Slashdot Mirror


CFLs Causing Utility Woes

dacut writes "We've seen compact fluorescent lamps start to take over shelf space at the local hardware store. Replacing a 60 watt incandescent with a 13 watt CFL seems like a great savings, though many consumers are disappointed with the slow warm-up times, lower-than-advertised lifetimes, and hassles of disposing the mercury-containing bulbs. Now EDN reports they may use more energy than claimed due to their poor power factor. Mike Grather, of Lumenaire Testing Laboratory, 'checked the power factor for the CFLs and found they ranged from .45 to .50. Their "real" load was about twice that implied by their wattage.' The good news: you're only billed for the 13 watts of real power used. The bad news: the utilities have to generate the equivalent of 28 watts (that is, 28 VA of apparent power for you EEs out there) to light that bulb. Until they fix these issues, I'll hold on to my incandescents and carbon arc lamps, thanks."

4 of 859 comments (clear)

  1. Hard to dispose of? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Only if you have a conscience.

  2. Idea by MrEricSir · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think have a great idea as to how to solve this.

    But unfortunately I'm still waiting for the CFL bulb above my head to light up.

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
  3. Re:Oh Please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    The whole point is not the amount of power consumed by either bulb, but the fact that the profit-per-bulb for the utility companies is lower for CFLs than incandescent. This isn't about efficiency or conservation, its about the bottom line. Not only do CFLs use less power to begin with, some of what it does use isn't even billable. Its almost like stealing. I like it!

  4. Re:Still... by Dmala · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just move to Canada. Our smoke detectors use radioactive canadicium instead.

    Chemical symbol: Eh