like you've had bad experiences with early CFLs; my experiences with them in the last year have been quite positive. For many of the main uses of light in one's home - e.g., the main lights in the living room that are continuously on for hours at a time - CFLs offer large savings, with no hum, no light quality issues (see the PopMech link I gave), and very little exposure to the fact that they take a minute to go from 50% to 100% light.

I would recommend trying them out again, buying just a few from a reputable supplier and putting them where they'll make the most sense. If you still don't like them. you're out about $10; if you don't mind them, you'll make back that $10 in about 2 months.

I get my bulbs at BuyLighting, who seemed to be competent. The bulbs I got have zero warm-up period and give off great light. Recommended.

Dimmers DO work with some CFLs... they sell them here

"I also wish they'd make these flourescent bulbs in 40 watt (200 watt equivalent)"

Me too. Out of curiousity, I surfed a bit and found this link that has up to 100W(!) CFL which is equivalent to 500W incandescant:

http://www.buylighting.com/Compact-Fluorescent-Scr ew-In-s/75.htm

And it's available in full or warm spectrum. Very surprised to see such a high output CFL available.

(btw, sure there's many other vendors via Froogle, no affiliation, yada yada.)

http://www.buylighting.com/subcat.asp?catid=202

So, then, do they have to use such high-priced light sources? The lamps for old-school overhead projectors or slide projectors are well under $50.

Is there some inherent requirement in projecting a digital image that requires so much more lamp, versus projecting a film/transparency/analog source?

So, then, do they have to use such high-priced light sources? The lamps for old-school overhead projectors or slide projectors are well under $50.

Is there some inherent requirement in projecting a digital image that requires so much more lamp, versus projecting a film/transparency/analog source?

They do have a few that can be used with a dimmer, as here. I don't know how well they work, as I've never tried them.