It's "lights out" for incandescents.

The new energy bill signed by President Bush not only increases the mpg new cars are expected to deliver, it also bans the sale of incandescent light bulbs starting in 2012. The full article is here:http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/environment/2007-12-16-light-bulbs_N.htm .
I've already switched most of the lights over in my house to CFLs starting about 3 years ago. I've grown used to them and using those along with replacing certain appliances with Energy Star units, and cutting back on electric use, I've cut our household's electrical use from about 1100 kwh about 12 years ago to my recent bill showing 363 kwh. I think they've come a long way since they were first introduced back in the '80s. I remember little flyers in the electric bill selling new ones back then for around $20 ea. Now you can get them in bulk starting around $2 to $3 each. Plus, they are coming out with newer , more energy efficient bulbs to replace older styles on the market,( floodlights,specialty bulbs, etc.)

And no doubt the debate concernng CFL v. incandescent will continue on too. Due to the mercury content they have to be properly disposed of and based on my experiences they do not seem to last as long as claimed. Anyways, Popular Mechanics tested various CFLs this year and the results were interesting. See link below.

Click here (http://www.popularmechanics.com/home_journal/home_improvement/4215199.html?page=1:)

According to the article, Incandescent light bulbs indirectly release more mercury into the environment than CFLs can directly or indirectly.

I also like how in the comments people are complaining about how CFLs cost so much.
Which is something I'll never understand, it's as though a couple dollar bills in an individuals pocket, is somehow better than than a lower electrical bill which would save them more than a couple dollars - or cleaner air for everybody - or keeping us from destroying land to mine for coal.
When it comes to saving a penny now, versus a dollar later - regrettably most people would rather hang on to the penny.

According to the article, Incandescent light bulbs indirectly release more mercury into the environment than CFLs can directly or indirectly.

Don't believe everything you read. But they are not technically classified as hazardous waste. :grinno: Here is an interesting article to fuel the debate. You could classify it as emperical or annecdotal data depending on your point of view.

Junk Science: Light Bulb Lunacy
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,268747,00.html

The major difference between CFLs and incandescent lamps is heat. CFLs generate less heat therefore more efficient and do not waste electricity hence more lumens per watt. :wink:

I actually prefer the CFLs over incandescents. Tomorrow will be the longest night of the year and right now I get up in complete darkness and drive home in the same. When I get up in the morning and wander into the bathroom in darkness by feel so as to not wake up the old lady the CFL lamps come on with a slowly warming glow until full illumination, eliminating that jarring flash bulb effect that 140 watt's of incandescents hits you with, seemingly doubled by their reflection in the mirror. I also like using florescent bulbs in the trouble light in my garage. With less heat and no fragile filament it's less likely to go out if dropped and wont melt plastic parts when placed too close.

But LEDs are the wave of the future. The Idaho Botanical Garden switched it's Christmas lights over to LEDs this year for a forcasted savings of 5,000 kilowatt hours. The LEDs come with a 50,000 hour warranty for outside use and some come with a limited lifetime warranty.

The local highway district has already changed over all the traffic signals to LEDs for even greater savings along with the longer life times reducing the number of bucket trucks blocking lanes of traffic to change burned out bulbs. And since this is an automotive forum it should be noted that the car makers are adopting LEDs as a way to increase vehicle mileage by reducing alternator loads on the engine.

The only problemI've had with CFLs is that they are longer than "normal" bulbs and don't fit in most of the domed lights in my house. We bought a 12 pack and could only use 4

Don't believe everything you read.
It's funny that you type that then give me another article to read... :lol:

Fortunately, nobody in their right mind would consider said story of any real empirical value - as nobody knows how much mercury was in said room before the light bulb was there and before it was broken.

Why doesn't anybody understand the scientific method these day?

Since the level of mercury in the room was not observed, or recorded before the lightbulb broke, but only after it was broken - attributing the mercury level to the lightbulb is nothing but speculation. (the light bulb has mercury in it, therefore all mercury present in the room could only have come from the lightbulb - it's fallacy of causation vs. correlation - a classic example of non sequitur logic)

Yellow journalism must be making a comeback...

Woah... you just took me straight back to Mr Kesslers 7th grade Science class. I can even smell that stinky ferret rumbling around in its cage in the back of the room.

Since the level of mercury in the room was not observed, or recorded before the lightbulb broke, but only after it was broken - attributing the mercury level to the lightbulb is nothing but speculation. (the light bulb has mercury in it, therefore all mercury present in the room could only have come from the lightbulb - it's fallacy of causation vs. correlation - a classic example of non sequitur logic)



:rolleyes:

The average CFL lamp has approximately 5 milligrams of Mercury which is the equivalent to the tip of a ballpoint pen. Therefore, a valid assumption can be made that a percentage of the Mercury contamination came from the broken CFL lamp not to mention all the Phosphor and other possible elements such as Krypton and Argon, however, I agree there is Mercury naturally in our environment. Regardless, I don't believe you can exclude the CFL lamp as being a source of the contamination therefore there is a correlation. Hopefully by the year 2012-14 the mercury content will decrease in the CFLs as technology advances. Proper disposal of and recycling CFLs will be important in the near future.


As each CFL contains 5 milligrams of mercury, at the Maine “safety” standard of 300 nanograms per cubic meter, it would take 16,667 cubic meters of soil to “safely” contain all the mercury in a single CFL. While CFL vendors and environmentalists tout the energy cost savings of CFLs, they conveniently omit the personal and societal costs of CFL disposal.

As to all the alleged Mercury generated by coal fired electricity generating plants I believe these plants amount to 40% of the nations electricity. Is it really applicable to hydro, natural gas or nuclear sources? For example in El Paso, Texas we get most of our electricity from the Palo Alto Nuclear Plant power grid in Arizona. :eek:

:rolleyes:

The average CFL lamp has approximately 5 milligrams of Mercury which is the equivalent to the tip of a ballpoint pen. Therefore, a valid assumption can be made that a percentage of the Mercury contamination came from the broken CFL lamp not to mention all the Phosphor and other possible elements such as Krypton and Argon, however, I agree there is Mercury naturally in our environment. Regardless, I don't believe you can exclude the CFL lamp as being a source of the contamination therefore there is a correlation.

Exactly, I said there was a correlation, but the article is trying to represent it as causation. I will not say that the bulb did not contribute to whatever mercury was present in the room, as it is known to contain mercury, so to say that it couldn't have would be a rather stupid assumption. The article seems however to imply that the room had become disastrously contaminated by the the bulb and bulb alone, which is a wholly unprovable hypothesis given the unknowns in this particular situation.

As to all the alleged Mercury generated by coal fired electricity generating plants I believe these plants amount to 40% of the nations electricity. Is it really applicable to hydro, natural gas or nuclear sources? For example in El Paso, Texas we get most of our electricity from the Palo Alto Nuclear Plant power grid in Arizona. :eek:

No, it's about 40% of the nations power plants are coal fired - the amount of electricity from them is more in the region of 54% to 57% depending on who you ask.
Although frankly, as concerns pollutants from coal, I'd be more worried by all of the Uranium released into the atmosphere by burning coal...
Further, if you had read the article closely - their calculations never assumed that 100% of the powerplants in the U.S. burn coal - they calculated the mercury output by how much energy was produced by coal burning powerplants. Apparently this was lost on some people...
In 2006, coal-fired power plants produced 1,971 billion kilowatt hours (kwh) of electricity, emitting 50.7 tons of mercury into the air
You'd have to throw away something like 18,000,000 CFL bulbs to equal one ton of mercury - um so multiply that figure by 50, and you'll get how many bulbs it takes to equal a years worth of coal burning powerplant mercury emissions.

eric, I second that on the use of the CFLs in the morning. I use a full spectrum CFL on my desk, and it's a lot easier on the eyes than the incand. lights. We've changed most of our lights over to CFLs. I think it's a reasonable thing to do, but I'm starting to look at some of the LED offerings now. All of the flashlights I use are LED now, and the battery savings alone are a plus.

I actually prefer the CFLs over incandescents. Tomorrow will be the longest night of the year and right now I get up in complete darkness and drive home in the same. When I get up in the morning and wander into the bathroom in darkness by feel so as to not wake up the old lady the CFL lamps come on with a slowly warming glow until full illumination, eliminating that jarring flash bulb effect that 140 watt's of incandescents hits you with, seemingly doubled by their reflection in the mirror. I also like using florescent bulbs in the trouble light in my garage. With less heat and no fragile filament it's less likely to go out if dropped and wont melt plastic parts when placed too close.

But LEDs are the wave of the future. The Idaho Botanical Garden switched it's Christmas lights over to LEDs this year for a forcasted savings of 5,000 kilowatt hours. The LEDs come with a 50,000 hour warranty for outside use and some come with a limited lifetime warranty.

I would have to say that at least 90% of the light bulbs in my house are either fluorescent tubes, ( basement, kitchen,) or CFLs. The only areas of my house that may contain regular incandescents are area I haven't remodeled yet or rarely use such as the attic or a couple of rooms in my second level. Hopefully by the middle of next year I can also change them out. This was the first year our Christmas tree used LED lights and they look good. They have vivid colors and are not hot to the touch like the old standbys of years past. Plus the package claims they use 88% less electricity than a standard sting of the same size. They also are break resistant bulbs and have a rated lifespan of 25,000 hours, and can be used indoors or out.
While buying some new tools at Sears Hardware last month I also purchased a new trouble light that uses exclusively LEDs. It has a flashlight at one end, and the long cylinder where there used to be a fluorescent tube, there are 20 LED lights instead. And it runs on electricity or is rechargeable, not bad.
The only problemI've had with CFLs is that they are longer than "normal" bulbs and don't fit in most of the domed lights in my house. We bought a 12 pack and could only use 4
Keep an eye out for the continuing introduction of newer bulbs. Companies are finally beginning to make them for more and more applications, and maybe you willfind some that fit within a few months or so. I was in Wal Mart a few weeks ago and noticed they got creative with some bulbs. Instead of you standard "swirl" CFL they had them in animal shapes such as a dolphin.I have read they are even planning on introducing outdoor floodlight in CFL along with other "oddball" applications. I have bulbs in my house that range in all different shapes and wattages. I even have a small CFL in the nightlight in my bathroom, and the desk lamp by my computer.

Another benefit of CFL's is that it is easier on the wiring and fixtures.

My house was built in 1925, and all of the electrical outlets and many lights have new wiring. But about 7 lighting circuits still use the original 82 year old wiring.
Although this wiring will eventually be replaced, it eases my mind that the CFLs are only drawing about 13 watts through the old wire instead of 100++ watts. Less consumption means less chance of overheated wires and less chance of burning the place down.

Another benefit of CFL's is that it is easier on the wiring and fixtures.

My house was built in 1925, and all of the electrical outlets and many lights have new wiring. But about 7 lighting circuits still use the original 82 year old wiring.
Although this wiring will eventually be replaced, it eases my mind that the CFLs are only drawing about 13 watts through the old wire instead of 100++ watts. Less consumption means less chance of overheated wires and less chance of burning the place down.

Are you sure about that? Any proof? IMO CFLs should never be used to compensate for substandard, aged or wiring out of code or poor fixtures. :nono:

Before jumping up and down or thinking you are safe which is an invalid assumption run some simple tests with an ammeter. The rather high initial inrush current on CFLs is high due to the internal ballast components consisting of MOSFET, capacitors, diodes, resistors and inductors, etc. The current seen can be as high as 5 amps or more. It is worse in cold weather and hot weather temperatures outside of the recommended use range of CFLs. Common sense should be used in deciding where and why you should use CFLs. :2cents: