Energy-efficient light bulbs – only good if you have 20/20 vision
By Dave Parrack
Switching from incandescent to fluorescent light bulbs has a number of benefits: saving the environment; saving people money on their bills; helping the EU feel it’s worthy. But the switch could be endangering the lives and well being of visually impaired people. What’s more important?
It recently came to light that the EU (European Union) were in the process of banning traditional, incandescent light bulbs in order to force everyone over to the energy-efficient, environmentally-friendly compact fluorescent lights. While bearing shades of 1984-style government enforcement, the move was generally seen as being a good one, helping cut people’s utility bills and save the environment.
But us Brits aren’t about to be dictated to by Brussels, and so many people were said to be stockpiling the old-style bulbs for whatever reason. At the time, I found this to be a little bizarre but it has now come to light that those people could be correct in their pettiness – campaigners are now stating that the new bulbs could be a risk to people with poor eyesight.
Charities and eyesight specialists are now claiming that the new fluorescent bulbs don’t provide enough light for people whose eyesight isn’t 20/20. The problems are two-fold: the time it takes for the bulbs to warm up causing possible dangers of falling over or tripping; the lower lighting making it impossible for people of limited vision to be able to read or do things they could with incandescent bulbs.
The technology dictates these issues. The fluorescent bulbs consume 80 percent less power but due to diffused light can provide enough light for most people in most situations. While this is good for the environment and people concerned about rising electricity bills, it’s clearly not quite so good for people who rely on the stronger bulbs to live a normal life.
Unusually for the British government, it has admitted there is a problem. A spokeswoman for DEFRA (the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) said:
“We recognize that compact fluorescent lamps do not offer the same ‘contrast’ that incandescent lamps offer as they give off diffused light.
“To address these concerns halogen lamps, which do provide contrast lighting, will remain on the market. These offer 30-45% energy savings in comparison to incandescent lamps.”
This seems to be a fair compromise but campaigners clearly aren’t going to let the issue lie. And while I am wholeheartedly for the switch to energy-efficient bulbs in order to help the planet, surely the health and wellbeing of people alive today has to take precedence?
Related:
Entry was posted
on Monday, January 26th, 2009 at 3:15 am
under
Read more entries by Dave Parrack.
Stumble It!
January 26th, 2009
Hey Dave, light bulbs don’t generate power. The consume power to generate light. And yes, in THEORY at least, a CF bulb can generate the lumens output equivalent to a standard bulb and consume 80% less power.
The problem has been people go replacing 100W bulbs with like 7W or 10W CFL’s, while to get equivalent light you need ~20W CFL. You wouldn’t be happy replacing a 100W with a 50W standard bulb, yet that’s exactly what people have been doing (and falling down or straining eyes because of half as much light). If you want equivalent lighting (arguable), replace bulbs by lumens output, NOT by watts!
January 26th, 2009
Wow Dave, way to slant a story to a silly anti-EU angle.
Perhaps you imagine they ought to be legislating against our interests or something, you know, just in case some berk happens to imagine they only do ‘good things’ to make themselves look good, huh?
The real story is that the Presidents, Prime Ministers, Ministers and the directly elected MEPs, the various national Gov delegates and the representitives in the EU commission (nominated by each and every one of the national elected Govs) from the sovereign nation states that make up the decision making process in the EU decided to pursue this policy and create an EU-wide ‘EU law’.
….and largely in response to a very obvious public concern that we all collectively maximise the net effects by pursue an EU-wide much greener and cleaner agenda.
This law was then refined and agreed and incorporated into the law of each of the nation states through their Parliaments (with various amendments or not as the case may be).
But why let boring old facts and the detail of how it actually worrks get in the way of a bit of dumbed-down ‘tabloid-speak’, eh?
January 26th, 2009
Dave P you seem to be waging a one-man battle against CFLs. In some countries, like Australia, it’s already impossible to buy old-style light bulbs, and the end of the world hasn’t happened yet.
January 26th, 2009
What about getting some facts into your story? If people buy cheap bulbs and don’t even check what is the appropriate replacement wattage of course they are going to have problems seeing! Recent CFL bulbs turn on immediately and produce more than sufficient lighting for a household.
I think this is just another journalistic beat-up with no foundation in fact but just to feed into people’s fears. Grow up and help rather than hinder.
January 26th, 2009
See, what have i been telling you Dave, people are getting sick of your tabloid style articles here on Tech.
Darian
January 26th, 2009
Not to be confused with the other Dave I have signed in as Dave T, from my limited experience with CFL’s in Australia I don’t like them, we have had one go off with a bang, the glass went black and bubbled with heat, white powder was leaking from it, the base was cooked, the other one just died,
but the main point is they lasted less than 2 months, and they are not equivalent in brightness, by contrast I bought a 3 LED torch that uses 2 C cell batteries, this is used daily, plus intermittent use at other times over a period of 3 months,
this torch is still as bright as the day I first put the C cells into it, my old filament torch using 2 C cells would have been flat several weeks ago,
what we really need is the LED lamp, I suppose until a miniature transformer can be built into these LED’s, and plug into the traditional globe holder, and for all I know maybe this does exist, but at this stage higher power multi LED’s in lamp form are too expensive and need low voltage.
Dave T
January 27th, 2009
Dave T, you can get LED replacements for pretty much every type of light fitting, however they do not yet reach the same light output as CFL and Halogen lights. try http://www.superbrightleds.com/edison.html for example. I replaced the halogen downlights in my hallway with LEDs, however I did have to install more light fittings.
I do think the future of lighting is LED, however I suspect that manufacturers are dragging their feet on improving their light output, as they would loose out on sales in the long run as LEDs pretty much last a lifetime.
January 27th, 2009
AS ALWAYS, THE DEVIL’S IN THE DETAILS…EXPLODING OR WORN OUT CFL’S PROVIDE A BRAND NEW ENVIRO-HAZARD WHEN THE MERCURY GETS LOOSE…AND THE LED LIGHTS WILL SOON RUN UP AGAINST SHORTAGES IN THE ODD AND RARE ELEMENTS THAT ARE GOING TO BE NECESSARY TO MASS PRODUCE THEM. SOME OF THE “RARE EARTH” TYPE ELEMENTS ARE MINED IN ONLY A VERY FEW PLACES ON EARTH.
OH, AND CFL’S MAKE LINE NOISE ON YOUR POWER LINE, WHICH WILL POSSIBLY CAUSE PROBLEMS WITH POWER LINE NETWORKING…AND YOU CAN’T USE THEM WITH DIMMERS.
DID I MENTION THEY DON’T LIKE TO START IN COLD WEATHER AND THE COLOR IS LOUSY?
January 27th, 2009
My own CFL experience is that they last many years and if you buy the correct wattage are indistinguishable to ‘ordinary’ incandescent bulbs.
I’ve never had one go bang or leak anything and every bulb in the house has been a CFL for many years
(going back to when they first appeared in regular shops about 11yrs ago).
Of course if you’re an idiot and buy a 7w CFL and expect 100w lighting you’re going to be deeply disappointed.
It’s true that they can take a few seconds to ‘warm up’ but so what?
They are well worth the savings.
January 28th, 2009
13W too dim? Buy a 23W bulb (100W equivalent). Problem solved!
Still too dim? Put more lamps in your house. Hell, put enough light fixtures in to simulate daylight.
January 30th, 2009
Peter,
thanks for the link on LED’s, quite interesting, unfortunately I observed 40 watt max, I think you suggested similar, plus they don’t like ambient heat, their life span diminishes after 23c and over, on an average we would only get 23c or less about 5 months of the year, this might even get worse if the climate is heating up, but thanks again for the interesting LED link.
Dave T
February 5th, 2009
ya are stupid you dont need 20/20 vision ya r just jackasses to get money
February 5th, 2009
I agree somewhat with DavidB
These CFL’s have a long way to go. I have been using them for a couple of years and they seem to burn out at the same rate as standard bulbs.
The ones that have made it for 2 years are dimmer than new ones. Old ones actually are yellow in comparison. They tend to get brown around the base of the bulb and get the classic black color on the ends of the fluorescent tubing.
I have been looking into LED bulbs at Amazon.com and they don’t put out nearly enough light, according to customer reviews, to be replacement for either standard or CFL’s.
Maybe in a year or so the LED’s will be cheaper and better.
Brian
March 5th, 2009
Hi Guys.
My company Megaman is probably the largest manufacturer of CFLs in the world. So we know an awful lot about them. Let me try and correct a number of misconceptions and misunderstandings about them.
Firstly, low energy bulb users who complain about poor light output, long warm-up times, etc., are probably basing their perceptions on the older type of low energy bulbs (which were around just three or four years ago) or they have invested unwisely in a cheap, inferior product. The first energy saving bulbs which hit the market were indeed pretty crude by today’s standards. Many were bulky and oddly shaped, some gave off a cold, harsh light, and others took a while to warm up to full light. Fortunately, there have been some spectacular advances in product development since then. Major manufacturers like Megaman have invested heavily in research to ensure that genuine low-energy alternatives are now available at reasonable cost.
Regarding warm-up times and brightness, most modern, high quality low energy bulbs take little more than a few seconds to reach full light output and nowadays are just as bright as normal bulbs.. Any perceived difference in light quality is more likely to be in the mind of the observer, as the actual light output, as measured by accurate scientific instruments and verified by literally millions of satisfied users, has now been shown to be the same – and in some cases superior to old-style bulbs.
Regarding the media hype about mercury contamination, yes, energy saving bulbs do contain tiny traces of mercury – in most cases an amalgam pellet smaller than the ball at the tip of a ball point pen. Let’s put that into perspective: we are talking here about less than 4 milligrams of mercury, that’s less than the amount of mercury contained in a standard dental filling. A mercury thermometer will contain about 500 milligrams of mercury while almost 14 milligrams get emitted at a coal fired power plant to power up just one incandescent light bulb. Standard fluorescent strip light tubes, which contain relatively large amounts of mercury, have been widely used in almost every conceivable commercial and public environment for decades without any contamination problems.
It is quite clear that the key reason that incandescent bulbs are being banned by so many countries is that they are grossly inefficient and based on obsolete technology. By banning them universally we will save not only on public energy costs but on the compelling effects of global warming and the devastating mercury pollution put out by coal fired power stations. This isn’t a trivial political ‘fad’ but a serious attempt to address the world’s climate change and pollution problems. People who insist on retaining or even stockpiling traditional bulbs are demonstrating gross selfishness and complete disregard for the ecological challenges the international community is trying its best to avoid.
Talk of retaining – or stockpiling – incandescent light bulbs in today’s climate-challenged world is, in my opinion, at best misguided and at worst selfish and anti-social. The facts are clear and recognised internationally – the traditional light bulb has to go!
Hope all that helps!
John Murphy
March 7th, 2009
John,
I have been following the incadescent bulb ban for awhile, and I have began stockpiling.
From your opinion, like the rest of the Pro CFL’s, are NOT listening to the complaints, or does not seem to care about some very real problems with these bulbs.
1. Dimmers- CFL’s DO NOT work with dimmers. Even the ones that are designed for dimmers are not stable and the light quality quickly declines. In addition, if a normal CFL is placed in a dimmer circuit, a house fire will quickly ensue as the electronics that are required to make CFL’s work, overheats and begans to burn. (I have seen evidence of these situations, and have done it myself in a controlled test.) The only logical solution would be to replace dimmers with regular light switches. So, we lose the ability to create mood lighting, and stuck with horrid quality light.
2. Disposal- All the ProCfl people talk about is “Sure, just drop them off at the closest recycle center.” Bullshit. The average Joe Six Pack is going to take one look at that burned out CFL, and there is no way in hell is he going to drive for several miles just to dispose of a light bulb. It’s going to directly into the trash and it’s going to happen at least 30 billion times considering the number of light sockets. These bulbs have been classified as hazardous waste by the EPA, this will create an environmental nightmare on the other side as they start filling landfills. This situation MUST be addressed.
3. Asthetics and size- These bulbs are too big to fit in a good portion of light fixtures, and are not intended in an enclosed fixture. So you have a open, exposed bulb. Some of us actually care about how we decorate our house and how it looks. This is unacceptable.
4. Migraine suffers-Britian, Canada and to some extent, the United States, all recognize these bulbs can trigger migraines. So what is the answer for this situation?
May 12th, 2009
My concern is how well these things really work. We installed a dozen new bulbs one year ago and 3 have already burnt out! That was a loss of almost $20C to us, most certainly not made up in a lower electric bill. It is not due to faulty wiring, we have had everything tested. My regular bulbs in other sockets, meanwhile, are all still happily glowing and we have not had to replace a single one. Our electric bill went up anyway with new charges so it was next to impossible to tell if we would have saved any money. Our usage stats are almost EXACTLY the same as they were before we installed the 12 new lights. Is this just a load of crap to try to get people to conform? Because I have not seen any evidence and am in fact out far more money than I would have imagined.
May 12th, 2009
I just read back a few comments and wanted to respond again – For us, we bought expensive bulbs by reputable companies like GE, closely looked at the watt comparisons (example, package saying it would match a 60 watt regular bulb), and had no trouble installing any. They only took a few seconds, it seemed, to reach full light, and we were pleased with them until the first bulb went out before Christmas, 9 months after purchase. Then in January another went kaput, and today a third. My friend is an electrician and he tested every single light and plug socket (and whatever else crazy stuff he does) and only came up with one plug socket not working properly. Everything else was well within standards. But here we are with 3 bulbs gone and money down the toilet – yet our complaints are greatly ignored. It is rather frustrating to say the least. If a ban goes into effect in my area, I will have to fork out nearly $100 to change the rest of my bulbs and replace the 3 that burned out already, instead of maybe $6 for the old ones. This is the kind of environmentalist propaganda that brought us Plastic Bags instead of paper (in case you have forgotten) and is now bringing in fabric bags – which hey, guess what, still pollute the environment during processing, transportation and eventual disposal… but we are supposed to act like sheep or cows and follow each other along without asking questions or expressing concerns.