Banning Incandescent Light Bulbs is A Mistake

[AdverseDeviant]

There has been talk in recent months of governments considering a ban on ILBs (Incandescent Light Bulbs), but in my opinion this idea is not only a mistake; it lacks any real research into the pros and cons of CFLs (Compact Fluorescent Lamps).

What? There are cons to saving the earth?! You're just nothing but a neo-con pushing his harmful anti-environmental ideas! Unfortunately this is often the reply you receive when you start pointing out flaws in the fanatical pro-environment stand that many on the left take when it comes to environmental policy. Yes there ARE negative aspects to 'saving the earth', and currently in my opinion these negative aspects outweigh the cost of enforcing a public ban on an important product of which there is no equal replacement.

This dim light bulb is a perfect representation of the dim environmentalists who push its dominance.Positive Aspects

Energy SavingsLet's start out with the positive aspects of the CFL. We have all come across a CFL by now, and many will have one in their house. The most positive aspect CFLs have going for it is that they are far more energy efficient than the ILBs that most people use. A quick table will show just how efficient these light bulbs are:

As you can clearly see a CFL uses only a quarter to a fifth of the power that your standard ILB eats ? quite a significant difference![Whiter Coloursi>[/b]b>

Another positive aspect is you are able to get bulbs in different colour temperatures, thus you can get the classic ILBs yellowish glow, or you can opt for a whiter, more pure colour. With a traditional ILB you are basically stuck to a very limited range of colour temperatures, most of them with your classic yellow glow.[UV Lightingi>[/b]b>

Ultraviolet CFLs are also a great way to get a funky look in your room and make those whites and reflective material glow in an eerie way ? something you cannot do very well with your traditional buMercury Output[/b]

The last positive aspect is the amount of Mercury that is introduced into the environment by the bulb. Well most people don't realize it, but ILBs actually introduce more mercury into the environment than CFLs! Huh, I thought only CFLs contain mercury? People forget that the coal that we burn to create our electricity contains traces of mercury. When this is taken into account, the CFL is far superior in minimizing mercury use since it uses less energy (and thus burns less coal). It introduces even less if the bulb is properly recycled after it has burned out.

So here we have a lighting device that puts out the same amount of light at a fraction of the power, introduces less mercury into the environment and allows us to have some pretty cool lighting effects. The obvious conclusion must be that we ban the old to bring in the new? right? Wrong.

http://www.shimmerlighting.com/01_sendbinary.asp?path=/upload/nw3674.jI don't know about anyone else, but a chandelier such as this with curly CFL bulbs would cheapen the entire look of this $3000 piece.....[/b]Negative Aspectsts

I won't hesitate to say that the positive aspects of the CFLs are quite intriguing, unfortunately people put on blinders and only focus on the positive aspects and completely ignore practical and important uses of ILBs that the CFL just cannot rDirectional Lightingng[/b]i>

ILBs use a tiny tungsten filament which emits the light. Since there is a relatively small amount of surface area that emits the light, it is much easier to focus the light on a target of choice. A CFL on the other hand has a massive surface area which causes the light to emit in a much more diffused manner which is a headache for anyone who wants a clean focused beam ofDynamic Temperature Lightingng[/b]i>

CFL are highly dependant on having a stable temperature. They are designed to work at room temperatures and just do not work well ? if at all ? in extreme temperatures, both hot and cold. This is especially important in Canada ? which has cooler temperatures throughout the winter. If you use the bulbs outside they will either flicker heavily when you turn them on, or they will just not turn on at all. In higher temperature areas the ballast is susceptible to overheating and killiUtility LightingLighting[/b]ting

These bulbs can not be used as utility lights in places such as fridges and stoves. In a stove the ballast would be highly vulnerable to the high temperature. So unless the stove includes some type of ballast built in, replacing a traditional bulb with a CFL just cannot happen.

With a fridge, the bulb would either not turn on or take too long to warm up to be of any use without holding the fridge door open until it was bright enough to see. This would cause the fridge to run in overtime, offsetting any power saving you may have by using the more efficient bulb.

Other household machines such as dryers, microwaves and freezers all havOutdoor LightingLighting[/b]ting

This problem is a bit odder, but it is a problem that ILBs just do not have ? insects making homes inside your light fixture and bulbs. While ILBs certainly attract insects; the insects cannot live too close to the bulb as the heat will cook them alive. Since CFLs are cooler, the bugs can live alongside the bulb and or right down the center of it. This will start to affect the output of the light itself, not to mention a dirty cleanup job when the time comes to replace the bulb. Not a hassle I want to deal with whenIncubationIncubation[/b]bation

We all know of how you can use a light bulb to incubate an egg. Well you can also use them for your plants, turtles, fish, snakes and assorted lizards or whatever else may need simulated sunlight. Obviously creating a CFL that emits heat would be completely pointless as we already have a product that does that quite weDC LightingC Lighting[/b]ghting

CFLs need AC power to work, thus any battery powered lighting device cannot use a CFL. This is because the flow of electricity causes the mercury to be attracted to one end of the light, offsetting the brightness of the bulb to that side. With AC, the flow of electrons is alternated one direction to the other which allows the bulb to avoid this problem. There are ways to fix this problem, but unfortunately they lower CFLs energy efficiency and thDisposali>Disposal[/b]sposal

While overall CFLs introduce less mercury into the environment, the fact that it requires special disposal is a hassle for the average home user ? a hassle most will avoid. In the end the mercury will end up in the environment and no amount of switching from coal to nuclear power will offset this. While right now CFLs would be a blessing, 25-50 years down the road as we slowly switch to cleaner forms of power generation, the mercury content will start to become a negative aspect of CFLs.

http://www.aticousa.com/productDifferent sizes of traditional bulbs. Some are far too small for a CFL replacement.replacemSize]aSize>Size

The sizes of these light bulbs are upwards of 25% longer which cause problems with lamps which require a bulb the same size as a traditional one. The only way to solve this problem is to put a less bright CFL which also has a smallColourColouri>Colour

While you have a more broad range of colours including a more pure white colour, most of us are still use to the soft yellow glow of the traditional bulb. CFLs simply do not give off the same colour of light as well as a lack of range in the colour spectrum. Unfortunately because of the way they are designed they will never have the same feel of a traditional bulb no matter how hard the companies try to match them. Sure certain people can get use to the new bulb, but others seem to have a hard time getting use to the colour changes and spectrum changes. It affects them in a negative way, similar to people becoming depressed after a long perioPricetPricePrice

Unfortunately since the CFL has quite a few parts to it, the cost of the bulb itself is much higher when compared to a traditional ILB. It has been calculated that over the course of a CFLs lifetime it actually ends up paying for itself in the form of savings in your electrical bill. Unfortunately this is not what people think of when buying a light bulb; they buy the standard bulb simply because the My Conclusiony Conclusion[/b]nclusion

As you can see there are quite a few legitimate reasons as to why a ban should not be put in place. These are reasons I have not seen covered by the government. Overall encouraging CFLs is a step in a good direction, but banning traditional bulbs for a currently inferior lighting product is not the way the government should go about encouraging the switch.

My suggestion to get people to switch to CFLs is really quite simple. People are price driven, so instead of banning the light bulbs, why not have the government offset the costs of the bulbs so they can complete with ILBs. The government has done such incentives before so this obviously is an acceptable method to encourage users to switch.

Unfortunately fanatical environmentalists that are pushing for this ban seem to be quite narrow minded and arrogant. A ban is simply an elitist idea - environmentalists saying everyone should only use a light source that they deem acceptable.

I don't like that attitude. I want to choose a light source that I find works the best for me, not be forced into purchasing a product that I feel is quite inferior. I oppose such a ban in Ontario and hope that the fellow citizens of this province realize just how crazy and extreme this notion is and will let their political representative know just what they think about this ban before this goes too far.

http://www.shoutwire.com/comments/56251/Ba...bs_is_A_Mistake

[Nashy]

I hate them. CF's are terrible to read under, and look really strange to the eye when you walk into a room lit by one. Aussie is looking at baning ILB's too, in which case, I will buy hundeads of them.

[bangbang023 Veteran]

Well, unless GE's new Incandescent proves to be much more efficient, sacrifices have to be made. The fact is, current ILB's are way too inefficient to justify their use.

An outright ban is definitely not something I would even agree with, but IMO, they should ban the traditional fixture ILBs, leaving the smaller bulbs and DC powered stuff alone. In my house, I don't think we have any ILB's in standard sized fixtures. Everything has been changed over to CFL's.

[Hum]

^ Incandescent bulbs are completely efficient in cold weather. :laugh:

[Lexcyn]

I rather like CFL's. I replaced every light fixture in my house with them and don't really notice a difference, except for the different look of the bulb itself. Also, the part about the CFL's in outdoor environments is complete trash. I have 3 of these outside and in the year or so I've had it out there, no bugs have gotten inside, and it's just as if not brighter than the old style bulbs (this is in -30 Celsius - just as a side note they do flicker when you turn them on in extreme temperatures, but they eventually 'warm up' just like regular florescent bulbs)

But at the end of the day ... they're just light bulbs so banning them doesn't really make sense. But I can see how some stores are going to only start carrying CFL's, since it's already happening where I am (ex: the home hardware and wal-mart here only sell CFL's now). :p

[Fred Derf Veteran]

I'm sure exceptions would be made for certain ILBs (namely external bulbs and utility bulbs). Banning the most common ILB that can be replaced with CFLs is a good first step and it can be done now.

[Allan]

I'm sure exceptions would be made for certain ILBs (namely external bulbs and utility bulbs). Banning the most common ILB that can be replaced with CFLs is a good first step and it can be done now.

I agree ... the ones that are made for homes are good to be replaced. They provide just as much light, are cheaper etc.

Ourdoor lights (Flood) and street lights need to remain regular bulbs.

[Joni_78]

Well I just bought these Osram Compact Fluorescent Lamps.

[tao muon]

Interesting information.

What about LED lighting?

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

You can get the smaller CFL's (people show the large ones and complain they are too big, while ignoring the small ones), and the lighting is better (i'm using a daylight blub, it increases contrast, making it easier to read)

And i don't see why we can't use them for fridges and ovens and such, they aren't advocating a total ban in every device, they are taking about home lighting (that's what costs you the money and creates the pollution, not the bulb in your fridge)

[mycoolkim]

hmm LED lighting, might be an ok solution ^^

[Shannon]

The only problem I have with CFLs is how white they are. I'd like to get them with a more incandescent glow to it.

[tao muon]

I agree ... the ones that are made for homes are good to be replaced. They provide just as much light, are cheaper etc.

Ourdoor lights (Flood) and street lights need to remain regular bulbs.

My experience with CFL's has been disappointing. In particular, I have one lamp that sees about 2 hours a day usage and has a CFL and another that sees 3-5 hours a day and is 100W incadescent. I've gone through two CFL's in the first light in two years and the 100W bulb has lasted almost two years (it's still working so I can't say how long it will last). One CFL (out here) are about 5-7 times the cost of a two pack of incadescents (about 10-15 times the cost of a single bulb).

My electric bill is about 100-150 a month. Even if all of that were due to lighting, buying all of those CFL bulbs would cost me more than they save, considering I've yet to have a CFL last longer than any of the incadescents I have.

***edit***What I mean is that, given 25% less power consumed, they need to cost less than 400% (4 times) more to break even. And that is assuming a 1:1 ratio between the cost of power consumed and the extra cost of the bulb.

As for flood lights, you can get halogen type incadescents which will be around 10% percent more efficient than a standard incadescent (for the same lumens output) and usually last longer (with a small premium on price).

Street lights where I am, are sodium vapor lights, and more closely related to florescent lighting than to incadescent.

Edited March 8, 2007 by tao muon

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

The only problem I have with CFLs is how white they are. I'd like to get them with a more incandescent glow to it.

You can, just check the light temperature when you buy them (cooler temperature = more yellow)

[wired57]

Autistic people need incadescents, as Flofesants buzz/hum, and can drive a person sensitive to this noise insane. I am one of these people, i can even hear my tv buzz/hmm when its on, am saving for an lcd screen to help.

[clonk]

hmm LED lighting, might be an ok solution ^^

Not if you think CFL's are expensive.

http://www.theledlight.com/

[tao muon]

Not if you think CFL's are expensive.

http://www.theledlight.com/

LED's from that page are about 2-4 times as much as CFL's. If they last 2-4 times as long, it's a break-even unless they save more energy. Do you have that information?

Oh, no one has posted the world's longest lasting light bulb.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

My experience with CFL's has been disappointing. In particular, I have one lamp that sees about 2 hours a day usage and has a CFL and another that sees 3-5 hours a day and is 100W incadescent. I've gone through two CFL's in the first light in two years and the 100W bulb has lasted almost two years (it's still working so I can't say how long it will last). One CFL (out here) are about 5-7 times the cost of a two pack of incadescents (about 10-15 times the cost of a single bulb).

Something is wrong with your lamp then or it is a dimmer issue. CFLs should be laster several times longer than a ILB.

[Captain_Wang]

They may not be perfect, and maybe you'll have to put up with the unbearable torture of having a slightly different hue in room-lighting, but if changing a small part of a luxury (yes I would consider having electricity and access to fixed lighting a bit of a luxury comparitively speaking) helps alleviate damage then so be it. Some people like to stir up controversy and problems with everything, no wonder we're in the mess we are environmentally.

[djDaemon]

Directional Lighting

This is actually an invalid argument. Optics (mirrors, lenses, etc) can make any light source directional. Surely you've used a magnifying glass to focus sunlight before, right?

Dynamic Temperature Lighting

They do flicker in cold environments, but they still work fine.

Utility Lighting

They can be used in stoves, provided the ballast is made of compatible material. And, yes, polymers do exist that are not vulnerable to high (500+ degrees F) temperatures.

Outdoor Lighting

Simply not true.

Incubation

Why not use a dedicated heating element, rather than a wasteful solution like an incandescent?

DC Lighting

LED's are perfectly suited for DC applications.

Disposal

I honestly don't know enough about this to offer my thoughts.

Different sizes of traditional bulbs.

There are small CFL's, and there are also LED's, which are well-suited for these applications.

Colour

There is a wide range of color when it comes to CFL's.

Price

Like everything new, prices will eventually come down. Even so, the energy savings are typically listed right there on the packaging.

[Joni_78]

Interesting information.

What about LED lighting?

I remember reading about these from one science magazine few months ago. With LED lighting we would save 250 gigawatts, equal to 150 big nuclear power plants. But these are really new and takes some time for those to develop more. For example regular 60W bulb gives 600?800 lumes, where best LED bulbs give 600 lumens. LED's are definitely coming after CFL's.

[Michael_C]

Another problem I haven't seen mentioned about flourescent lighting is the stroboscopic effect which is potentially quite dangerous.

[Ferret]

I actually prefer the energy saving bulbs... Dunno why, I just do :)

[QuarterSwede]

Autistic people need incadescents, as Flofesants buzz/hum, and can drive a person sensitive to this noise insane. I am one of these people, i can even hear my tv buzz/hmm when its on, am saving for an lcd screen to help.

That just one of the reasons I hate CFL's. That and I can see them strobe out of the corner of my eyes. The other reason is that I've yet to see one give off the same hue as an ILB. It makes everything sterile and harsh to look at which gives me a headache after a while.

Until CFL's don't have these problems I won't use them. LED's on the other hand I wouldn't mind. They have a ridiculously long life, don't strobe and use even less energy than CFL's.

[tao muon]

Something is wrong with your lamp then or it is a dimmer issue. CFLs should be laster several times longer than a ILB.

Nothing is wrong with the lamp, I've checked the voltage in the lamp socket, and I don't have any dimmers.

My line voltage is 117 volts nominal and 235 volts at the mains.