Comments for The Four Types of CFL Haters...And What to Tell Them at http://ecogeek.org , comment 1 to 85 out of 20 comments http://ecogeek.org Wed, 19 Jun 2013 18:33:41 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://ecogeek.org/efficiency/2509#comment-48405 I changed over my whole house to CFl bulbs 5 or 6 years ago. Its really a hit and miss deal with those bulbs. Some last a long time while others will last only a couple months. or they will last 2 months then go out the third and then come back on in a week or so and then die all together. I can't stand the inconsisency. Also broke one while changing it out and that was an ordeal in itself. Airing out the whole house for 3 hours while hoping you didn't inhale the murcury and throwing out the bulb while wearing gloves and tring to get a glass container to hold the broken bulb. YES people that's what you have to go through to clean it up . its like a silkwood incident! Not to mention, you aren't supposed to put them in the garbage. I have a box full of used bulbs sitting in my garage to be recycled somewhere?????? yeah,last long?? how come I have a whole box of them?? oh yeah, and they are not supposed to be used upside down. makes them overheat. - liz Sun, 16 Jun 2013 13:22:25 +0100 http://ecogeek.org/efficiency/2509#comment-48356 Another category would be Logical and Lucky I guess I got lucky the first two CFLs I bought burned out within 60 days. I've been using incandescence all my life they work just fine I'm sticking with them. - Steve Tue, 04 Jun 2013 05:27:21 +0100 http://ecogeek.org/efficiency/2509#comment-26327 You are missing a category. That would be the I'm tired of driving store to store to find the right kind of CFL. We took inventory of our light fixtures, in order to replace many with cfls. I have candelabra types, fan types, ones that are odd shaped, etc. I spent hours going store to store because Menards sells the Fan type with the regular base, but not candelabra base, so some lights were taken care of. Home Depot sold the dimmable ones I needed. Lowes sold a third type. Eventually I gave up. The cost saved from the CFLs is quickly out weighted by the cost of gas and emissions of driving store to store. It would be nice to find all types in one place. - Beth Sun, 26 Apr 2009 15:56:30 +0100 http://ecogeek.org/efficiency/2509#comment-26219 what do you plan on telling people who understand the danger to their pets? Or the people who read the EPA hazmat rules for treating them as toxic when they break? Will you be selling the needed hazmat items on the list they should keep nearby after they clear the area and get all living things out of the apartment due to one broken light bulb? I was also wondering what you plan on saying to migraine sufferers who are triggered by the initial flicker. Nevermind. http://www.epa.gov/hg/spills/index.htm - Jerry Wed, 22 Apr 2009 15:58:19 +0100 http://ecogeek.org/efficiency/2509#comment-25275 great article. but there really is no need to compromise with regard to CFLs. There ARE bright ones out there you know! www.earthmatelighting.eu i got these and they were great. fast, compact and bright, with 75% less murcury...its a no brainer. some people are just lazy and don't wanna take note of massive savings! - alan Fri, 20 Mar 2009 06:50:06 +0100 http://ecogeek.org/efficiency/2509#comment-24514 I have a lot of friends who rent, and move every 6-12 months. They're not going to spend the money to buy a bulb that's going to last years when one that will get them through the rental term is good enough. And replacing every bulb with a CFL is too much work... even if they use less electricity, they don't pay close enough attention to their energy usage anyhow to notice. Btw, have to laugh at all the commenters who are bringing up the mercury content when you clearly covered that. Especially as CFL recycling is popping up all over the place. - Brian Tue, 24 Feb 2009 11:39:21 +0100 http://ecogeek.org/efficiency/2509#comment-24240 Yet aother reason some of us don't buy cfls...they are made in China. There are soooo many problems with this I won't list them all, but for some of us this is real moral issue. And yes, you can buy alternatives with enough research and care. so, until someone else makes them (and they don't have to be made in USA) they won't be in our home. - Cindy Sun, 15 Feb 2009 14:06:31 +0100 http://ecogeek.org/efficiency/2509#comment-24209 [q]if you ever have woken up a baby you're trying to sneak into bed by turning on a light or by tripping over something in the dark, you will understand why. This is a non-trivial issue[/q] I'm proud to say I have never done so, human overpopulation being the World's #1 problem. Please stop having all these babies. And then you will not have to worry about tripping over them in the dark. Also, you will then be free to install reasonably efficient lighting in your home. Use condoms, or whatever works for your situation to make it (not) happen. But [b]don't use your fecundity as an excuse for not acting even more irresponsibly.[/b] - Steve Bergman Thu, 12 Feb 2009 19:20:02 +0100 http://ecogeek.org/efficiency/2509#comment-24172 [quote]I can only spend a maximum of about 3 hours in fluorescent lighting of anykind before my motor functions begin shutting down,[/quote] Fluorescent lighting of any kind? What is your proposed mechanism of action for this? - Steve Bergman Wed, 11 Feb 2009 22:55:15 +0100 http://ecogeek.org/efficiency/2509#comment-24164 Many people have issues with headaches and migraines from CFL's and I personally have a more severe reaction, I can only spend a maximum of about 3 hours in fluorescent lighting of anykind before my motor functions begin shutting down, as I have a form of epilepsy that makes me extremely light-sensitive. I am also a biologist, and so I can see both sides of the debate. I do believe that there is a happy medium, and I am hoping it is LED technology. - Erin Wed, 11 Feb 2009 17:44:33 +0100 http://ecogeek.org/efficiency/2509#comment-24092 I'm a big believer in recommending that people buy one size up. I've noticed in looking over studies that the studies which use brighter bulbs get more positive feedback from the subjects. It's only about 4 extra watts to go from a 60W equivalent to a 75W equivalent. Insignificant compared to the savings over an incandescent. I'm giving out bulbs in laundry room at the apartment complex where I live, and am only distributing 100W equivalents. They are rated at 23W, actually draw 21W, and are quite bright and cheery. I think it makes a better impression upon people. If the bulb is too dim, they think they "don't like the light" CFLs put out. If it's too bright, I think they realize they should just get a lower wattage CFL. Strange psychology, I know. But I do think that it's the way people think. - Steve Bergman Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:08:44 +0100 http://ecogeek.org/efficiency/2509#comment-24044 [quote]Let's be honest. There are many more legitimate reasons for people to avoid CFL's, unfortunately.[/quote] Let's be honest. You have presented some reasons that might deter the use of CFLs in certain special instances. Fine. Does that mean that they should just give up the idea of using CFLs at all? I've yet to see a home completely lighted by weird 3 way configurations and ceiling fan fixtures. Besides, 50-100-150 CFL 3 ways are available most anywhere CFLs are sold. And the fan vibration damaging the solid state electronics sounds a bit bizarre. Vibration is actually harder on incandescent filaments than on IC chips. The real problem is that CFLs have to be hands-down superior in every way... and all the disinformation about them will have to be debunked over and over again for a while longer, before the huge inertia of incandescents can be eroded. - Steve Bergman Mon, 09 Feb 2009 10:22:58 +0100 http://ecogeek.org/efficiency/2509#comment-23988 Elissa, Like most "CFLs aren't really green" rumors, this one if a bunch of hooey. It is related to the "CFLs don't last long if you turn them off and on" myth, I think. At short duty cycles, the total hours of life does decrease. But at current prices, unless you sit and turn them on and off every 1 minute or so, the hardware itself is still cheaper per hour than incandescent, without even figuring in the energy savings. And if you turn them on and off every 5 minutes, they still use about 75% less energy than incandescent. You can check this for yourself with a kill-a-watt, or similar, monitor: http://tinyurl.com/b9y53n I have observed mine carefully, and CFLs actually use slightly *less* energy over the first minute than they do after they have warmed up. Enjoy your new CFLs! :-) - Steve Bergman Fri, 06 Feb 2009 15:37:31 +0100 http://ecogeek.org/efficiency/2509#comment-23987 """ You missed the category that are uptight about the amount of 'dirty' energy that is emitted by cfl's....(this would be the category I place myself in personally) because they're really bad in that aspect! """ What in the world are you talking about? This makes no sense at all. - Steve Bergman Fri, 06 Feb 2009 15:00:53 +0100 http://ecogeek.org/efficiency/2509#comment-23986 CFLs have never carried very much mercury. But since mercury has become such a hot topic, Walmart has manhandled manufacturers to reduce it even further. Most bulbs, like GE's, contain about 2mg of mercury. Imagine an inch. Now imagine a tenth of an inch. Take that tenth of an inch and devide it into 5ths. Take one of those 5ths or the tenth of an inch and imagine a cube of mercury that length on a side. That is how much mercury we are talking about. However, over the life of the bulb, the mercury ends up bonded to the walls of the tube. At the end of the tube's life, about 90% of the mercury is bonded. So about 1/10th of that tiny cube of mercury is *potentially* available to wash out and contaminate the environment. If you live in an area which uses any coal at all to produce its electricity, which means most places, then more mercury than that is belched right into the atmosphere that you breath by the coal plant when it generates the extra energy to power an incandescent. (As an aside, those coal plants also emit more radiation, in the form of the radioactive uranium they emit, than a nuclear fission plant.) This whole topic of mercury is *just plain silly*. Intelligent people should all know that by now. This is true of most of the folk wisdom circulating regarding why CFLs "aren't really green". And yet the phantoms persist. If it still bothers you, get one of the ultra-low mercury bulbs that has 1mg or less. - Steve Bergman Fri, 06 Feb 2009 14:56:02 +0100 http://ecogeek.org/efficiency/2509#comment-23985 """ And the cheaper CFLs do last longer. But they have a 60hz migraine inducing flicker. """ No. That is a myth. It used to be true. But modern CFLs... even the ones I buy for $1.81 a piece at WalMart, have electronic balasts and operate at 40KHz. No flicker. whatsoever. - Steve Bergman Fri, 06 Feb 2009 14:38:45 +0100 http://ecogeek.org/efficiency/2509#comment-23921 1) to Ian Gerrett: the "incandescant bulb costs $ 1.50 myth" if you do the math, use real numbers, like 4@.99! 2) how do all you "Opposers" like the FACT, that incandescent bulbs are not longer sold in the European Union after 2010 (as in: OUTLAWED!) Maybe they are up to something, like: We are all in this together, and it has been long enough that 5% of the world population uses up 96 % of the resources, including wasting energy like there was no tomorrow!(heck, maybe there isn't...!!!) P.S. they are considering outlawing 52" TVs too, due to obscene energy consumption. First Step... - Sandy Wed, 04 Feb 2009 14:58:37 +0100 http://ecogeek.org/efficiency/2509#comment-23903 Do not touch the bulb of ANY lightbulb, CFL or otherwise. Touching the bulb with your skin can shorten the life of the bulb. It's got something to do with the oil on your skin affecting the coating of the bulb. My husband just grabs a sandwich baggie and covers his hand with it when he has to install a bulb. We have been using CFLs (cheap brands and name brands) for 5 years and have had maybe one or two burn out in 20+ lighting fixtures. I suspect a lot of those who are complaining about CFLs burning out quickly, just grabbed the bulb and pawed it all up while installing it. Try a rubber glove or plastic baggie and see if you get better results. Can't hurt! - Megan Wed, 04 Feb 2009 07:52:05 +0100 http://ecogeek.org/efficiency/2509#comment-23885 Alright, I did some research for all you nay sayers. First CFL's do not have to be on for 15 minutes to be more efficient, but if they are on for less than 5 minutes the life can be reduced. Energy star recommends about 15 minutes (some people like to twist the facts). Second, although CFL's do contain mercury since they use less energy and most electricity comes from coal power and coal spits mercury into the environment (which is much worse than being contained in a glass tube) incandescent bulbs are actually worse for mercury contamination indirectly. CFL lasts 6,000-15,000 hours where incandescent lasts around 1,000-1,500 hours. In the end you pay more for incandescent than CFL because your buying 5 times as many bulbs (even though cheaper) but also using 3-4 times as much energy. CFL light output is now comparable to incandescent, but you have to know what to buy (whether incandescent or CFL) if you want a certain type of light. I'm all for LED over CFL when they become more affordable and light output/color are comparable. They will get there soon but until then save some energy and switch to CFL's, recycle them when they're dead and do more research before bitching about the negatives of new technology. - Freeflydude Tue, 03 Feb 2009 19:54:41 +0100 http://ecogeek.org/efficiency/2509#comment-23884 The bad news is, is that most CFLs used by home users and small businesses end up in the landfill, and not collected as hazardous waste as they are supposed to. It costs $.50 to $.75 to recycle each CFL or 2'-4' long tube. I checked with a number of recyclers in the greater Seattle area, and they see very few CFLs brought in... - Rick Hantz Tue, 03 Feb 2009 19:35:43 +0100