UnderCounter Lights

[shepro]

Could someone please explain pro's and cons of both Halogen and Florescent lights.And which is prefered. Thanks

[Rick Blaine]

Halogens have a warmer, more natural light but run very hot, especially on high intensity. Think those old torch floor lamps, especially before they cut the bulb back from 500w to 300w.

Fluorescents have a much cooler light and use less electricity, hence they run cooler but don't look as well with natural wood cabinetry. You can't dim these either.

Halogens in a bar type fixture can address some of the heat concerns that the puck style lights have. Xenon lights have similar color to halogen but run a bit cooler.

[Paul M. Eldridge]

On the plus side, fluorescents are more energy efficient, cooler running and provide much longer service life. They're also available in a wide range of colour temperatures (e.g., 3000K, 4,100K, 5000K, etc.) which, depending upon your decor and personal tastes, could be another plus. Linear fluorescents distribute light over a wider area and this light is soft and diffuse, so there are no harsh shadows (an important consideration when you're working with knives and other potentially dangerous instruments). And if you prefer a lot of light, they're the only game in town.

Halogens offer a pleasant, warm light and superior colour rendering. They also provide more punch and sparkle, and a little more visual interest due to their higher contrast ratios (shadowing).

I opted for low profile T4 fluorescents because they're four to five times more energy efficient and because I prefer a lot of working light. These particular lamps have a high CRI (colour rendering index) of 86 and a colour temperature of 3,200K (just slighting above that of halogen); Overall, I'm pleased with my choice.

There is, however, one notable drawback. I have highly polished granite countertops and the bright reflections given off by these lamps detract from its overall appearance. My sense is that the reflections generated by smaller halogen pucks wouldn't be quite as noticeable (or objectionable).

Cheers, Paul

[Goedjn]

Halogens are small, bright, hot, and slightly more efficient than regular incadescants.

Florescents are larger, cooler, dimmer and a lot more efficient than regular incadescents.

Preferred for what?

[ransley]

Halogen are hot and 75%-90% less efficient than T8 flourescent, unless electricity is of no concern its obvious what is best. Warm white bulbs have a pleasing color.

[deke]

You want to triple your electric cost, then go with halogen. Halogen should be outlawed as the power use is destroying our planet.

You need to look into the new led lights. They use less power than florescent.

[Rick Blaine]

And put out just as ugly a color light...

[deke]

Wrong again.

They come in all colors and some will approximate halogen.

[Bob]

I'm facing the same problem on these types of lights, what kind to use. I saw a This Old House epsode recently where they used LED's for under cabinet use. Does any one have any idea on cost or experience with their use?

[HeyBub]

Interestingly, my city (Houston) is replacing its traffic lights (Red, Green, Yellow) with LEDs. They last longer (much longer, way longer, like forever) than incandescents and use less power.

[terry]

On Apr 21, 5:42 pm, deke wrote:

That would be triple the cost of electricity used only for lighting; right? Well; maybe. but since some of us use electricity for heating and in our area just about every month of the year requires some heating especially during cool evenings and nights, the so called 'energy saving' of low consumption lamps is, for us, maybe a bit of a myth. We never need AC by the way. As an example; once gain, we have six plain ordinary 40 watt el cheapo bulbs (about 25 cents apiece) above our bathroom vanity. Bathroom is quite small about 6 by 8 feet. The 40 watt bulbs are electrically 'inefficient'; most of their input is converted to heat. But as a result the 500 watt baseboard bathroom heater hardly cuts in at all even when the ceiling exhaust fan is running to get rid of moisture.

equipped with a typical 200 amp 115/230 service entrance would not be any cheaper if we installed 'energy conserving' lamps, so no savings there! My electric utility tells me, IIRC, that 8% of a typical family's electrical consumption, in our Canadian province is for lighting. So if I reduced my lighting consumption to one third 1/3 x 8 = 2.6% I would save about 5.4% or roughly 8 (maybe $10? )dollars per month? say around $100 per year? But that, minus the extra heating electricity and an annual cost based on the difference in purchase and replacement costs of CFL/LED lamps or whatever lamps leaves me unconvinced. probably more energy savings to be obtained from turning down/off the thermostats in unused rooms and adding insulation and better caulking? Finally is it just what lighting we are accustomed to or are the 'newer' forms of lighting really more objectionable to humans? For example there are fluorescents, CFLs, LEDs, HIDs (High Intensity for cars), 'Sodium' lamps, Mercury vapour etc. none of which seem to be 'as good' as what this 70+ year old is accustomed to. Or is it just me refusing to change? One thing small (non CFLs that is) are good for is less breakable inspection (auto etc.) lamps. Much safer lest the hot bulb and filament shatter in the presence of gasoline/petrol fumes and can (and have) started fatal fires. PS. Inside house have one of those open top halogen lamps sans the later version wire mesh for safety! Nothing else protects from the tubular halogen bulb which gets VERY, VERY hot. We use it with extreme caution away from anything that could hang down! And away from vertical wall. Must get round to adding a wire screen but will still locate and use it with caution. Cheers.

[terry]

Yes our city is using the multiple LEDs for traffic lights, they apear brighter and are very directional (which is good and bad)!

[Just Joshin]

Other than the energy effiencies, the length of bulb life comes to mind.

tom @