Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

CFLs Causing Utility Woes

Posted by timothy on from the so-very-simple-that-only-a-child-can-do-it dept.

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."

9 of 859 comments (clear)

  1. Still... by revlayle · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Since I have switched to CFL... none of my light bulbs has ever burned out yet for 9+ months. With incandescents, I was changing 5-6 light-bulbs a month (I live in an older house, the electric grid and the wiring in the place I live is not always ideal for traditional light bulbs)

    1. Re:Still... by Whammy666 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There is a new generation of CFLs about to be released next month from a company called PureSpectrum. They have a new ballast which fixes the power factor problem (it's 0.93!) and is instant-on and fully dimmable. It's expected to be priced about the same as the current generation of non-dimmable CFLs.

      Looking a bit further ahead, another company called Vu1 has a novel idea for a light which uses electron stimulation against phosphor to produce light (sorta like a crt). It has no mercury and is also dimmable. It's also shaped like a regular incandescent so lamp shades will fit on it. They will be less expensive than LEDs and produce much better color rendering, but they will likely cost more than CFLs.

      --
      When all else fails, run.
    2. Re:Still... by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You say "run of the mill", but IIRC the only brand that hasn't died at all yet in the Consumer Reports lifetime test is GE.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  2. LED is a viable option in 40 Watt replacement by xzvf · · Score: 4, Interesting

    While a little more expensive they last even longer (20 years?). They really aren't available much greater than 40 watt replacements but I've been happy with the performance. Not effected by cold and come on instantly.

    1. Re:LED is a viable option in 40 Watt replacement by wjh31 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      in my experiance, LED's have had a pretty high faliure rate, i got a set of 6 about 6 months ago, 2 ive had to take back to replace because they stopped working, and of the ones which are here, some are noticeable dimmer than others

    2. Re:LED is a viable option in 40 Watt replacement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I've purchased LED lights for my house and was extremely disappointed with their performance and efficiency. However, as you said, the Cree XRE and other recent high power LEDs can be made into very efficient and nice looking lights. Problem is, they haven't yet - at least not that I have been able to find. As far as I have found so far, the LED manufacturers have the goods, but the light "bulb" manufacturers have not yet taken advantage of all the latest LED tech.

      There's also the typical BS found in many new industries where cheapo manufacturers take advantage of the hype and produce sub-par products at very low prices. It's an easy one in this case because one of the major points is cost. This should shake out eventually and we'll see better quality products hit the market. I just want it to hurry up.

      I hate CFLs because the ONLY good thing about them is their lower power consumption. But to manufacture them is very dirty and they have mercury in them, so they can't be disposed of cleanly either. I don't like the slow start up speed or the color temperature. I bought a few packs of CFLs before finding all this out so I'm still using them. But I will not buy any more. I'm dying for LEDs to come to the main stream.

      It's not a surprise to find that the power factor of CFLs sucks too. Again, cheapo manufacturers trying to cash in on a trend. Quality manufacturers know how to handle power factor problems.

  3. Re:Harshness is all about color temperature by Rei · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Fluorescent bulbs don't have color temperatures defined.

    Yes, they do. Look at the box.

    Fluorescent bulbs are very much band-limited, unlike broad band black body radiators.

    And the color temperature rating for fluorescents is based on the weighted average of where its power output lies.

    Heck, they do an okay job of offsetting your heating bill, in the winter.

    Electric heat is inefficient. And electric heat in the summer means more AC. Adding extra heat to your house is overall definitely not a good thing.

    --
    "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
  4. Re:Speaking of conscience... by julesh · · Score: 5, Interesting

    And when a user drops a CFL, the problem is right there in their house, not miles away.

    A CFL typically contains 3mg of mercury. A tuna steak is likely to contain as much as 1mg. If you eat fish three times and break a CFL once (and snort the mercury rather than disposing of it safely), you'll take in as much mercury from the fish as the broken lamp.

  5. Re:Speaking of conscience... by maeka · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ok, here we go - someone check the math.
    http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs095-01/
    Tells me the mean amount of mercury in US coal is 0.17ppm.
    We will assume 100% of said mercury enters the air.
    We will also talk about 100 watt incandescent bulbs to make the math easier.

    450 grams of coal are burned to deliver 1 KWh to your outlet.

    http://www.amazon.com/Incandescent-Light-Shape-Frosted-100A19/dp/B000273TEA
    100 Watt bulb, 20,000 hours.
    2,000 KWh in its lifetime.
    900,000 grams of coal burned for this light bulb over its 20,000 hour lifetime.
    153mg of mercury in said coal.

    http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf
    tells me the average CFL has 4mg of mercury in it.

    I was going to work out a full hour-by-hour comparison - but there is not need. I the case is B/W enough, unless someone can convince me less than 4% of mercury makes it up the stack.