# Interest group forums > Energy and Resource Conservation Forum >  Why you think CFLs suck (and how to change that)

## duncan drennan

Have you ever decided that it was time to save energy and switch to compact fluorescent bulbs (you know, those funny shaped energy saving lights)? I'm guessing that the switch wasn't as exciting as you hoped it would be. Dim light, maybe flicker, and long warm–up times.

No more.

The new CFLs are comparable to "regular" light bulbs (incandescents) AND save you a lot of money over their lifetime.

I've written a blog post on why you should change to these new lights (and it doesn't mentioned the word sustainability once!) Read it and let me know what you think. You can also download a spreadsheet that allows you to calculate the lifetime costs of different bulbs — and you'll be surprised how much money a CFL can save you.




> Compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) use about a fifth of the energy of a normal (incandescent) bulb to produce the same amount of light, so switching to CFLs means more money in your pocket every month (lower energy bills). Even though they are more expensive to purchase, the upfront cost of a CFL is recovered within six to twelve months (depending on the price of your electricity). Incandescent bulbs only last for about eight months, while CFLs can last for up to 4 years or longer, which is an extra saving (fewer bulb replacements).
> 
> A lot of people say they do not like CFLs because the light is not nice, they flicker, and take time to warm–up. With the new CFLs all of these problems have been solved. They have quick start–up times, no flicker and good light quality. Make sure you choose a light marked "warm white" if you prefer the yellower colour of incandescents. CFL quality can vary quite a bit so buy a good quality bulb like the Phillips Genie or Osram Dulux SuperStar.
> 
> Read the full article, "Some lights are more equal than others" on The Art of Engineering blog

----------


## Dave A

What is the position on toxic waste with CFLs? 

I vaguely recall hearing ordinary flourescent tubes should require special disposal - something about nasty chemical contents?

----------


## duncan drennan

> What is the position on toxic waste with CFLs? 
> 
> I vaguely recall hearing ordinary flourescent tubes should require special disposal - something about nasty chemical contents?


I haven't done a lot of research on this yet. The main "ingredient" that can be problematic is mercury. From what I've read (unconfirmed) the quantities of mercury in CFLs are lower than the amounts released into the atmosphere burning coal. I know CFLs typically have less than 5ug of mercury.

Also, if they are disposed of properly (recycled), then it is not an issue. In South Africa there are very few electronic waste disposal services. Pretty much all electronics (CRTs and batteries in particular) should be disposed of properly, but at the moment that is rare in most parts of the world.

I'll try to find out more about this for you.

----------


## Dave A

Yeah. That was it - the mercury. 

It was a "by the way" kind of dinner conversation - along with how salt is too toxic to be registered as a pesticide, probably. One's never really sure of the actual significance of stuff that floats up like that - sometimes you need to take it with a pitch of salt... But it all finds its way into the memory banks.

The trouble is normally extracting the exact detail.

----------


## duncan drennan

> It was a "by the way" kind of dinner conversation - along with how salt is too toxic to be registered as a pesticide, probably. One's never really sure of the actual significance of stuff that floats up like that - sometimes you need to take it with a pitch of salt... But it all finds its way into the memory banks.


The thing is, it is an issue which is often raised. It is like the whole issue of urban legends Ã¢â¬â why do they stick, even if they are not true? If there is enough sentiment in a certain direction, it is hard to change the momentum of it.

The trick is to talk about it lucidly with a message that is stickier than the commonly known one. That is really difficult, and I'm trying to get there. Energy efficiency and recycling require action, and getting people to do something seems to be quite difficult (but I'm working on it...  :Wink:  )

----------


## Dave A

Sorry, I'm side-tracking you. If the mercury content was a major issue, I'm sure the manufacture of flourescent light tubes would have been stopped by now.

I did a fair crawl around looking for mercury related info - particularly in relation to fluorescent tubes. I found two maybe worth mentioning - 
The University of Hawaii's Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste Management Program - which looks like a really solid waste management policy document, andAn outline of a presentation - Are we the Mad Hatters of the 20th Century? presented in 1997.

----------


## duncan drennan

Here is the most useful resource which I have found so far (from EnergyStar): on CFLs in general, and on mercury in CFLs (pdf).

----------


## duncan drennan

Another interesting fact sheet on mercury in CFLs. The most interesting thing is the graph with mercury emission comparisons (between a CFL and an incandescent). CFLs only cause about 2.4mg to be emitted, while incandescents cause about 10mg (over 5 years) — and that is going straight into the atmosphere. The few milligrams in the actual bulb can be safely recycled.

----------


## Dave A

I think that seals the deal. After adding the mercury content in the CFL and taking away the reduced mercury emissions from burning coal, the CFL results in less mercury into the environment. And (bonus) handled correctly it's contained and potentially recyclable.

A win/win all round. Perhaps they just need to add a "clean up" advisory on the packaging?

----------


## duncan drennan

> A win/win all round. Perhaps they just need to add a "clean up" advisory on the packaging?


That, and in SA the government needs to provide the facilities to dispose of these. Throwing them into the garbage with everything else contaminates the disposal truck, and the landfill. One of the things that I'm trying to figure out is how to make recycling _really_ easy, and electronic waste is a pretty important aspect of that.

Seems like I have some content for another blog post forming here....maybe need to do some reading on ROHS too, as this is currently having a large impact on the electronics industry.

----------


## RKS Computer Solutions

Duncan,

I haven't read your article yet, but wanna throw a comment around...  

Have replaced 5 lamps in a chandelier, previously 75W normal globes, currently running 5 14W fluorescent bulbs, and all I can say is this...

If I walk into my house at night I put my damn sunglasses on...  They are so bright that the color of the walls change every time you switch the lights on, they are extremely bright!!  All of that for less energy usage than a single normal bulb...

I agree with you, every person should think about conservation and a small investment in new technology will save you a pretty penny in the long run...

Maybe you should give a broad outline of pricing for the new CFL's... ?

----------


## duncan drennan

> Maybe you should give a broad outline of pricing for the new CFL's... ?


It is hard to say, as it varies between retailers, and also wattage. My experience is that for 60W equivalents a no-name bulb is about R15, while a Phillips Genie is about R17. For 100W equivalents the Genie bulb is about R26 rand. Very rough, so just check it out for yourself next time you are in a store (or go to www.picknpay.co.za)

----------


## RKS Computer Solutions

Ma picks and Pa pays, no thanks...   Have bought Osram 14W FL, paid +-R15 per globe as I bought a bulk pack of 10...

Have you got any recommendations on the new down lighters that have LED's instead of normal globes...  Have seen them locally for R40 a globe, but as far as my thinking goes it will save many a trip every 6 months to buy new ones...  Thinking of retro-fitting the kitchen and re-doing lighting in other places and wondering if in your opinion you have either dealt with it or know of anyone that has any experiences...

Thanks Duncan, appreciate it!

----------


## duncan drennan

> Have you got any recommendations on the new down lighters that have LED's instead of normal globes...


I really don't know. Light is a very subjective thing, and I'm not really a light expert (the article is more about energy saving). What I do know about LEDs is that the light tends to be more blue (i.e. cool-white) and the light output is lower, which may not be what you are looking for.

----------


## Dave A

> If I walk into my house at night I put my damn sunglasses on...  They are so bright that the color of the walls change every time you switch the lights on,


Maybe try the warm light variety. I think it gives a softer light. 

I've just got to say it: After reading the blog, I just *had* to Digg it.

A really good one Duncan.

----------


## duncan drennan

> I've just got to say it: After reading the blog, I just *had* to Digg it.
> 
> A really good one Duncan.


Thanks Dave, appreciate that. (for some reason I didn't see your digg though Thanks  :Wink:  )

----------


## Dave A

Dang. Well I just fixed that. I kept having auto-logout issues this morning but I thought my Digg had made it.

----------


## duncan drennan

I'm pretty chuffed - I got a mention on Dan Lockton's blog, along with some further thoughts on the whole lighting and energy efficient issue.

----------


## Dave A

Impressive. Nice come-back on the PF issue raised too.

----------


## Dave A

Incandescant light bulbs out by 2010? It looks like you're onto something here, Duncan.



> The Central Energy Fund (CEF) and UK multinational Philips are in talks to make energy saving light bulbs in southern Africa, which would dovetail with the government's plans to ban power-guzzling incandescent bulbs from 2010.
> full story from Business Report here

----------


## oridacfl

I think LED maybe a good choice.
However, its price is much higher than CFL.
And it do not have high power items.

In our country, the goverment support CFL industry because it's
a good way to replace HPS lights and incandescent lamp.
Many workers rely on this industry to feed their family.

Here's a website, they manufacture CFL and LED bulb.
http://www.cfl-bulbs.net

----------


## Inprogress

Few problems I have with CFL's, although I use them cause the one thing they do is save me money at the moment.

With the Incadescent light bulb, you have metal, glass, and some or other putty that hardens to stick the glass to the metal bit. With CFL's, you have plastic, glass, and mercury. I seem to recall a time when mercury batteries was banned... :Confused: 

Why do we need CFL's? Is electricity running out? I can't quite see it from a pollution point of view either cause I am sure it takes more energy and polluting processes to create a CFL than an incadescent. Plus, CFL's will pollute in the long run cause its not biodegradable. Yeah sure, we should recycle, but in reality, 95% of the world doesn't, me included...to be honest. And to say it causes less pollution cause we need fewer coal plants...bah humbug! We have increased our electricity needs a 100 fold with the likes of technologies like the one I am typing this post from. Build a PBMNR plant and problems solved...sure PB reactors isn't the ideal solution, but we have ridden on the easy train of fossil fuels and now we need to change, and until we find the ideal solution, PB reactors is our best, least pollution bet. 

Solar is a waste cause the input costs (material, cost, pollution) far outweighs the output gains.

There is research being done to increase the efficiency of Incandescents since no inprovement has really gone into the technologo in quite some time. Last I heard someone was working on a Incadescent that is 3 times more efficient that the current CFL's, plus last twice as long as the CFL's.

To me, CFL's is merely good business. Its very much like the Digital SLR's. SLR technology started to stagnate at around 1992. Then came DSLR's, which again, apart from increasing the light sensor chip, its pretty much still a SLR camera. So what do the companies do? They create a DSLR camera which is really difficult to use. A million buttons, 2 million menu options..for what? All you need in a proper camera is Aperture control, shutter speed control, and film(censor) sensitivity. Yet look at DLSR's, this feature and that feature and left and right. Its all marketing..same with CFL's.

I see CFL's and the "Green" movement is the new business arena...you can almost sell anything under the "green" label, people wont ask questions about the cost in pollution during manufacturing. Don't get me started on the ruse of new cars...the European Emmision Standards is the best thing to happen to the auto industry in decades...the best in terms of business. I made a conservative calculation comparing auto production figures, pollution generated during production, pollution from the use of the car; using a 1995 VW car and comparing it to a 2010 model. The crude figures are astounding...and not in the favour of "green".

Enough rambling. Chow!

----------

