Compact Flourescent Lamps are bad news

[Taylortwocities]

US woman was quoted $2400 by environment protection to clean a room after she broke a CFL.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2S7tV7mTaA&feature=related

 

[ColJack]

what a load of cobblers..

we used to smash 8ft fluorescents in the skip at one job I had.. told us not to breathe the white powder that came out...

we also used to play with mercury maze games.. trying to get the blob to the other side etc..

mercury was also given in some medicines and is an integral part of some teeth fillings..

the moral of the storey?

never let women change a light bulb, they obviously don't know how to do it properly

 

[ericmark]

I questioned the "Energy saving trust" over use of compact florescent units mainly as to how much energy they saved when the heat supplied from tungsten bulbs is reducing the amount of heat required to be generated from the central heating.

It seems this has never been measured. And because each house will need different amounts of heat input it would be nearly impossible to put a figure on.

However they do agree that the savings will be a lot less than published in most adverts. It may be because the heat from the bulb is radiated heat and the heat from central heating is convected heat that if the air change rate in the house is high it could cost less to heat with light bulbs than central heating especially if central heating is electric.

I also asked about the mercury contained in the compact florescent units and they replied that it was very low and mercury was also present in coal so while using coal powered power stations the amount of mercury released into the atmosphere from coal burn is greater than that released from waste from compact florescent units.

As to disposal any shop selling compact florescent units has to take the returns in UK. My son-in-law works in Aldi and says they have the system set up to take returns but at the moment he has not had any returns in.

In the whole time of working with florescent units only Toyota in Deeside and Jeyes in Mold have had a system to collect the old units for return.
Many years ago when working in Convatec we had a machine to crush the tubes under water but I understand now these machines are banned and the mercury has to be recycled so whole units have to be returned.

Of course you can get protected florescent tubes we used them in Jeyes as we did not want any broken glass getting into product and the tubes had a thin plastic coating glued onto glass to keep it all together if broken. However this would have only retained the glass not any mercury used in the units.

I remember at school spilling mercury and sweeping it up with our hands and one lad had a gold ring that turned white as a result and the chemistry teacher had to do something to restore it. And I have some also in my teeth. Fish have it in their swim bladders so eating fish is also likely to introduce it into our bodies.

As with lead large quantities are bad for us. And if we worked with mercury all day we would become as mad as a hatter. Who of course used mercury to make top hats and were well know for the resultant effects of it. Even the great mathematician who wrote some stories under pen name of Lewis Carrol knew of the effects. 10s 6d for his trouble.

But I would say if that woman had so much mercury in her house it did not come from a single lamp.

 

[jabuzzard]

I questioned the "Energy saving trust" over use of compact florescent units mainly as to how much energy they saved when the heat supplied from tungsten bulbs is reducing the amount of heat required to be generated from the central heating.

It seems this has never been measured. And because each house will need different amounts of heat input it would be nearly impossible to put a figure on.

It is fairly simple thermodynamics. A 100W is about 2.5% efficient, which means that it is pumping out 97.5W of heat into the room. If I have central heating with TRV then if I reduce that 97.5W of heat input into the room will have to come from somewhere else, aka the radiator, which means my central heating works harder.

Now if I have a condensing gas boiler, that will be more efficient than the electricity generation. That said the electricity could be coming from a carbon neutral source.

The other thing to bear in mind is that it only has an effect when the central heating and the light are on at the same time. However for most people in northerly latitudes that is true. We have the central heating on in winter, when it gets dark early.

I am personally very dubious that any energy saving bulbs will reduce overall energy consumption in the UK. Now if you live in say Spain or southern Italy it is a whole different ball game and it probably does make a difference.

Personally I have a 10 year stock pile of filament bulbs, by which time I expect LED bulbs to provide as good if not better light than filament bulbs at a reasonable price.

 

[davelx]

It is fairly simple thermodynamics. A 100W is about 2.5% efficient, which means that it is pumping out 97.5W of heat into the room.

No, it's putting 100W of heat into the room. All the light eventually ends up as heat as it gets absorbed by the materials in the room.

But your point is valid, nevertheless.

 

[jabuzzard]

It is fairly simple thermodynamics. A 100W is about 2.5% efficient, which means that it is pumping out 97.5W of heat into the room.

No, it's putting 100W of heat into the room. All the light eventually ends up as heat as it gets absorbed by the materials in the room.

But your point is valid, nevertheless.

That assumes that no light escapes the room, and the light does no useful "work" in the meantime. Yes in the ultimate heat death of the Universe it puts out 100W of heat, but in the meantime it does not.

 

[Stoday]

The same arguments were used a century ago to support the retention of gas lighting.

 

[ericmark]

Although we could consider that energy is never lost but only transformed to another form and as a result the tungsten light bulb only waists energy if the heat produced is not required it is not that simple.

The central heating produces in the mainly convected heat but the light bulb is mainly radiated heat. The latter heats the body rather than the air so it can make one feel comfortable yet the air temperature is still low.

This leaves us with a control problem. If the thermostat is in line of site of the bulb then the bulb will warm it and switch of central heating possible too early and would save a lot of money as it would also heat the body directly without heating air and would encourage one to lower thermostat setting saving even more.

However if the thermostat is not in line of site then the central heating will continue to pump out heat and although it still may encourage one to lower thermostat setting it would require manual intervention for the heat produced to give any saving.

The use of TRV to control temperature means they are very seldom altered and also normally out of direct line of site to be affected by the radiated heat.

Again because of the different form of heating also the amount of air changes in an area will make a huge difference as to advantage and disadvantage of using radiated rather than convected heat.

It is because human intervention, air changes, and method of temperature control make such huge differences as to if the heat from the bulb is useful or not that research has not been carried out to find if they save energy in the home or not. Unless one took a single designed house the results would change that much house to house as to be useless. In houses where the owner has gone silly with lighting using for example 10 GU10 spot lights in a kitchen power wastage is bound to take place.

A few years ago I was involved in lighting some sheds. One was quite high about 20 foot and the low bay 150W discharge lights worked very well. So it was decided to repeat the work in another shed about 10 foot high and it was a failure and they had to be ripped out and replaced with florescent lights. It was plainly not as simple as saying we have x square feet to light so it needs y lumens to light it.

This is also the case with domestic lighting. I remember being instructed to fit 10 x 10w small spots in a room and it looked like a planetarium. Replacing these with a single 100W bulb in centre of room worked fine. Yet both tungsten and both totalled 100W.

We all know white walls are better than dark walls and yet there is no government directive that all internal walls should be painted white.

So to conclude I would say it is impossible to say in general terms if discharge lighting is any better or worst in total energy required than tungsten lighting when used in heated areas. However discharge lighting does produce power factor, and wave form distortion problems and often has nasty metals mercury for discharge and arsenic etc with semi-conductor devices and to encourage the use of these commercial type lights without also doing some education as to the dangers involved must be stopped before it is too late. We have epilepsy and skin problems which cost in both life and general health of those exposed to excessive amounts. Better to use a mixture of all types so non are used in excess.

 

[jabuzzard]

Although we could consider that energy is never lost but only transformed to another form and as a result the tungsten light bulb only waists energy if the heat produced is not required it is not that simple.

The central heating produces in the mainly convected heat but the light bulb is mainly radiated heat. The latter heats the body rather than the air so it can make one feel comfortable yet the air temperature is still low.

Not entirely true, have you ever felt a filament bulb, just after it has been turned off. Further the instant the thermal radiation hits something in the room it will heat the room.

This leaves us with a control problem. If the thermostat is in line of site of the bulb then the bulb will warm it and switch of central heating possible too early and would save a lot of money as it would also heat the body directly without heating air and would encourage one to lower thermostat setting saving even more.

However if the thermostat is not in line of site then the central heating will continue to pump out heat and although it still may encourage one to lower thermostat setting it would require manual intervention for the heat produced to give any saving.

The use of TRV to control temperature means they are very seldom altered and also normally out of direct line of site to be affected by the radiated heat.

Eh, I suggest you go back to University and brush up on your thermodynamics. It just does not work like that.

Again because of the different form of heating also the amount of air changes in an area will make a huge difference as to advantage and disadvantage of using radiated rather than convected heat.

Start thing of it as a close system, the radiated heat quickly gets dumped in raising the temperature of the objects in the room, that would otherwise be sucking the heat out of the hot air from the radiators. Remember everything is trying to get to thermal equilibrium.

Also note that radiators, radiate heat as well.

It is because human intervention, air changes, and method of temperature control make such huge differences as to if the heat from the bulb is useful or not that research has not been carried out to find if they save energy in the home or not. Unless one took a single designed house the results would change that much house to house as to be useless. In houses where the owner has gone silly with lighting using for example 10 GU10 spot lights in a kitchen power wastage is bound to take place.

The results are going to change more from say Edinburgh to Naples than from house to house in Edinburgh or house to house in Naples. What makes the difference is the amount of daylight in winter, and the ambient outdoor temperature. That is the percentage of time the lights or on when the heating is also on.

Perhaps we should change from filament to CF in the summer and back again in winter

A few years ago I was involved in lighting some sheds. One was quite high about 20 foot and the low bay 150W discharge lights worked very well. So it was decided to repeat the work in another shed about 10 foot high and it was a failure and they had to be ripped out and replaced with florescent lights. It was plainly not as simple as saying we have x square feet to light so it needs y lumens to light it.

This is also the case with domestic lighting. I remember being instructed to fit 10 x 10w small spots in a room and it looked like a planetarium. Replacing these with a single 100W bulb in centre of room worked fine. Yet both tungsten and both totalled 100W.

That is because the spots are directional.

We all know white walls are better than dark walls and yet there is no government directive that all internal walls should be painted white.

So to conclude I would say it is impossible to say in general terms if discharge lighting is any better or worst in total energy required than tungsten lighting when used in heated areas. However discharge lighting does produce power factor, and wave form distortion problems and often has nasty metals mercury for discharge and arsenic etc with semi-conductor devices and to encourage the use of these commercial type lights without also doing some education as to the dangers involved must be stopped before it is too late. We have epilepsy and skin problems which cost in both life and general health of those exposed to excessive amounts. Better to use a mixture of all types so non are used in excess.

Better to wait till proper replacements for filament are ready. The light from CF is rubbish

 

[DCC]

Better to wait till proper replacements for filament are ready. The light from CF is rubbish

And this seems to be the crux of your entire argument, all the rest about how heat from filaments needs to be made up by the heating system seems just an attempt at justification.

Points:

1) Typically in the UK the heating is only on for less than half the year. No matter how much of the heat isn't wasted in the winter its still only beneficial *in* the winter. At worst you are only getting half the energy saving pure wattage would indicate. All things considered I can live with that.

2) Electricity is inefficient when distributed over long distances, probably more so than the energy costs involved in pumping gas around (or shipping oil) hence it's probably better to use a localised energy converter (aka boiler) than Drax if you have the choice.

3) Your heating has a specialised job to do. Set it up right with proper control systems and it does it pretty well. Throw large numbers of intermittant heat producing light sources into the equation and you will inevitably mess up its control system leading to overheating and wasted energy at times.

You have stated your are "personally very dubious that any energy saving bulbs will reduce overall energy consumption in the UK" how on earth can you justify that claim?

 

[ColJack]

when do they start swapping the natural gas to hydrogen?
that way we can all have fuel cells in our homes and make our own electricity on site...
the byproduct as far as I know is pure water.. so you also have a source of drinking water..

they can use the wind farms to electrolise the hydrogen from sea water or from rain water..

electrolising vast amounts of hydrogen from water also releases the oxygen, and since higher levels of oxygen has a calming effect ( it gets you stoned... ) then the world would be a much happier place..

 

[ericmark]

The light from discharge and the light from tungsten vary according to type used. And if you use the appropriate type of either they will work well.

Stick a couple of 4 foot fluorescents in a kitchen and you will have a far better light than using 6 x 50W GU10's

However in the bed room the 4 foot florescence does not really fit the bill but use a 2D unit and you get quite a lot of light from a 28W unit.

However just like the compact tungsten the GU10 is no good for general lighting so the compact florescent also has a problem with general lighting.

Replace to 60 watt tungsten bulbs with 6 x 11W compact fluorescents and it works well. But the single one for one will never work the fluorescent is not as bright as a tungsten so you need more area to compensate.

I have a 70 watt nickel metal hydride lamp which I use for BQ which is far better than neighbors 300W tungsten lamp but the unit is 10 times the size and in general discharge lamps have to be bigger in size though smaller in watts than the tungsten they replace.

I will agree for extra low voltage the only replacement is the LED which remind me of Toc H candles and are useless. The so called 12 volt discharge lamp is not really 12 volt and I know a few mechanics who with testify to the shocking nature of 2 foot 20W bus units around 70vac even if feed with 24vdc and for the bathroom the only option is tungsten or as some one has already suggested the gas lamp.

But it was the heavy metals which started this thread and sodium, mercury, arsenic, nickel, are all used in the so called energy saving lamps. I remember at school opening a transistor to see how it worked. Lucky an old red spot but later I was required to place all used transistors in special re-cycling boxes because of the toxic materials used to make them. And the same applies to LED's this is one of the reasons why TV's and other IT equipment has to be separated from general waste. And it really does not matter how one can light the home with discharge lighting it is the waste which is real problem. I am sure one or two CF in land fill is no real problem but 100's or CF in land fill is. Not only the mercury but all the discrete components are doped with nasties too and if we add the cost of safe disposal to manufacturing costs but in materials and power used I think we will soon have to back peddle and return to tungsten lamps.

 

[flameport]

CFLs do contain mercury. Approximately 3mg per lamp - an amount so small that if a lamp is broken, any mercury released will be dispersed as a vapour. Unless the rooms is sealed the mercury will be gone within a few minutes.

While incandescent lamps do emit radiant heat, the amount is so small as to have no effect on anything. At just 2 metres away from a 100W lamp, the energy reaching the surface is less than 2 watts per square metre.
A typical wall mounted thermostat is around 10x10cm in size, or 0.01 square metres. 0.02 watts of radiant heat is not going to make any difference to any room thermostat or radiator valve.

While the 100W from a lamp will heat the room, this will be so small as to be of no consequence. Considering that central heating radiators have heat outputs of several kW, an extra 100W won't even be noticed.
Then there is the time when heating is not on (at least 50% of the year), the lamp is in an unheated area (such as a porch, garage, shed, communual stairway, outside, etc.), or even in the summer when people have air conditioners on instead of heating.

Electricity is inefficient when distributed over long distances,

That is correct. Around 7% of electricity in the UK is lost in the transmission network.
This is the same as the entire output of the Drax power station.

That said the electricity could be coming from a carbon neutral source.

It won't be, since there is no such thing.
Burning fossil fuels creates carbon dioxide.
Constructing wind turbines, hydroelectric power stations, solar panels and any other form of power generation requires significant amounts of energy, all of which create pollution and significant amounts of carbon dioxide.
Same applies for the transmission lines, substations and everything else.
Maintaining all this equipment also causes significant carbon emissions.

While some companies claim they are carbon neutral, this is just a convienent lie. The carbon emissions and pollution is still happening. They have just paid a wedge of money to shift the carbon somewhere else.
You have probably seen those Sky installer vans with adverts on the side claiming they are carbon neutral. Whats that belching from the exhaust pipe then - pure oxygen?

CFLs are certainly not perfect and they do have some problems.
However, like it or not, incandescent lamps won't be available in the future, and for now, CFLs are a low cost and easy replacement.

By the end of this year, all this will have gone:
- all frosted incandescent lamps (GLS, candle, etc)
- 100W clear incandescent lamps (GLS, candle, etc)
- clear mains voltage halogen lamps 75W and above (such as the 150W / 300W / 500W outside floodlight types)
- all frosted halogen capsules (G9 base etc).

 

[Stoday]

According to The Mail, lamps will no longer be marked with their input power in Watts, but by their output power in Lumens. From September 2010.

Personally I take a pinch of salt with anything I read in newspapers. Two in the case of The Mail.

Mail Blx

 

[jabuzzard]

While incandescent lamps do emit radiant heat, the amount is so small as to have no effect on anything. At just 2 metres away from a 100W lamp, the energy reaching the surface is less than 2 watts per square metre.
A typical wall mounted thermostat is around 10x10cm in size, or 0.01 square metres. 0.02 watts of radiant heat is not going to make any difference to any room thermostat or radiator valve.

That statement demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of thermodynamics. All heat heat inputs that are removed from a thermostatically controlled room, that is been actively heated MUST be replaced by some other heat input to maintain the temperature in the room.

That said the electricity could be coming from a carbon neutral source.

It won't be, since there is no such thing.
Burning fossil fuels creates carbon dioxide.
Constructing wind turbines, hydroelectric power stations, solar panels and any other form of power generation requires significant amounts of energy, all of which create pollution and significant amounts of carbon dioxide.
Same applies for the transmission lines, substations and everything else.
Maintaining all this equipment also causes significant carbon emissions.
[/quote]

Wrong, the energy to make the solar panels could have come from burning wood pellets from a managed forest for example. While I admit that this does not happen now, I am pointing out that it could happen. The methane that I burn in my boiler is unlikely ever to come from any carbon neutral source.

But for this purposes, the electricity could be coming from some other source than burning coal or natural gas.

CFLs are certainly not perfect and they do have some problems.
However, like it or not, incandescent lamps won't be available in the future, and for now, CFLs are a low cost and easy replacement.

By the end of this year, all this will have gone:
- all frosted incandescent lamps (GLS, candle, etc)
- 100W clear incandescent lamps (GLS, candle, etc)
- clear mains voltage halogen lamps 75W and above (such as the 150W / 300W / 500W outside floodlight types)

Which is why I have stockpiled replacements. I also if the outside halogen floodlight types are no longer available that is a lot of devices that will need replacing... Hardly a good idea.
[/b]