CFL in Fridge

Anyone know if it is safe to use a CFL in the fridge?
I tried at 9w one out and it seems to work fine.
I do not think it will save me much money in lighting costs, however the heat from a normal bulb is significant and I was thinking not having a bulb heating the fridge every time it is open might make it advantageous.
I am however worried that the bulb (mercury) might cause problems with food.
Anyone able to provide insight?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The heating is insignificant. It's only 40 watts to begin with, and you don't typically have the door open for even a minute at a time.

Only if it breaks -- which is a possibility, in an environment that they weren't designed for.

Seems pointless to me.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Yroc Morf wrote:

Good trolling stuff! Totally OTT. Do watch out for those great big globs of mercury that drop out of the lights!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

buffalo ny: they are usually slow: not fully bright until they warm up, during that time you will be done browsing the fridge and the microwave will ding to feed you. they take up more room to do the job subject to your available refrigerator space and the fixture in it for the bulb. not all CFL lights are alike so your actual ingredients of a particular bulb will require different answers, as to whether it is "green" regarding mercury contents. the factory appliance bulb 130v normally lasts plenty long in terms of refrigerator use. depending on original cost versus a conventional bulb [free from your neighbor he removed all his and saved them] the return on investment on the CFL may to a loss unless if you move it to your next new refrigerator for how many years. bottom line: the amount of energy you save? it may actually become a loss of energy instead: fumbling thru the insufficiently illuminated fridge will cause all your room air to warm up the fridge and the compressor to run more to cool it back down. -b
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The amount of energy that went into making that one CFL compared to a regular bulb outweighs any energy you save anyway. The supply chain for a CFL has capacitors, triacs, transistors, resistors, many kinds of metal, phosphors, chemicals, mercury, gasses, etc. and those complex parts have even longer supply chains,etc. The supply chain for a light bulb has a roll of tungsten wire, some glass, some thin aluminum or brass, a rivit, and some springy metal to hold the filament. I'm still not convinced that CFL's are a not net energy loss, just like ethanol is. And besides I think the last time I changed a fridge bulb was 10 years ago. CFL's dont last much longer to make them compensate for their humongous supply chains and energy in manufacture, I change blown CFL's quite frequently in fact. And they are in the nearest landfill.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Agree. Seems pointless. To use a $2.50 to $3.00 bulb save a miniscule amount of energy; seems silly?
Also the effect on the environment in the manufacturing of a CFL lamp, including its minute mercury content and electronic bits and pieces, even though it may last 5000 hours or something, is more significant than the neg legible amount of energy saved.
The fact that a CFL costs some ten times ($2.50 versus 25 cents for a regular bulb) that of a conventional bulb is surely an indication of its greater industrial production requirement.
Even if a fridge was opened 100 times a day for half a minute each time (with consequent loss of cold air, causing the fridge compressor to cut in consuming way more energy than the lamp); a typical 25 watt appliance lamp would consume at 10 cents per k.watt hour; only 10 x (100 x 25 x 0.5 /60) /1000 = less than one quarter of one cent per day. Maybe 75 cents per year? Which you could reduce to maybe 27 cents per year by using CFL? Not worth thinking about.
BTW CFLs are rated as hazardous waste by some jurisdictions. Not 'supposed' to chuck them, when they do wear out, in regular garbage!
Some of these 'energy efficiency' policies are foolish especially when implemented by politicians and others who have no concept of the technicalities or basic physics involved. Then others jump on the bandwagon cos. it's the fashionable thing to do!
We have a neighbour who has gone heavily in CFLs at considerable cost; however since we we both use electric heating he doesn't seem to realise that the 'wasted' heat from his old lamps contributed slightly to his home heating! Since lights are typically on winter and other cool evening.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Interesting that you say they don't last long. I've been doing some selective replacement with CFL's here too. Put two of them in the kitchen. Besides taking 2 mins to get any reasonable light output, one already went bad after 2 months. So far, I'm not impressed. If the dopes that make them were more honest, I think the acceptance would be greater. They could start by specing how long they take to reach say 75% of rated output. Then you wouldn't have to buy them to find out if they work in your application. A slow turn on time is OK for an area where you are going to turn them on and leave them on for a long time, but unacceptable for a kitchen, where you want to walk in, turn on the light and find something.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
on 9/16/2007 11:17 PM RickH said the following:

Watching a TV series called Modern Marvels yesterday, the show was about modern technology for energy savings. Very good show about current, in development, and future technology for energy savings. Just before commercial breaks, they have a text screen that the narrator reads. One said, If every American house replaced just one incandescent bulb with a CFL, it would be the equivalent of taking 800,000 cars off the road. I don't know if that's accurate or not, but it's what it said.
--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
willshak wrote:

Sounds on a par with those statistics that say second-hand smoke kills 400,000,000 people in the US every month.
--
If you really believe carbon dioxide causes global warming,
you should stop exhaling.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
willshak wrote:

As one poster pointed out, you have to consider the whole life cycle of the cfl including energy to make it so one would seriously doubt that this is correct. Overall there is probably an energy savings as they would not be able to sell them and make a profit if they did not save the consumer enough on his electric bill to make buying them worthwhile.
Poster also pointed out the flim-flam act of ethanol where I believe there is little or no net gain of energy. At least the cfl makers have not convinced the government to force us buy them like they have ethanol.
As for the mercury question, op can google it up. I believe there is only a few ppm mercury used which should only worry those that intend to eat the bulb after it wears out ;)
Frank
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
RickH wrote:

Right. But it's CHINA'S energy.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
HeyBub wrote:

From experience, their emissions controls are not so hot. Those fumes can wander over The Pacific to a region near you! Seriously, a CFL cannot be a feasible option for a fridge. How often have you replaced a fridge light? Do you keep the fridge door open for extended periods wasting energy. I do think the OP was trolling.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Like you I'm wary of this as well
But.... any hard evidence to support it yet?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So what do you think abt LED based lamps?
They only have a few components, yes?
Shouldn't their supply chain be small and therefore make them efficient?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

LEDs are still not "efficient" users of electricity. Much of the energy they use is wasted as heat.
I *DO* believe that LEDs (or something similar) will eventually be put into everyday use though.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<SNIP to edit for space>

It's a shame that any people believe this rubbish!
How about a wild wacky extreme outside limit on amount of energy required to turn raw earth into a CFL on a store shelf with packaging:
Go to a home center, and chances are you can find a $10 or $9.95 4-pack of 14 or 15 watt CFLs that replace 60 watt incandescents. Also look at Target, where the everyday price for a 4-pack of 26 watt CFLs (replace 100 watt incandescents) is about $18.
Let's assume the extreme that 100% of the $2.50 for a 15 watter or $4.50 for a 26-watter is energy. Of course, some of that is for shareholders, some for employee wages some of which never get spent on energy, some for wages of those extracting raw materials and some of those wages never get spent on energy, some goes for rent, some for insurance, some to pay engineers, truck drivers, assembly workers, taxes along the chain, etc.
But back to what if all that cost was energy cost: At $70 per barrel, this works out to:
.0357 barrel for a 14-15 watt CFL .0643 barrel for a 26-watt CFL
A barrel of petroleum has 5.8 million BTU according to the 43rd edition of the "CRC Handbook" (in the "Thermal Conversion Factors for Competitive Fuels" table). This is about 1710 KWH.
At this rate, this works out to:
a 14-15 watt CFL takes 61 KWH to make, and a 26 watt CFL takes 110 KWH to make,
using the wacky outside upper limit assumption that 100% of the retail price represents energy requirement at rate of $70/bbl petroleum to make one, package it, put it on a store shelf, and have the cashier check it out.
Now for energy savings: Let's assume the darn thing only lasts 4,000 hours, possibly reasonable average residential life expectancy. (Rated lifetime is in 25 degree C ambient with 3 hours of on-time per start, usually 6,000-10,000 hours.)
The 14-15 watt CFL saves 45-46 watts, to save 180-184 KWH.
The 26 watt CFL saves 74 watts, to save 296 KWH.
Even if they only last 2,000 operating hours, their energy savings exceed the energy requirement from raw material mining to out the retail store door in packaging even if 100% of a lowish retail price is energy cost at roughly past-year petroleum commodity market price.
Now, consider that electric power generation and delivery is nowhere near 100% efficient. Figure more like 35-40%, with most of the loss being in conversion of heat energy to mechanical energy at generating stations - with 50% efficiency at converting heat energy to mechanical energy being something to be very proud of, and it appears to me that most fuel-burning generating stations achieve less.
Now, assuming 40% (optimistic) efficiency of converting fuel chemical energy to electrical energy in your home, a 26 watt CFL only has to last about 595 operating hours to save more energy than is in the amount of petroleum that at $70 per barrel has same price as the per-unit price of 26 watt CFLs in a 4-pack at Target.

Better point is to argue that a fridge is not where CFLs achieve savings. CFLs usually don't make good returns on investment in most closets nor in most restrooms that are used mainly for short trips (though some short-trip-frequented restrooms do well with a 4-foot fluorescent or two).
================================================================================================================================

If you have them blow out a lot, then I suspect any or any combination of the following:
1. You are using ones of brands other than Philips, Osram/Sylvania or GE, worse still if they do not have "Energy Star" approval and are not a major brand that a major home center chain is promoting (and the home center has some need for its customers to be happy!).
1a. You are using a brand that I had lots of bad experiences with (mainly before/during 2001, after which I largely stopped using that brand), and your current experience matches my past experience. That brand is Lights of America. However, I do suspect more likely now than was my experience during and before 2001 is that they are/got better, otherwise I have a hard time imagining them still being in business.
1b. You are/were using junkers/sub-junkers from dollar stores.
2. You are using CFLs where some do not do well or where most do not do well:
2a: Recessed ceiling fixtures - those are heat hellholes. Screw base CFLs 15 watts or more can have problems from heat there. For that matter, I know of a series of screw base CFLs claiming specifically that they are good for recessed ceiling fixtures - the Philips SLS series, and then only the 15 and 20 watt ones, the non-dimmable version of 23-watt, and not the 25-watt nor the dimmable 23-watt. As a result, I have low expectations of any screw base CFL over 23 watts to have good life in a recessed ceiling fixture.
Keep in mind that an incandescent lamp is about 40-50% efficient at producing non-radiant heat (also produces quite a bit of "radiant heat"), while a CFL is 75-80% efficient at producing non-radiant heat. CFLs have close to all output other than visible light being non-radiant heat, while incandescents produce plenty of infrared (which becomes heat, but mostly after it escapes the fixture). Also, CFLs with built-in ballasts tolerate heat less than incandescents do.
2b: Small enclosed fixtures, ceiling fan lights, downlighting desk lamps - also heat buildup problem areas, may overheat CFLs of wattage over 18-19 watts or so, though the best 23-watt ones (such as Philips SLS non-dimmable) probably do well there.
3: Frequent on-off use - shortens CFL life. Worst on those that blink during starting, second-worst to those that start instantly (whether or not taking a minor sudden "jump" in brightness a fraction of a second to nearly a second after starting), not as bad if there is a delay of a fraction of a second and/or the light "fades on" over a fraction of a second (more likely with "Big-3" brands).
With severe on-off use, cold cathode models work better - but those are more-specialty types, mainly of wattage near or under 8 watts, and they are less efficient than the usual hot-cathode types (though still producing light of an incandescent of roughly 3 times their wattage). However, they still have the same warmup issues as hot cathode ones - the advantage of cold-cathode is lack of wear from starting. Beware, most sub-9-watt CFLs are hot cathode. Cold cathode ones either brag about being cold cathode, have rated life 20,000-hours-plus and brag about lack of dimming and frequent-start problems, or both.
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Yroc Morf ( snipped-for-privacy@rogers.com) said...

The turn-on delay is the biggest issue with a lamp intended to be used for a short period. No CFL that I have found comes on initially at full brightness, often taking a full minute to get up to maximum. Many start up quickly, but a number of them take one to two seconds before you get any light.
There are LED bulbs now on the market and I suspect that we will see more of that technology available as an alternative. LEDs have a rapid rise time for their brightness - in fact they come on faster than incandescent bulbs (not something you would notice, but if you were driving 60 mph behind a vehicle with LED brake lights, you would travel about five yards in the extra time that incandescent lamps take to come to full brightness).

How often do you break the bulb in a fidge?
--
Calvin Henry-Cotnam
"I really think Canada should get over to Iraq as quickly as possible"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sep 17, 7:40 am, snipped-for-privacy@remove.daxack.ca.invalid (Calvin Henry- Cotnam) wrote:

FYI ... I was not trolling. I have the CFLs already so the issue of cost is zero as it applies to me. The bulb was already burnt .. so I ended up going to Home Depot and buying a new incandecent light for $1.43. I looked at the makers web site and they did not say it was safe, so I did not want to take a chance.
I don't drink tap water.. lol.. I certainly do not want any extra junk in my body.
Seems quite clear the issue is simply one of performance . .and assuming that is the case, my question is answered.
Thanks. I do think the OP was trolling.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.