Paul's CFL Test

Woke up this morning, cracked open google news, lo and behold, there was and article about Paul staring me right in the face!!  Right on google news!  (of course I have a "Permaculture" section in my personalized news setup  )

Great article on Paul's upcoming/in-progress CFL test > http://missoulian.com/news/local/missoula-man-says-compact-fluorescent-light-bulbs-not-a-bright/article_127ed1d4-0da1-11e1-9dd3-001cc4c03286.html

Good stuff Paul.  How about the low-down on your test set-up/methodology??

I shared it on Facebook too and told how I agreed and that I once bought five nice LED bulbs for over our dining table.  They claimed that they were equal to 40w in brightness but were actually no better than half that.  They also all burnt out in less than two months.  I was glad I kept the receipt and took them back to Sam's Club.  I do use CFL's where they are going to be on for long periods but not elsewhere.  They do not last.  I wish LEDs put out enough light for things like my dining table but not yet.  Christmas trees?  Yep.

I'm thinking that the trick with using led's is picking another tack than standard lighting fixture. I like using strings of led xmas lights to give a gentle glow, I find one strand gives enough lighting to read by if stapled to the wall behind a chair

I put the article from the Missoula Newspaper up on my facebook page on Sunday after receiving in an newsletter email.

With the move to the new forums, my posts here got lost. I think this is what I said:

I think most energy use comes from folks not being aware of the
pollution or the problems from the pollution, combined with not being
aware of ways to really save power. Such an enormous part of energy
conservations knowledge is really about somebody making money.

CFLs can help when used correctly, but they have so many downsides, I
choose to not use them. And in places where they are usually used for
less than a minute, they are far more expensive.

My power company will send me boxes of CFLs for free. But are they
really free? My research suggests that each bulb would cost at least
$11 if they had zero subsidies. And with all of the overhead of all
of the subsidies, they cost over $25 per bulb. Who do you think pays
for that? You do. I do.

The real reason the incandescent is being banned: because the
manufacturers make far more money selling other lights.

I think that rather taking $25 out of my pocket and offering me a
"free" light bulb, just let the damn thing sit on the shelf for $11
right next to the $1 incandescent and let folks make their own
choices.

And if the power company is serious about avoiding building a new
power plant by convincing folks of power conservation, then how about
telling them about clothes lines, drying racks, rocket mass heaters,
conductive and radiant heat, and all sorts of other things that can
make a REAL difference.

11 dollars per bulb!? How did you calculate this figure and what subsidies? Almost all are made in Asia, if there are subsidies other than the purchase I would think Chinese subsidies. CFL's have already reach mass production efficiencies.

{embed}QXc1c31WB_k{/embed}

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=QXc1c31WB_k

Amed,

What are your figures and how did you calculate them?

I find evidence of subsidy programs, but the "per bulb" information is difficult to calculate. And never is there a list of all know subsidies. This is something that would take years to research. And by the time you are done researching, there would be ever changing, new information.

As I have qualified over and over and over and over and over and over and over: based on the information I have gathered so far, this is my speculation.

I qualified. You demand calculation. So, what is your calculation?

No demands here, 11 dollars per bulb seems a bit inflated nowadays. A question more for yourself is how recent was this information that you used to make an educated guess? Maybe the price of the first bulbs cost that much otherwise I think the Chinese would not make these if they could not turn a decent profit. I may be feeling on this one but I understand some people are not fond of the government and that emotion may materialize into suggestions that our government subsidizes the things we dislike.

As I mentioned when Jack Spirko interviewed me: the information in this space is so wonky, and I've done so much research in trying to find this information .... if there was an office pool today I would bet on $11 per bulb (large quantity warehouse price, zero subsidy). And this would be an average price, since some bulbs are better than others.

I'm a bit confused here, Paul.

Do you mean to say that most people in the USA can only get free CFLs, so you don't know how much they would actually cost if you bought them at a normal store?

If so, do you want me to do a price check next time I get a chance? 'Cos they sure aren't free around here...

Edit - here, this might help - lighbulb prices in Portugal (in Euros)

They are anywhere between free and $4 per bulb here.

I've bought them online for under $4 each, 23-30watt, no subsidy that I could see. They have lasted us years now, through several moves. And we're not very careful about how often we turn them on and off.

Well, do you see the oil subsidy when you buy gas?

Do you see the corn subsidy when you buy beef? Or corn chips? Or pepsi with HFCS?

My point is that the subsidy is happening before your purchase.

When I get "free" light bulbs, there is no subsidy to be seen, but surely you have to admit that there must be a subsidy in there somewhere.

Anna Demb wrote:I've bought them online for under $4 each, 23-30watt, no subsidy that I could see. They have lasted us years now, through several moves. And we're not very careful about how often we turn them on and off.

Same here, been using them for several years and only remembering replacing them once every few years or so. The new ones reach full brightness more rapidly than the old ones did, I still remember them, the coily was encased in ugly textured plastic. New ones are a big improvement. We have kids, so lights are getting switched on and off constantly.

I've followed the CFL controversy for some time and find my personal experience at odds with that of many others. I have a house approaching 2 years of age. It came fully equipped with CFL's in most built in fixtures. I also use 23 or 26 watt CFL's in the few table lamps I have. I agree that they do not come on at full brightness, but find that a minor inconvenience. At times when the room is very quiet I do hear a faint hum or buzz, but not to the point of finding it distracting. Perhaps I have greater tolerance than some others. I have had to replace only one of the original CFL's since I have owned the home; that is one of the areas where my experience seems to differ. In any event, I believe the CFL is a stop gap item. More efficient lamps such as LED's will continue to be developed and replace not only the incandescent, but also the CFL.

I buy incandescent bulbs from 1000bulbs.com. They are rated for 20,000 hours. I suspect they will last longer than the CFL's they replaced. I have discovered another "problem" with CFL's, well maybe it is just the brand I was buying but they seem to work well when mounted on the vertical axis but horizontally or at certain angles they flicker and burn out more rapidly.

No problem with CFL's. It sounds like the ppl with issues are using very cheap ones to begin with. These do break within a year, although the quality was bad to begin with.

Cheap electronics, no rare phosphors, a 2700k so-called 'warm' light that is supposed to imitate a filament lamp, in turn supposed to imitate a candle flame,
this is a poor light for daily activities, early evening, or reading or doing shop-work. Give up on 'warm' which has very poor colour-rendering, and fails to bring out vibrance, making life literally seem grey.

Use 4000k lamps (minimum) for activities, good electronics, good phosphors... On good CFL electronics, the very circuit which is likely to burn out is the same in electronic starters for more traditional fluorescents. The rest of the lamp construction quality-level is, by reason, about equal to the quality of the starter circuit.

I got 10 electronic starters on-the-cheap from an ebay shop, where there was no further information on the specifications, except what was printed on the outside of the starter housing. The claim was 5 to 125watts.

In repeated tests with 100watt lamps, the starters burned themselves out, one after another. Almost each start, (turning the lamp on), had a new starter burn out. With 10 separate lamps, no specific fixture had burned-out starters more than any other.

It turns out bad electronic starters are a common issue of discussion with tanning bed operators, so if you check their forums, it becomes clear there are only about 4 brands of 5 starters which are worth bothering with - the rest are junk. This is the same reason why the CFL's fail: poverty-minded engineering and construction, creates marginal circuits which last only a short time.

The only tanning-bed success electronic starter manufacturer brand-name available, having been used in the high-stress environment of tanning cycling and heat, also present in the CFL market, is PHILIPS. I have looked over a few different brands of CFL's, and the PHILIPS TORNADO DAYLIGHT lamps seem to be priced affordably, and also have the best durability (electronics and room temp tolerance) when used by me. These are only 6500k lamps, though, so I cannot recommend using them during the late evening or at night during sleeping hours. Doing so affects the stimulation of the body ['circadian rhythm']. For early evening, it is ideal to have a 4000k lamp, although a 2700k TORNADO could do in a pinch. For late evening/sleeping hours, only red light.

The CRI of the 6500k lamps is rated at 82, but this seems like a low number, which is good: seems to be around the high 80's. What makes me wonder about a rating I saw for the CRI of the 2700k lamps: 82. One is not correct. These lamps, while quality, are sold into a common-use and not technical market, so someone should make their own tests on the CRI and report back if they wish.

For me, though, the TORNADO series 6500k 'DAYLIGHT' are fine for daytime lighting without further testing. There is no buzzing, humming or chirping. There is no flickering, and they start immediately, unlike another more expensive brand lamp that takes up to 10 minutes to warm-up. They do not seem to suffer from power-cycling fatigue, nor does the base generate excess heat, remaining cool enough to remove the lamp directly, or very soon after turning it off.

Standard CFL's that cannot be removed from the socket within about 25 seconds of turning-off, indicate poor engineering, generating excess heat during operation, in turn they are generally not going to last. One can determine the heat of the base by hand, at a shop with a display of lamps turned-on, in bare-sockets.

CFL's are used as part of an overall lighting form: My suggestion is dual sockets, or triple, with 6500k/red or 4000k/red, or 6500k/4000k/red light, and use the lighting as needed to replicate normal tropical cycles.

Another issue, is on north america, the grid-power is usually of a very poor quality. This is measured with special logging-recording equipment by myself, and also quality UPS's (battery backups) keeps a record and can be set to different sensitivity-levels. The poor quality electricity may be responsible for some of the burn-outs, although on the balance poor-quality CFL engineering and construction are a greater issue.


-------------------
Another way to go is the 'industrial' CFL, if one has a situation with a larger room and standard sockets. These are engineered better, to replace 'street' lamps, and they also have more room at the base for the electronics to dissipate heat; whereas many 'home' CFL's are designed to accommodate sockets originally for filament lamps - with a skinny neck instead of a large base. With one brand, MEGAMAN, maybe only available on europe, (these are the 10-minute slow starters mentioned above), I had bad luck with their 'standard' CFL's of 4000k and 6500k, retailing around 30EUR. The small base seemed to have a lot of heat! For about 40EUR at the time, however, it was possible to get one of the Jumbo-series lamps, which was a huge step-up in terms of lighting brightness, (elect.) durability and quality. The 74watt model I donated, is now providing lighting for an art gallery that works with disabled folks. They had only 2700k standard no-name CFLs before, and it was so awful just to be in that space with the poor lighting - a picture-window letting in some evening light, that in order to continue without getting sick, I was convinced it necessary to improve the lighting.

And the new light is the centre of activity, as colours jump out. We hope to provide more lighting as time continues: the official lighting budget is this new fiscal year.

Paul and Andrew discuss CFL fluorescent lightbulbs in this podcast: podcast

They discuss Paul's CFL test.

Incandescent bulbs are not going to become scarce or banned. Here are some facts about the law.
In Fact, The Law Does Not Ban All Incandescent Bulbs -- Only Inefficient Ones

The Energy Independence And Security Act Sets "Energy Efficiency Standards" For Incandescent Bulbs, Doesn't Ban Them. From Title III of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007:

Subtitle B: Lighting Energy Efficiency - (Sec. 321) Amends EPCA to prescribe energy efficiency standards for general service incandescent lamps, rough service lamps, and other designated lamps.

Directs the Secretary of Energy to: (1) conduct and report to the FTC on an annual assessment of the market for general service lamps and compact fluorescent lamps; and (2) carry out a proactive national program of consumer awareness, information, and education about lamp labels and energy-efficient lighting choices. Authorizes appropriations for FY2009-FY2012.

[...]

Instructs the Secretary of Energy to report to Congress on: (1) federal measures to reduce or prevent release of mercury during the manufacture, transportation, storage, or disposal of light bulbs; (2) whether specified rulemaking deadlines will be met; (3) an NAS review of advanced solid state lighting R&D and the impact upon the types of lighting available to consumers of an energy conservation standard requiring a minimum of 45 lumens per watt for general service lighting; and (4) the time frame for commercialization of lighting to replace incandescent and halogen incandescent lamp technology.

(Sec. 322) Sets forth minimum energy efficiency standards for incandescent reflector lamps.

(Sec. 323) Amends federal law governing congressional approval of proposed public buildings projects to require the Administrator of General Services (GSA) to: (1) transmit to Congress an estimate of the future energy performance of the building or space and a specific description of the use of energy efficient and renewable energy systems, including photovoltaic systems; and (2) include, with respect to space to be leased, the minimum performance requirements for energy efficiency and renewable energy.

Sets forth requirements for the use of energy efficient lighting fixtures and bulbs in public building construction, alteration, and acquisition.

(Sec. 324) Amends EPCA to include within its regulatory oversight: (1) metal halide lamp fixtures; and (2) energy efficiency labeling for designated consumer electronic products. [Public Law No. 110-140, 12/19/07]

Philips Electronics Executive: "There Has Been No Ban On The Incandescent Light Bulb." From a December 9, 2010, NPR interview with Philips Electronics Vice President Randy Moorhead:

ELIZABETH SHOGREN (NPR reporter): So will the government really take away your choice in light bulbs?

Randy Moorhead, vice president and lobbyist for Philips Electronics, says no.

MOORHEAD: There has been no ban on the incandescent light bulb. The incandescent light bulb actually lives. It's just going to be 30 percent more efficient.

SHOGREN: An energy bill signed by President Bush three years ago requires light bulbs to use at least 30 percent less electricity than traditional bulbs. But Moorhead says in anticipation of the new standards, companies like his have started selling new incandescent bulbs that comply with the law. They're made with a slightly different technology than Thomas Edison's invention. They use halogen gas. Moorhead says consumers won't notice a difference in the way they look or work compared to old-fashioned incandescent bulbs.

MOORHEAD: They're just going to find their electricity bills are a lot lower. [NPR, 12/9/10]

PolitiFact: "Current Law Does Not Ban Incandescents, But Rather Says Most Light Bulbs Must Meet Increased Efficiency Standards By 2012." PolitiFact has stated of the Energy Independence and Security Act signed by George W. Bush in 2007:

The current law does not ban incandescents, but rather says most light bulbs must meet increased efficiency standards by 2012. The standards themselves, which were developed later, include several exceptions for incandescent light bulbs, including three-way bulbs, colored lights, bug lights or plant lights. [PolitiFact, 3/6/09]

And Manufacturers Are Offering A Wide Variety Of Bulbs, Including Energy-Efficient Incandescents

2007 Energy Bill Reportedly Spurring "Tremendous Amount Of Development." From a January 24 Philadelphia Inquirer column:

Walk down today's lighting aisle, and it's intimidating.

Incandescents. Halogens. CFLs. LEDs. All sizes. All shapes. All colors, from warm white to a crisp bluish tint. And more to come.

So read on for a tour of the ever-burgeoning bulb-land.

"There's a tremendous amount of development," said Brian Fortenbery, an energy efficiency lighting expert with the Electric Power Research Institute, a national nonprofit. "It's not a one-technology game, by any stretch."

Driving the change is a provision in the Energy Independence and Security Act that Congress passed in 2007, during the George W. Bush administration.

It set energy efficiency standards for lightbulbs, which will begin to phase in come Jan. 1, 2012. [The Philadelphia Inquirer, GreenSpace, 1/24/11]

GE Offers Incandescent Halogen Bulb Which "Operates Up To 22 Percent More Efficiently" Than The Traditional Incandescent Bulb. From a February 14 General Electric press release:

U.S. consumers shopping for light bulbs this Valentine's Day and in the coming months may notice changes on retail store shelves: fewer incandescent bulbs and a wider selection of energy-efficient incandescent halogen bulbs. GE Lighting offers a light bulb that looks like the century-old and beloved incandescent bulb, produces nearly the same light output but operates up to 22 percent more efficiently.

Today, U.S. consumers can find GE's incandescent halogen bulbs -- clear and Reveal® clear versions (MSRP $5-$7) -- nationwide in two-packs in 29-, 43-, 53- and 72-watt varieties that dim and turn on instantly like their 40-, 60-, 75- and 100-watt incandescent bulb cousins that are phasing out of production between 2012 and 2014 as a result of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (learn more at www.gelighting.com/2012).

[...]

"A bulb that uses less energy costs less to run," says John Strainic, global product general manager, GE Lighting. "Halogen is an incandescent technology with a big efficiency advantage over standard incandescent bulbs. Each of the bulbs in this line-up consumes fewer watts than the incandescent bulbs we've all used for decades, while delivering a precise dimming capability and a bright, crisp light."

[...]

GE has produced incandescent halogen spotlights and general service light bulbs for accent and general lighting for many years. The technology is in the spotlight now more than ever because governments around the world have instituted new laws that set higher efficiency levels for lighting. The greater efficiency of GE's incandescent halogen bulbs enable them to comply with the lighting efficiency laws on the horizon in the U.S. and globally. [General Electric, 2/14/11]

They will still be manufactured but they have to be more efficient. For instance the new Phillips 77 watt incandescent has the the same lumens per watt as the old 100 watt incandescent.

The thing that strikes me about all of this is not how much electricity is used by light bulbs so much as the other factors that lead us to be so concerned with power consumption; and the forcing of us into "planned obsolescence".

The things that use the most energy in our households is certainly not light bulbs. Paul even stated half of our enormous heating bills result in around half the consumption. I am not a proponent of burning wood in the city, but pellets and rocket mass heaters are vastly different - radiant floor heating, etc. People foolishly (or in desperation) still use mini-heaters and baseboard heaters. Those things are like using 38-50 40watt bulbs at a time. Refrigerator compressors and anything of that nature use a lot. I try to fill my extra jars with water and put them in my fridge to reduce compressor use.

This is really about, to me, how offensive of a fucking fascists golliwog this whole situation happens to be.

Kull Conquered wrote:The thing that strikes me about all of this is not how much electricity is used by light bulbs so much as the other factors that lead us to be so concerned with power consumption; and the forcing of us into "planned obsolescence".

The things that use the most energy in our households is certainly not light bulbs. Paul even stated half of our enormous heating bills result in around half the consumption. I am not a proponent of burning wood in the city, but pellets and rocket mass heaters are vastly different - radiant floor heating, etc. People foolishly (or in desperation) still use mini-heaters and baseboard heaters. Those things are like using 38-50 40watt bulbs at a time. Refrigerator compressors and anything of that nature use a lot. I try to fill my extra jars with water and put them in my fridge to reduce compressor use.

This is really about, to me, how offensive of a fucking fascists golliwog this whole situation happens to be.

I agree about the other electricity eaters" and feel like many others that it is political and possibly there was collusion between the manufacturers. The new "more efficient" incandescent bulbs cost more than the bulbs they replaced. I have a dozen each or so of 100/75/60 watt incandescent bulbs in the closet. I always buy them wholesale by the case. When I finish building my latest project hopefully it will drastically reduce my electric bill. It is a solar heater made using soda or beer cans. That should eliminate any heater needs on all but the most overcast days so my heating needs will be mostly at night.

Some people theorize that one of the reasons we have flouridated water supplies is that a lot of polluting industries needed a way to dump their hazardous waste chemicals, their method was to convince people it was good for their teeth and to accept it a little at a time in our water supply. After some consideration of thinking why were CFL bulbs, which are clearly inferior to even incandescent bulbs, selected as the leading viable choice and receiving loads of subsidies and being push as "the answer" I came to the conclusion that perhaps some industries have loads of mercury they are accumulating and needed a way to monetize and dispose of their mercury waste.

I just listened to Paul's podcast on CFL's from earlier this month. I agree with all of the complaints he has, as I've bought some and had most of them fail after a few months and give off allot less light. When he made comments concerning repairing incandescent light bulbs, something clicked! Here are some links (and a few comments) that I have (And I have one of the books!)

Making your own vacuum tubes (and transistors!): (These are very cool - one has you making vacuum tubes and transistors)
http://www.hpfriedrichs.com/bks-ioa.htm
http://www.hpfriedrichs.com/bks-votc.htm

Make your own Light bulb:
http://www.livescience.com/7060-light-bulb.html
http://www.fuellesspower.com/43_MakeYourOwnLight_Bulbs.htm (9.95 book)
http://www.scientificsonline.com/reinventing-edison-build-your-own-light-bulb-kit.html (60) bucks)
http://www.ehow.com/how_4422309_make-light-bulb.html



The bulb DOES NOT NEED A VACUUM! Oxygen is a very reactive gas and will cause the element used to glow hot to burn out very quickly. So yes, vacuum does work but any inert gas will work as well. Try Argon for example:
http://library.thinkquest.org/C0113863/Argon.shtml

Art Roberts

I like how on this site the guy makes a light bulb out of a MASON JAR!

I really, really hate CFLs. A couple of years ago, I replaced just about all the lightbulbs in my house with CFLs. I was trying to be "green" an save some money. I never did recoup the cost of the bulbs and most of them burned out really quickly. They were supposed to last 5-7 years; after 2.5 years, the only left is in a lamp that is used only infrequently. I yanked two of them out, but the rest burned out. Furthermore, the light they give out is awful and actually worsens the seasonal affective disorder I get every winter. About a year after I got them I learned about the mercury issue and swore to never by those things again. We've gone back to incandescents until we can afford to switch over to LEDs.

Thanks for your work on this, Paul.

Rebecca Brown wrote:We've gone back to incandescents until we can afford to switch over to LEDs.

Work the numbers and you'll find it makes sense to switch to LEDs sooner rather than later. I just picked up some 800 lumen 60 watt equivalents for $19 per which use 12.5 watts. If you use them 5 hours a day, they pay for themselves in the first year assuming your power costs $.10/kWh! I just replaced the two in the house that get used the most often so far.

Where did you get those LEDs? The problem I had with the 2 LED bulbs I bought was that the light output was much lower than the wattage they were supposed to replace. I've been considering some induction bulbs as their lifespan looked high and their output was also high.

raindog Hatfield wrote:Where did you get those LEDs?

Home depot: http://www.homedepot.com/h_d1/N-5yc1v/R-202530170/h_d2/ProductDisplay?langId=-1&storeId=10051&catalogId=10053

I bought two and am counting on this rebate: http://www.polar-ray.com/assets/images/LED_Lighting_Rebates/Philips_Lighting_Rebate_Form.pdf

I also got 4 miles per $ with delta/Amex. Hence the $19.

Article about the benefits of LEDs I wrote for a microlocal news source in my town:
http://santee.patch.com/blog_posts/leds-are-your-best-bet-for-home-lighting
-Alan

the test results: