Germans stock up on incandescent lamps, American trashes CFLs

following looks to be the best comment on the; ecmweb.com/lighting/hidden_costs_cfls_0109/index.html This is dated Jan'09

Thanks to jkn & Al Grasso. I was aware that the load (and impact on power factor) was likely to be different but was as to why this should be a problem. Different power factors are common. In fact jkn's link appears to explain the issue as not so much due to a change in the power factor, but the impact on the THD of a pure sinusoidal source. Interestingly the paper refered to was from 1992 and highlighted that some CFLs had a minimal impact - but others had a large impact. As the same technology is used for AC-DC convertors (whether STB/TV or 'whatever') this seems to be of 'old data' being used to justify resistance to CFLs. A classic version of FUD? Perhaps someone from the CFL sector has something to add on whether modern CFLs induce big/small amounts of THD into the network?

I have been working on LED lighting on my own for a few years. I now have two designs which work, both giving a colour compensated genuine 800 Lumens equivalent to a 60W incandescent. One draws a leading power PF which compensates other lagging devices, one has true PF control to 0.95. Both are dimmable and can include other features. Life is 80K hours to 70% light. Efficiencies work out at over 90Lm/W for actual light out, so 8.8W for 800 Lms, much better than CFL. Expandable to 100W too. The designs are radically different and patented, but I am only one small guy and have not yet a partner or enough funding to take this to market. Any takers?

In response to Henry. The problem is with power factor which can be looked up in any basic textbook on electrical engineering or just Google power factor. However, the basic problem is that if the voltage and current are not in phase the resultant power becomes reactive which means that the current can be greater or lower than what it needs to be to sustain that power at that voltage. If it is more than this becomes a burden to the power generating companies and a loss of income, if it was less then it is a good thing for the environment but a loss of income for the power company. I was not aware that the power factor in these loe energy bulbs was so low, I never thought abot it. But obviously the power companies have done so and taken steps to switch from the old fashioned magnetic meters to the new all dancing electronic meters. As always the greatest motivating factor is money. Cheers

The CFLs that are replacing incandescent bulbs have usually a diode rectifier, DC capacitor and a switch mode power supply that feeds the tube. Due to the rectifier and capacitor the current is highly nonsinusoidal. Thus the CFL feeds harmonic currents in the grid and distorts the voltage. In three-phase networks an increase of the current of the neutral conductor may also cause trouble. For more information Google for CFL waveform. For example the article www.energy-consortium.us/PDFs/N%20Watson%20Harmonic%20Performance%20of%20CFLs.pdf contains pictures of the waveforms.

Although CFL's contain a little mercury, less than 5mg to meet European regulations, in countries that produce a large fraction of their electricity from coal, they result in less mercury pollution that incandescents. Coal contains a little mercury and the extra electricity used to power the incandescent will result in more mercury being released into the environment. Mercury pollution down wind of large coal fired power stations has risen to worrying levels in some cases. CFL's at least have the possibility of recycling the mercury. There is no practical way of preventing the emissions from power stations

I am curious about the phase shift comments and the impact on the power companies. I assume that this is because incadenscent bulbs are 'seen' as purely resistive (+inductive?) load - what is the load of CFLs and why would this negatively impact the generating companies? Does anyone have a link to a site explaining the theory behind this?

Even though Norway has choosen to stay outside EU, Norway follows EU in all legislation. -And so also in the ban of incandescents. But we don't use much lighting in our light summers, and during winter we need heating anyway,- it doesen't matter if some of it comes from lighting. No energy is wasted anyway. I see the point in countries where the heat from the incandescents needs to be transported outside by airconditioners, but that's not the case here! We should focus on better insulation, heatpumps and bioenergy instead of changing lightbulbs. Best regards, Tord from the North ;o))

No lighting source type has historically EVER been totally supplanted by any later devices. Only an omnipotent and fallacious government would even think about trying to obsolete proven and reliable sources by legislation. I am an engineer (and scientist) and have exactly zero CFL's in my home presently because their color is not pleasing, their power factors are outrageously low, and their operational life is very poor. Add to this, please, that disposing of their mercury and other toxic materials at their end of life is truly costly. Think it over; this entire approach is absolutely BOGUS, uneconomic, nonsensical, and ludicrous. Best, Bob.

The real issue is the use of government legislature to force the use of CFLs and LEDs. The choice should be made by the customer when offered better options rather than banning choice. CFL's high cost, glare, low performance and toxic hazards were forced on the market without any similar legislative follow up on price reductions, design improvements and recycling. This then led the way for even more force applied to mandating as yet untested LEDs. The last stroke of coercive monopolies is the total outlawing of incandecents. The actual solution is competition for better power management applied by digital systems to all technologies and further improvements of all light sources.

When incandescents are banned, what happens with your oven light and similar harsh environments? We know how well CCFLs hold up when hot..........

I purchased some CFLs and an LED to see how well I liked them. The brightness of a 60W CFL (actual power 15W) did not compare to a 60W incandescent bulb so I had to use a 100W CFL (actual power 25W). So some of the power savings was negated. The LED light was a complete waste of money. It cost about $16. About 5 LEDs hogged all the current, so there was not proper current sharing between the LEDs and eventually I removed it. With CFL, the lighting is less natural so the light spectrum must be more limited than an incandescent bulb. There's also a warm up time before the brightness comes to a peak. I don't know how significant my savings would be changing light bulbs when I use so much power for the heat pump, clothes dryer and water heater.

There are lots of problems with CFL. They flicker and tire out my eyes when reading, even the higher frequency bulbs. They do not re-light easily so a hallway or bathroom light has to ALWAYS be on, unlike an incandescent that can be turned on / off whenever needed. The efficiency of CFL bulbs is also terrible when dimming them.

I use a number of CFL's, experienced several premature failures, and am a bit annoyed by their low light output during warm up. But overall, they are acceptable. However, I have yet to read anywhere that incandescent's do not always generate "lost" heat energy. Here in Wisconsin, that energy loss is welcome heat (although pretty expensive compared to natural gas) for 9 months of the year! I suspect this fact was not used during recent life cycle cost evaluations.

I agree with Steve Buffamonte completely, then add to the fact that CFLs appear so efficient because they phase shift the current from the voltage, and as electricity companys are now installing meters that correct for this, the CFL is not as efficient as first thought.

I use CFLs except for lights on dimmer circuits and appliances. I have had a few early failures, but other that that, they seem fine. I use higher then what they claim as equivlelent wattage.

We converted our house to all CFLs and the lower lighting costs are a benefit. In addition, the air conditioning has a significantly lower load. Another useful application is lighting when power is out. Since the bulbs use about 1/4 the energy, the lights can stay on 4 times longer or I can use 4 times as much light on the same battery. I am concerned about the mercury in the bulbs. Maybe Hussein Obama's daughters can worry about it after I am gone. The caviar may be a bit heavy on heavy metals.

My home is illuminated entirely "warm" (2700K) CFLs, I don't see a problem other than high initial cost (and learning to avoid cheap low quality lamps). The energy saving is considerable. LEDs cannot compete.

One issue most people fail to recognize is the impeding environmental impact of CFLs. Fluorescent bulbs contain Mercury and Phosphorus, amongst other rare-earth materials. Local sanitation departments do not have plans for separate removal, and recycling facilities for these bulbs are either inconvenient for the average person, or are unavailable in many areas. At what cost is all the panic for saving energy from an incandescent bulb? I totally agree, there are better technologies available, such as LEDs, which offer better light and are not an environmental catastrophe waiting to happen.