Talk abouit the end of CFL light bulbs...
- Thread starter tgrudzin
- Start date
- Status
JTK
$100 Site Donor 2025
Originally Posted By: blupupher
I agree with that. The first set of CFL I bought (6 bulbs on clearance 8+ years ago) are still working with lots of use (4 in a ceiling fan that was on a lot, 2 in lamps used often, turned off and on a lot too). They have horrible warm up time, but are bright once on for about a minute. All 6 are now in my kids bathroom (which would go through bulbs every year or so). I have replaced multiple recently purchased (2-3 years) CFL's. While they do get to full brightness quicker, they just don't last.
The really old ones had serious ballasts and electronic on them. The first CFL I bought was in 1989. It was a desk lamp with a 2-pin CFL. I had that thing for 20yrs and it still worked until the arm/springs gave out on it.
I agree with that. The first set of CFL I bought (6 bulbs on clearance 8+ years ago) are still working with lots of use (4 in a ceiling fan that was on a lot, 2 in lamps used often, turned off and on a lot too). They have horrible warm up time, but are bright once on for about a minute. All 6 are now in my kids bathroom (which would go through bulbs every year or so). I have replaced multiple recently purchased (2-3 years) CFL's. While they do get to full brightness quicker, they just don't last.
The really old ones had serious ballasts and electronic on them. The first CFL I bought was in 1989. It was a desk lamp with a 2-pin CFL. I had that thing for 20yrs and it still worked until the arm/springs gave out on it.
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: Wolf359
Originally Posted By: hatt
And some people believe whatever line they're fed.
I've always had a low opinion of those that believe in conspiracy theory. Those are typically based on ignorance. I'm an electrical engineer and have always been a fan of LEDs.
We're talking about CFL not LED.
And there is no "conspiracy theories." Everything is out in the open and pretty clear. CLFs were a poor solution with LEDs coming on line.
Like I said, it's based on ignorance. LED's were coming on line. I was also a flashaholic over at candlepowerforums. At the time CFLs were coming online, the cost of the LED were too high. Like anything with manufacturing, the price tends to come down over time. Efficiency in production and volume brings down the cost of goods over time. Same with electronics, sorta like Moore's law.
Originally Posted By: Wolf359
Originally Posted By: hatt
And some people believe whatever line they're fed.
I've always had a low opinion of those that believe in conspiracy theory. Those are typically based on ignorance. I'm an electrical engineer and have always been a fan of LEDs.
We're talking about CFL not LED.
And there is no "conspiracy theories." Everything is out in the open and pretty clear. CLFs were a poor solution with LEDs coming on line.
Like I said, it's based on ignorance. LED's were coming on line. I was also a flashaholic over at candlepowerforums. At the time CFLs were coming online, the cost of the LED were too high. Like anything with manufacturing, the price tends to come down over time. Efficiency in production and volume brings down the cost of goods over time. Same with electronics, sorta like Moore's law.
Originally Posted By: Wolf359
Like I said, it's based on ignorance. LED's were coming on line. I was also a flashaholic over at candlepowerforums. At the time CFLs were coming online, the cost of the LED were too high. Like anything with manufacturing, the price tends to come down over time. Efficiency in production and volume brings down the cost of goods over time. Same with electronics, sorta like Moore's law.
What's based on ignorance? You admit LEDs were also coming out. Just too expensive. Pumping millions of taxpayer $$ into a inferior, toxic, temporary, soon to be replaced product is stupid. At least for anyone not profiting off the scam. Now it will start over and the taxpayers will be paying to replace CFLs with LED.
Since you're aware of Moore's law, maybe you're also familiar with Jevons paradox. More efficient light bulbs will do little to nothing for the overall energy use. Certainly not enough to pump millions of $$ into.
Like I said, it's based on ignorance. LED's were coming on line. I was also a flashaholic over at candlepowerforums. At the time CFLs were coming online, the cost of the LED were too high. Like anything with manufacturing, the price tends to come down over time. Efficiency in production and volume brings down the cost of goods over time. Same with electronics, sorta like Moore's law.
What's based on ignorance? You admit LEDs were also coming out. Just too expensive. Pumping millions of taxpayer $$ into a inferior, toxic, temporary, soon to be replaced product is stupid. At least for anyone not profiting off the scam. Now it will start over and the taxpayers will be paying to replace CFLs with LED.
Since you're aware of Moore's law, maybe you're also familiar with Jevons paradox. More efficient light bulbs will do little to nothing for the overall energy use. Certainly not enough to pump millions of $$ into.
Originally Posted By: hatt
CLFs were a poor solution with LEDs coming on line.
Oh, certainly, but I was never averse to the heat thrown by a 100 watt bulb in a Saskatchewan winter. I might be concerned during AC season, but a lot of the efficiency talk doesn't look at the whole picture. Heat is technically a waste only under certain circumstances.
A 100 watt bulb burning outside or in an air-conditioned interior is obviously inefficient. A 100 watt bulb during the winter is less obviously so. In any case, CFLs were a rather poor intermediary step. I would personally have no problem with them if they actually survived their advertised lifespan, and very, very few that I've purchased have done so. As JTK indicates, it seems my oldest ones do the best. I buy a new one, and it'll be needing replacement fairly shortly.
CLFs were a poor solution with LEDs coming on line.
Oh, certainly, but I was never averse to the heat thrown by a 100 watt bulb in a Saskatchewan winter. I might be concerned during AC season, but a lot of the efficiency talk doesn't look at the whole picture. Heat is technically a waste only under certain circumstances.
A 100 watt bulb burning outside or in an air-conditioned interior is obviously inefficient. A 100 watt bulb during the winter is less obviously so. In any case, CFLs were a rather poor intermediary step. I would personally have no problem with them if they actually survived their advertised lifespan, and very, very few that I've purchased have done so. As JTK indicates, it seems my oldest ones do the best. I buy a new one, and it'll be needing replacement fairly shortly.
JTK
$100 Site Donor 2025
Originally Posted By: hatt
..More efficient light bulbs will do little to nothing for the overall energy use. Certainly not enough to pump millions of $$ into.
Considering the bits and pieces involved with the manufacture of LED or CFL lamps further reduces their 'green factor' compared to an incandescent lamp.
..More efficient light bulbs will do little to nothing for the overall energy use. Certainly not enough to pump millions of $$ into.
Considering the bits and pieces involved with the manufacture of LED or CFL lamps further reduces their 'green factor' compared to an incandescent lamp.
Originally Posted By: JTK
Originally Posted By: hatt
..More efficient light bulbs will do little to nothing for the overall energy use. Certainly not enough to pump millions of $$ into.
Considering the bits and pieces involved with the manufacture of LED or CFL lamps further reduces their 'green factor' compared to an incandescent lamp.
Are any CFL/LED bulbs manufactured in the USA. A lot, maybe most incandescents were. Shipping containers around the world doesn't use much fuel per bulb, but it adds up. Never mind GE/etc execs making the trip to China countless times in private jets to check on things.
Originally Posted By: hatt
..More efficient light bulbs will do little to nothing for the overall energy use. Certainly not enough to pump millions of $$ into.
Considering the bits and pieces involved with the manufacture of LED or CFL lamps further reduces their 'green factor' compared to an incandescent lamp.
Are any CFL/LED bulbs manufactured in the USA. A lot, maybe most incandescents were. Shipping containers around the world doesn't use much fuel per bulb, but it adds up. Never mind GE/etc execs making the trip to China countless times in private jets to check on things.
Originally Posted By: Kestas
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
The latest are incandescents that use the heat and reflect it inward somehow to get even more light out of them. Most efficient so far.
They have a coating that reflects the infrared energy back inward to heat the filament an additional amount for more light.
Basically like the 9011 and 9012 HIR headlight bulbs I'm guessing?
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
The latest are incandescents that use the heat and reflect it inward somehow to get even more light out of them. Most efficient so far.
They have a coating that reflects the infrared energy back inward to heat the filament an additional amount for more light.
Basically like the 9011 and 9012 HIR headlight bulbs I'm guessing?
Originally Posted By: Wolf359
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: Garak
It's a good thing they pushed us away from incandescent, right Merk? Now, the replacement is growing obsolete. I do know that I don't like CFLs in my garage door opener or in an outdoor socket when it's -40. I have not yet tried LEDs in those applications.
Companies made out like bandits. Crony capitalism at its finest. Get legislation passed mandating your product. Then get the taxpayers to subsidize your product. Then close down US plants and move production of new mandated and taxpayer funded bulbs to China. Make sure this happens when a vastly superior tech (LED) is emerging but still a little ways off so you can get consumers to change out bulbs twice. It's like a fairy tale.
Interestingly, none of that was really true. They were going to ban regular bulbs, but that never actually happened, you can still get regular bulbs, they just use slightly less electricity now. CFL's just made good economic sense in that less electricity usage is a good thing. To imply otherwise is somewhat perplexing to say the least. It made sense for utilities to subsidize them because if the had to build new power plants, it would cost hundreds of millions if not billions. Some people just have no clue.
Agreed.
CFLs were a good solution in that they lowered the cost of lighting for any user. LEDs are even better in cost of electricity used per lumen of output and have even longer lives.
At current electric rates and at current LED lamp prices, they just make good economic sense for any user.
No commie plot involved here.
The only fairy tale involved is that some would argue that a couple of decades of savings with CFLs followed by even more economical LED lamps is somehow a bad thing.
CFLs are still around at bargain basement prices for the impecunious and will still yield significant savings over incandescent lamps, which aren't all that cheap these days either.
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: Garak
It's a good thing they pushed us away from incandescent, right Merk? Now, the replacement is growing obsolete. I do know that I don't like CFLs in my garage door opener or in an outdoor socket when it's -40. I have not yet tried LEDs in those applications.
Companies made out like bandits. Crony capitalism at its finest. Get legislation passed mandating your product. Then get the taxpayers to subsidize your product. Then close down US plants and move production of new mandated and taxpayer funded bulbs to China. Make sure this happens when a vastly superior tech (LED) is emerging but still a little ways off so you can get consumers to change out bulbs twice. It's like a fairy tale.
Interestingly, none of that was really true. They were going to ban regular bulbs, but that never actually happened, you can still get regular bulbs, they just use slightly less electricity now. CFL's just made good economic sense in that less electricity usage is a good thing. To imply otherwise is somewhat perplexing to say the least. It made sense for utilities to subsidize them because if the had to build new power plants, it would cost hundreds of millions if not billions. Some people just have no clue.
Agreed.
CFLs were a good solution in that they lowered the cost of lighting for any user. LEDs are even better in cost of electricity used per lumen of output and have even longer lives.
At current electric rates and at current LED lamp prices, they just make good economic sense for any user.
No commie plot involved here.
The only fairy tale involved is that some would argue that a couple of decades of savings with CFLs followed by even more economical LED lamps is somehow a bad thing.
CFLs are still around at bargain basement prices for the impecunious and will still yield significant savings over incandescent lamps, which aren't all that cheap these days either.
Originally Posted By: hatt
What's based on ignorance? You admit LEDs were also coming out. Just too expensive. Pumping millions of taxpayer $$ into a inferior, toxic, temporary, soon to be replaced product is stupid. At least for anyone not profiting off the scam. Now it will start over and the taxpayers will be paying to replace CFLs with LED.
Since you're aware of Moore's law, maybe you're also familiar with Jevons paradox. More efficient light bulbs will do little to nothing for the overall energy use. Certainly not enough to pump millions of $$ into.
Your ignorance in thinking that millions of taxpayer $$ were pumped into CFLs. Where did that happen? CFLs were subsidized by the utilities. The utilities were allowed to recoup their money from the ratepayers. It was actually a good deal for the ratepayers because if the utilities didn't decrease their baseload, they would have had to build new power plants and those costs would have been passed onto the ratepayers. So it was actually more economical for the utilities to subsidize CFLs even when LED were coming down the line because the price of LEDs at the time were way higher. I don't think they even really had 60 watt equivalent LEDs 10 years ago. It was the government that allowed them to do that. Probably some FERC regulation. You'd have to check the federal register to find it. I was in the power industry for several years. I think it was smart, you think it was crony capitalism.
What's based on ignorance? You admit LEDs were also coming out. Just too expensive. Pumping millions of taxpayer $$ into a inferior, toxic, temporary, soon to be replaced product is stupid. At least for anyone not profiting off the scam. Now it will start over and the taxpayers will be paying to replace CFLs with LED.
Since you're aware of Moore's law, maybe you're also familiar with Jevons paradox. More efficient light bulbs will do little to nothing for the overall energy use. Certainly not enough to pump millions of $$ into.
Your ignorance in thinking that millions of taxpayer $$ were pumped into CFLs. Where did that happen? CFLs were subsidized by the utilities. The utilities were allowed to recoup their money from the ratepayers. It was actually a good deal for the ratepayers because if the utilities didn't decrease their baseload, they would have had to build new power plants and those costs would have been passed onto the ratepayers. So it was actually more economical for the utilities to subsidize CFLs even when LED were coming down the line because the price of LEDs at the time were way higher. I don't think they even really had 60 watt equivalent LEDs 10 years ago. It was the government that allowed them to do that. Probably some FERC regulation. You'd have to check the federal register to find it. I was in the power industry for several years. I think it was smart, you think it was crony capitalism.
Taxpayers most certainly directly funded a lot of this stuff. Here's a link you can look though. Pro tip: Taxpayer funded grants, tax rebates, and incentives given to utilities who then give it to customers is actually funded by taxpayers.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/energy/energy-efficient-lighting.aspx
http://www.ncsl.org/research/energy/energy-efficient-lighting.aspx
All the most-used lights in our house are LED. Bedrooms, bathroom, kitchen, living room, basement, garage, and dining room are solely lit by LED's of various types. We purposely went for the ones with better CRI. I like a lot of light in spaces, so being able to scratch that itch without worrying about the electric bill is nice.
Originally Posted By: sciphi
...so being able to scratch that itch without worrying about the electric bill is nice.
Exactly. I, and most others do the same thing. That's why CFL and LED don't actually save electricity. For example, my six kitchen cans are never turned off during the day now. When they had 75W floods I was a light nazi.
...so being able to scratch that itch without worrying about the electric bill is nice.
Exactly. I, and most others do the same thing. That's why CFL and LED don't actually save electricity. For example, my six kitchen cans are never turned off during the day now. When they had 75W floods I was a light nazi.
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: sciphi
...so being able to scratch that itch without worrying about the electric bill is nice.
Exactly. I, and most others do the same thing. That's why CFL and LED don't actually save electricity. For example, my six kitchen cans are never turned off during the day now. When they had 75W floods I was a light nazi.
Why don't you turn them off now?
Originally Posted By: sciphi
...so being able to scratch that itch without worrying about the electric bill is nice.
Exactly. I, and most others do the same thing. That's why CFL and LED don't actually save electricity. For example, my six kitchen cans are never turned off during the day now. When they had 75W floods I was a light nazi.
Why don't you turn them off now?
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: sciphi
...so being able to scratch that itch without worrying about the electric bill is nice.
Exactly. I, and most others do the same thing. That's why CFL and LED don't actually save electricity. For example, my six kitchen cans are never turned off during the day now. When they had 75W floods I was a light nazi.
Why don't you turn them off now?
Why. The wife and I like all the light and it's only burning 60 watts. She would leave the 450 watts worth of floods, plus every other light in the house, on all day if I wasn't there turning them off. I replaced most of the offending lights she tended to keep on so now I don't worry. I even turn on extra lights these days. Human Nature 101. Efficiency and lower cost of operation leads to increased usage.
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: sciphi
...so being able to scratch that itch without worrying about the electric bill is nice.
Exactly. I, and most others do the same thing. That's why CFL and LED don't actually save electricity. For example, my six kitchen cans are never turned off during the day now. When they had 75W floods I was a light nazi.
Why don't you turn them off now?
Why. The wife and I like all the light and it's only burning 60 watts. She would leave the 450 watts worth of floods, plus every other light in the house, on all day if I wasn't there turning them off. I replaced most of the offending lights she tended to keep on so now I don't worry. I even turn on extra lights these days. Human Nature 101. Efficiency and lower cost of operation leads to increased usage.
Triple_Se7en
$50 Site Donor 2024
Exactly! People here boast about about saving 50 cents per month on a porch light that was switched over to LEDs, then leave the LED light on all day.
Some say reduced electrical demand will result in higher rates for what we do use. After all, the power companies have to eat.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
