120V ones have been available in the US for years. It's a bit anoying that they've not made it over here earlier. (I haven't actually seen any of them over here yet.)
I would expect dimming would reduce consumption more significantly than it does tungsten. A few factors I might guess at which could be relevant (emphasise _guess_, as I haven't examined any of these dimmable CFL retrofit lamps)...
Half the heat loss from a fluorescent is from inefficiency inherent in the way the phosphor works relating to quantum physics. This will drop linearly with light output, which is very much better than heat loss from a filament lamp, which doesn't drop anything like as much as the light output.
At lower light levels, it may be necessary to heat the tube filaments to maintain thermionic emission. This would waste a little extra heat. It could be that manufacturers avoid this by not allowing dimming to such low levels.
Where heating tube filaments is used, it might be that simplistic circuitry heats them all the time, raising the consumption at full light output over that of a non-dimmable CFL.
Operating fluorescents dimmed wears them out faster (contrary to filament lamps where the opposite is the case). This effect is magnified even more significantly if you dim them during their first
100 or so hours of operation.
Another option for dimming is a cold cathode CFL. These are inherently less efficient than regular flourescents with filamanets employing thermionic emission, which again would raise consumption over that of a non-dimming CFL. However, they don't need filament heating and are instant-on, but in many dimmable ballast designs, they are modulated at 100Hz just like conventional fluorescents on magnetic control gear. Cold cathode CFL's with appropriately designed electrodes can have much longer lives, even when dimmed.
Another possibility would be electrodeless fluorescents (such as the GE Genura, although that's not dimmable). These would seem to avoid many of the disadvantages with both types of electrode fluorescents, but I don't know if there are new issues with dimming them. However, they haven't made it onto the consumer market in the UK, although there are quite a number of Chinese manufacturers who now design and manufacture them in various styles.
Your points cannot be answered because they are too imprecise. For example, you say they are more poluting, but I've no idea what you mean by polution. For example, you might be considering CO2 as a polutent, whereas I might not; you might be considering glass as a polutent, whereas I might not, etc. If you want a reasoned response, you need to make a reasoned point in the first place.
Damn! I didn't realise that standard dimmers could be used on any low energy lamps. Just replaced mine with switches. I'll certainly follow up the idea of dimmables for some of my lamps. I guess you are right about not worrying too much about energy use when dimmed. I now light a whole large room, with much greater variety because of needing more lamps, for a little over what it cost me for one wall light. I am sure that lamp makers are investigating all kinds of technologies.
Another way to reduce consumption is to use a video projector instead of a TV. Mine makes a 2.3 m wide picture using 170 watts. My old 32" screen looks like a postage stamp now.
I made it quite clear that I was talking about 'whole of life' pollution, the fact that the eco-warriors refuse to answer such questions is that to do so truthfully would blow the 'eco-need' for CFLs (and many other anti-pollution devices, such as catalytic converters) right out of the water. Yes, CFLs use less electricity in use than conventional tungsten filament bulbs but CFLs cause more pollution in their (whole) manufacturing and disposal process. The reason why the makers of CFLs - like LCD TVs - have pushed these products, and in the case of the CFL jumped onto the CC/GW band-wagon, is because they can make more money from selling CFLs than they can from TFL. The expected life cycle of CFLs is also a lie (for both the reasons already given elsewhere and as follows), yes they can (like TFL) be made to last a considerable period of time but this will never happen for the same reason that the ever-lasting TFL bulb was never put into production (although fully developed many years ago), simply because to do so would be signing the death-nail for the industry...
The manufactures, eco-warriors and politicians might have won the argument but they sure as hell have not won the debate - and never will because the *eco-facts* are simply against them.
Yes, but you've still failed to identify what you regard as the relevant polutents, so how can anyone else say if they agree or disagree with you, when they probably don't have the same view of what the polutents are?
Are you saying that you (and others) spout on about how eco-friendly these CFL bulbs are but have no idea as to what they are made from and how they are made, how can you claim that they are eco-friendly then?!...
No, I don't seem to have said that anywhere. Conveniently, you have included exactly what I did say above. Try reading it again, and then have a go at answering the question, if you can.
OK then. Let's take a look at what goes into one of these lamps, and then you can tell us if you don't agree.
A glass envelope. The tungsten lamp has one of these, and so do some of the CFLs, so nothing different there. Both have a brass or steel base, and a couple of connection points in lead free solder. The incandescent has a tungsten filament, supported on some steel wires. The CFL has tungsten electrodes / filaments within the discharge tube, and some connecting wires, so we'll call that quits between them. The incandescent has a filling of an inert and fundamentally safe gas. And that's where it starts to get different.
The discharge tube. This is a complicated structure made from glass formed into a tube. It may have a 'simple' or 'convoluted' form, both of which require considerable manufacturing process, and use of intense heat energy. The inside of the tube has to be coated with a combination of phosphors that have to be chemically extracted and purified or synthesized by a different company, and shipped to the discharge tube manufacturer, where they have to be mixed, liquified, and baked on. The tube has to then be filled with a toxic mercury compound that had to be extracted, purified and shipped to the discharge tube manufacturer.
The drive electronics. Diodes. These had to be manufactured using purified silicon which had to be mined and extracted from the ore and then doped with toxic chemicals such as antimony or arsenic. The diode thus created then had to have steel wires bonded to it, and then be encapsulated in plastic. The steel wire had to be manufactured and shipped to the semiconductor manufacturer. The plastic had to be manufactured from oil that had to be extracted, refined, and shipped to the plastic manufacturer. The steel wires had to be hot dipped in solder, which had to be manufactured from tin and copper, both of which had to be mined and extracted and purified, before being shipped to the solder manufacturer, who then had to ship his product to the semiconductor manufacturer. Ditto all of the above for the switching element (FET or whatever)
Resistors. These had to be made from depositing refined carbon, which had to be manufactured and shipped to the resistor manufacturer, onto a ceramic substrate that had to made from clay, which had to be extracted, and then fired to make it hard, before shipping to the resistor manufacturer. The resistor element then had to have brass cups and steel wires (remember them?) bonded to it, before the whole lot was encased in a hard enamel, and then had value stripes painted on.
Capacitors. The aluminium electrolytic manufacturer had to have aluminium foil, aluminium sheet, paper soaked in boric acid, steel wire, a rubber bung and a plastic sleeve with printing on, and solder to make his product. The film capacitors had to be made with aluminium foil, plastic film, steel wires, plastic or hard enamel dip, solder, and a printing process.
Inductors. The inductor manufacturer had to use powdered iron, copper wire, which had to be manufactured from copper ore mined and refined and processed into wire then covered with a plastic coating, before being shipped to the inductor manufacturer, plastic insulation film, copper strip, plastic insulation sleeve, steel wire pins and solder to manufacture his product.
PCB. The PCB material had to be manufactured from glass fibre and coated with copper and photoresistive chemicals, before being shipped to the board manufacturer, who then had to put it through a photographic process, before subjecting it to a cocktail of caustic etching chemicals, which have to be disposed of when worn out, then cutting the board up into small pieces, and drilling holes in it. At some point, the etched board is also cleaned and has a chemical solder resist applied to it, and finally is roller tinned with solder.
All of these components then have to be shipped to the electronic ballast manufacturer, who has to assemble them into the printed circuit board, before subjecting it to a wave or flow soldering process, using solder that had to be manufactured and shipped to him. The completed boards then have to be packaged, and shipped to the lamp manufacturer, who then has to assemble the board into the base he's had made elsewhere and shipped to him, and then fit the discharge tube, and the external envelope if used. The end result is a lamp that weighs four times what an incandescent does, and that has to be packed in a cardboard box that is bulkier and twice as heavy as that used for an incandescent, so even more manufacturing and processing of wood pulp used there.
Every one of the factories involved has workers that have to be kept warm, dry and fed, and have to get from their homes to the factory, and back again. That requires petrol, diesel, electricity, all of which has to be mined, extracted, refined, generated and so on. All of these processes release large quantities of CO2 and other carbon compounds and particulates into the atmosphere. All of the component parts require multiple shipping operations to the various sub-manufacturers, and this involves ships with diesel engines, jet aero engines, and diesel truck engines, all of which throw out CO2 and other assorted nasties.
Given all of this, I cannot understand how anyone can believe that CFLs as a substitute for incandescents, are better in terms of energy budget and manufacturing / shipping pollutant generation than the humble light bulbs we already have. It's all very well saying that all of this is offset by the reduced energy consumption throughout it's supposedly long life, but that's an awfully hard one to swallow.
I do think you have raised some good questions. But I feel compelled to question the energy content/usage.
Thinking *only* about the energy issues in creating and running lamps. Let us play with some simplistic figures.
Assume: CFL costs £1. Tungsten costs 25p. The costs of the lamps cover all the energy required to create and distribute them. A 40W CFL gives similar illumination to 100W tungsten. Electricity is 5p per unit. Let us continue being simplistic and assume that *all* that cost is for extra energy usage. (Obviously, if some of that extra cost is going towards resistors, steel wires, etc. that reduces the amount available for energy costs.)
(Feel free to rework this with any figures you care to use.)
So we have 75p to cover the cost increment of the CFL.
Run that lamp for 1000 hours.
Running costs are 300p less for the CFL. So it ends up costing 225p less than the tungsten for the 1000 hours of usage.
So, are we paying an extortionately high rate for the electicity we use to run them? Or did the energy used to create the CFLs come extra cheap?
(Of course, according to CFL manufacturers, we still have another 7000 hours of usage from the CFL lamp. Whereas we would expect to have to change the tungsten any day now...)
Yes, that is, on the surface, a persuasive argument, and is the one that is usually put forward by the advocates of CFL technology. (Please understand that I am not trying to 'put you down' on this, in any way). It may have more validity than I give it credit for, but I 'feel' that it is rather too simplistic a view. A bit like saying that if you eat fat, you will get fat, when we all know that there are many other factors involved.
It's fairly easy to put figures on the running versus purchasing costs, but much harder to place value on the manufacturing pollution costs, which tend to just get lost in the smoke that's going up their chimnies, and that the mirrors are reflecting ...
I also think that the prices that we are seeing on these things, are fundamentally unrealistic. The cost of them a few years back, when they were an interesting piece of substitute technology, rather than a catch-all eco-replacement for incandescents, is probably more realistic. For sure, the takeup on them will ensure that the production costs (material-wise) come down due to the well known principle of economy of scale, but I still don't believe that £1 each is a 'true' retail figure for them.
Clearly, there are subsidies going on in the background somewhere, and these must be politically instigated and managed. For instance, Tesco were selling these lamps for 1p each a few weeks back, and Waitrose were giving them away with your shopping. Now neither of these companies are stupid, and no matter how eco-friendly their credentials, the bottom line is that they have a primary responsibility to make a profit for their shareholders. Clearly, selling these lamps for 1p, or even giving them away, cannot possibly be justified as a valid business strategy from a purely monetary angle, so somewhere along the line, Tesco and Waitrose must have been getting the 'right' money for them, as indeed were the manufacturers. I guess this may well be through some kind of government subsidy put in place to promote their use, and get people 'smoothed' into using them, before mandating their use in the not-too-distant future. If this is the case, then we are probably paying rather more than £1 for them, through our taxes, and possibly, will have to pay more when we have no choice but to buy them.
The numbers on Rod's justification may yet work even if incorporated into the much wider picture that I am trying to convey, but it's almost impossible to factor in all of the manufacturing issues that I highlighted in the original post, and arrive at a valid proof one way or the other. I'm not an analyst in this field, and I tend to find that trying to get my head around the myriad factors is a bit like trying to comprehend the infinity of space. But also, I can see that it's not as black and white as the advocates of the technology would have us believe, and there's a lot of green politics and empire building involved as well.
As for what others have said about mandating these things, I agree wholeheartedly. It should not be forced upon people as a knee-jerk reaction by eco-factions within government, to perceived ecological threats which actually have as many scientifically qualified detractors as advocates, but whose voices are quieter, because of not having a government sponsored research position, and wanting to hang on to the credibility and job that they already have (it's virtually treasonous heresy to speak out against the global warming faction in the scientific community).
Going back for a moment to the practicality of these lamps. I find it extremely difficult to read under them, and my eyes are not what you would call 'bad'. I would be reluctant to install them in my dear old mum's house, as her eyesight is failing, and she needs instant bright light in a room, to avoid any accidents. As far as the CRI goes, no matter how much the manufacturers work at this, and no matter how close they get the colour temperature to an incandescent, the CRI remains around the 80% mark. This gives the light a 'strange' and 'sick' quality, which is not very pleasant - to me at least. The light from an incandescent lamp is spectrally similar to that of the sun, which is why we feel 'at ease' under it. It is simply biologically programmed into our genes, and any other type of light experienced in an 'at rest' condition, is basically 'wrong' to us. In their place, I don't have a particular problem with the light from these lamps. They are ideal in places where the light is left on for long periods, or is not critical for lifestyle, but as a total substitute for incandescent light, for me, they are a non-starter.
Just so that you understand where I am coming from on all this. I am not an eco-warrior, and find much of what is foisted on us in legislation in the name of the great god "Green", unmitigated nonsense, created as a political platform for individuals and departments to make their names from.
I remain unconvinced by, although open minded to, the concept that global warming is mainly caused by activities of man, and is not primarily as a result of cyclic climate variations that have always been present in the planet's weather system, and over which we have little control. For instance, 40 years ago, they were telling us that we were entering a mini ice-age again ... I don't doubt that the pollutants that we put into the atmosphere are not a good thing, but I struggle to accept that they are having as profound an effect as the eco-warriors would have us believe. There is plenty of evidence that there have been similar levels of CO2 in the atmosphere in the past, long before industrialisation and man-made or released pollutants could have had any effect. Long before man even existed, in fact.
I am not, however, an anti-eco evangelist either. I can see the value of not deliberately polluting the environment, and not going out of our way to waste energy or materials that could be recycled without any practical energy budget downside, but I like to think that I have a balanced view, that looks at both sides of the coin, and arrives at an informed decision that suits my lifestyle, and impacts in a minimal way on those around me, and those who will follow. I strongly disagree with the way that our government, and the increasingly intrusive euro-government, are trying to force their will on us in these matters, and I will continue to put opposing views into the public domain, where I feel appropriate.
Without trying to be patronising to anyone, my post regarding the manufacturing processes, was designed to show that an awful lot more goes on in the background before you arrive with the two lamp types on the supermarket shelves, than the average Joe with no concept of how these lamps work, understands. It also aimed to show that there is a lot more at issue with regard to manufacturing and shipping costs, both montary and ecologically, than is addressed by the lifetime / running costs arguments that are always trotted out as the justification for wanting to mandate their use.
Sorry it's a long one and a bit OT, but it seemed like an interesting thread to pursue from a 'chat over a pint' perspective ... d;~}
Your response is definitely worth my time reading. Thanks for taking my "energy only" post as intended, as a genuine questioning of the realities.
In terms of colour temperature and CRI - I am frequently reminded of the ghastly light given out by ordinary fluorescents back in the 1960s. But, at their very best, I actually prefer them to traditional tungsten in many situations. But not the ordinary 2700K supermarket specials. We have a few that were highly recommended for photography - and I do like them. I find ordinary tungsten (and the CFLs intended to approximate to them) definitely too yellow and dull-seeming.
When it comes to energy usage, I have to question how much difference the actual lamps make. I was in a brand new branch of M&S yesterday. Going over to the side of the store with the food hall, you could feel a coldness metres away. Inside, it was freezing. All the open shelves were cascading very cold air down onto the floor. At the same time, warm, even hot, air was blasting out of vents around the department - most especially the bakery unit. (Of course, the noise level in there rivalled a factory.) The lighting in the entire store is truly impressive - probably better suited to a film set than a shop. You could probably light half the town if the wasted energy were redirected. :-)
And in this part of the world, "they" have started a progam of switching off street lighting - mostly those which are not fully built-up - to save money. Madness - spend a fortune installing the lighting (and all the associated pollution) and then not use it. (In some places they have installed LED cats-eyes.)
Thanks for an excellent posting, which I've trimmed only to save space.
Having looked down your list of polutents, there are none there that concern me. To pick up on a few of the more commonly mentioned ones... CO2 and global warming -- I'm not a subscriber to the current popularist theory, so I don't feel a need to reduce my CO2 footprint at all costs (but see below). Mercury -- The quantities involved in CFLs for domestic use are not significant. If you are Mr. Average, you have the same amount of mercury in your body as there are in 1000 CFLs. The larger quantities used in commercial fluorescent lighting are already being effectively recovered, and have been for years. Energy use in manufacture - that's entirely encompassed in the manufacturing costs (which are very much less than the purchase price). Given they are sold for a profit for £1, and heavily taxed on import to the EU (in the misguided attempt to protect Philips), the manufacture cost is probably of the order 20p, and the energy cost some fraction of that.
So I have dismissed the commonly quoted reasons for both using and avoiding CFL's, because I think they're all irrelevant, yet I am clearly an enthusiast for them. Why?
My number one reason is energy usage, not for anything to do with carbon emissions, but because viable energy is in increasingly short supply in the world. Some of this is due to finite resources running out, and/or demand outstripping supply, and some is due to a severe dereliction of duty of politicians to have anticipated this in time to do anything sensible about it, when it's been obvious to many of us for years. Ultimately, I suspect world shortage of energy (or prices unaffordable to many) could well be the trigger for the next world war, and many would argue it has already been the cause for some current wars.
Thanks for taking the time and trouble to post an informed and considered reply. I can take on board most of what you say. As I said in my previous post, I too am unconvinced about the ability of man to significantly affect the levels of CO2 prevalent in the atmosphere. I read somewhere a while back, that in fact water vapour in the atmosphere has a much greater greenhouse effect than CO2. Did you catch the excellent CH4 documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" a while back? Very thought provoking. If you didn't, I believe it is available to view on YouTube.
Surprisingly, an item in yesterday's Times (could have been Thursday's) showed (if taken as the truth) that oil reserves are greater now than they have ever been. An impressive graphic had been produced to illustrate this. And there was the oil 'expert' from the US on the telly last week who said that the oil would never run out because of all the low grade reserves as yet untouched. It will get very expensive, yes, but ultimately replacements will come in a various price points. This leads me to this morning's item in the Times (page 56 I think) which describes two apparently very promising means of producing crude via genetic engineering.
HomeOwnersHub website 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.