Comments on: Energy-efficient light bulbs – only good if you have 20/20 vision

By: H L Morrison

H L Morrison — Fri, 12 Nov 2010 00:55:30 +0000

Thank you for your artical. You annoyed a lot of people,but living in Australia where energy saving light globes are now compulsory,I am well aware of the problems. We are aging & have poor vision, we also have a son who is suffering from Retinitis pigmentosa & requires rooms to have good bright lighting. These new globes do not do the job. I am having to buy Halogen & in stronger wattage than previously used. I am not a Greens basher, I often vote for them, I just think not enough thought went into this change.I am hoping for improvements in the brightness of these globes as time goes on, in the meantime in my home I am probaly using more energy as I have twice as many light on !

By: Energy saving lamp

Energy saving lamp — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 03:40:07 +0000

Most fluorescent lamps, compact fluorescent lamps and high intensity discharge lamps contain mercury. Without it, these lamps would be considerably less efficient and suffer in other performance categories as well.

By: Eric

Eric — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 07:40:32 +0000

John Murphy,

Hhhhhmmmmm. You work for a CFL company? Big surprise. You definitely have a slanted opinion and completely fail to understand that CFL’s are worse for the environment. You say that there is only a little mercury in each bulb? Well, that all adds up, just like the CFL companies profits will add up when incandescent bulbs are phased out. You are a good company shill.

I have had vision problems ever since grade school and the florescent lights in the schools constantly made my eyes water from the strain. My optometrist said that those florescent lights are bad for your eyes.

Also, I am a photographer and I know about the quality of light because my career depends on it. I would love to know what “accurate scientific instruments” were used to measure the quality of light. All light has a color temperature and the color temperature from florescent light makes human skin and food look terrible.

You also use customer testimony by saying that the quality of light has been “verified by literally millions of satisfied users”. Customer testimony is the most common sales method for selling snake oil. Since your company is a vendor for said snake oil I understand your perspective.

You mention that anyone who hoards or stockpiles these bulbs is selfish. That is simply not true. They are merely informed consumers who do not agree with a proposed law (which will probably change by the time it becomes enforceable) to ban a product they do not want to see replaced by something inferior against their will.

You are the selfish person who stands to profit from this debacle. Get off your self righteous kick already and face the facts.

Eric

By: Kez

Kez — Tue, 12 May 2009 05:00:39 +0000

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.

By: Kez

Kez — Tue, 12 May 2009 04:48:05 +0000

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.

By: Art

Art — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 22:31:04 +0000

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?

By: John Murphy

John Murphy — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 15:08:51 +0000

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

By: Brian P.

Brian P. — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 15:05:32 +0000

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

By: cody

cody — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 15:03:55 +0000

ya are stupid you dont need 20/20 vision ya r just jackasses to get money

By: Dave T

Dave T — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 23:30:03 +0000

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