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."

6 of 859 comments (clear)

  1. Oh Please by Joe7Pak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes, they may consume more than they advertise, but they still consume half the power of the incandescent bulb they are replacing.

  2. Summary is wrong. by the_povinator · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The utility does not have to *generate* the 28W of "real" power. It just
    has to *transmit* it (and typically only from the local transformer to the
    customer, since phase changes can be handled using capacitors when the voltage
    is down-coverted the last time).

    --
    The .sig is dead, and I believe I had a hand in killing it.
  3. Re:I'm still confused. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Consider D. Certain people have a reflexive aversion to conservation efforts of any kind, even economically rational ones, and seek to discredit them by any means available, nonsense or otherwise.

  4. Speaking of conscience... by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Speaking of conscience, why is it that Slashdot is an oft-repeat offender in spreading anti-CFL nonsense? I've seen many pieces like this here.

    If your utility has serious trouble with the power-factor of CFLs, they will tune the system with some additional inductance or capacitance. But they don't. Because this isn't a problem. It's the power factor for the sum of everything on the secondary of your local transformer that is a problem, and that probably ends up being close to 1.0 . Smart transformers, by the way, tune this automatically. I see them on more poles lately.

    Second, the mercury issue. Which is 1/10 the mercury put out by burning hydrocarbons (especially coal) for powering incandescent lamps. Yes, the mercury from CFLs is mercury in your house, and the other kind of mercury from the generators powering incandescent lighting is just in the air you breathe in your house. And then, they take some time to start. This is a problem for some outdoor use, and tolerable for indoor use unless your home is really cold. And some of them burned out too fast, like any cheap electronics. Learn which brands don't.

    It's nice that practical LEDs are coming some day. I'm sure we'll hear lots of propaganda about the arsenic and other toxic things in them, even though it's close to impossible to actually get those chemicals out of the chip, out of the plastic around the chip, etc., and they're in such small amounts that it doesn't matter anyway.

    I only have one incandescent lamp left in my home, and that one is going to leave someday soon too. We are a healthy, happy family, and we're spending less and hurting the environment less. That's the reality for CFL users.

    Bruce

    1. Re:Speaking of conscience... by rolfwind · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Here is a good example of clean coal technology:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fossil_Plant_fly_ash_spill

  5. Re:LED is a viable option in 40 Watt replacement by nospam007 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf

    The above link explains lots of misconceptions about CFLs like discussed earlier here.
    Excerpt below: ...
    What are mercury emissions caused by humans?
    EPA estimates the U.S. is responsible for the release of 104 metric tons of mercury emissions each year. Most of these emissions come from coal-fired electrical power. Mercury released into the air is the main way that mercury gets into water and bio-accumulates in fish. (Eating fish contaminated with mercury is the main way for humans to be exposed.)

    Most mercury vapor inside fluorescent light bulbs becomes bound to the inside of the light bulb as it is used. EPA estimates that the rest of the mercury within a CFL â" about 14 percent â" is released into air or water when it is sent to a landfill, assuming the light bulb is broken. Therefore, if all 290 million CFLs sold in 2007 were sent to a landfill (versus recycled, as a worst case) â" they would add 0.16 metric tons, or 0.16 percent, to U.S. mercury emissions caused by humans.

    How do CFLs result in less mercury in the environment compared to traditional light bulbs?
    Electricity use is the main source of mercury emissions in the U.S. CFLs use less electricity than incandescent lights, meaning CFLs reduce the amount of mercury into the environment. As shown in the table below, a 13-watt, 8,000-rated-hour-life CFL (60-watt equivalent; a common light bulb type) will save 376 kWh over its lifetime, thus avoiding 4.5 mg of mercury. If the bulb goes to a landfill, overall emissions savings would drop a little, to 4.0 mg.
    EPA recommends that CFLs are recycled where possible, to maximize mercury savings.