The energy bill now makes it official that the sale of traditional incandescent light bulbs will be illegal in the USA in a few years.
This article in U.S. News & World Report is far more accurate that those that have appeared over the past several months in the NYT and other publications. It gives realistic figures on prices and CFL life and cites actual facts about limited warranties.
formatting link
It's figure for the potential energy savings from a 60-70% reduction in US energy used for lighting is very close to the back-of-the-envelope calculations I've posted previously on this topic. Texas uses 12% of US energy which is far short of the 22% and higher numbers spouted by the NYT and certain eco-terrorists. And even the 12% is probably off by at least half because 2/3 of US energy is used by industrial and commercial facilities, most of which already use fluorescents or other high-efficiency lighting, so there's little chance of actually seeing a 60-70% reduction -
20-25% for lighting (6-8% overall and much less worldwide) is probably overly optimistic. That won't save many polar bears but the Philips lobbyists have certainly earned their fees.
Of course, any reduction will affect the utilities' bottom lines so they will find ways (service fees, minimum bills, etc.) to recoup their losses.
And nobody ever talks about the huge supply chain and energy use behind making a CFL as opposed to bulb. A bulb has what maybe 6 low tech parts. While a CFL has capacitors, transistors, triacs, mercury, phosphors, plastics, etc. each of those which have more intense manufacturing processes and more sub parts. For the amount of energy that goes into the total making of a CFL compared to a bulb, I'm not sure but all those parts have to be made and trucked what is really saved. I think a market for incandescent bulbs will emerge and smaller manufacturers will remain or startup, just like I can still get vacuum tubes for my guitar amps, radios and stereo. Not nearly as good as the tubes made in 1960, but good enough. Bulb making is relatively easy and smaller manufacturers, I predict, will go into that business as long as there is demand and the format of light sockets is not gone.
If candelabra-base and low voltage landscape lighting bulbs are included in the ban, it'll probably cost $5K to $8K to replace fixtures in the house I'm occupying.
They won't have to do anything creative, just apply for a rate hike on the grounds of maintaining their return on investment.
There's a story in this morning's NYT that, while short on specifics, implies that GE (and probably others) are working on replacements for various types of specialty lights.
formatting link
And GE had earlier annpunced it would have incandescents that will meet the efficiency standard (30% increase in efficiency - which by a mysterious coincidence is what Philips new Halogena bulbs offer) by the time the law takes effect. What's not known is what the efficient incandescents will cost but, unless they cost an arm and a leg, it will make more sense to use them rather than replace fixtures.
Another factor is "power factor". I may have missed it but don't recall seeing anything that mandates a minimum PF for CFLs. If uncorrected, most have PF around 60% which means the utility has to supply 1.67x as much current as is actually used by the light. This means the green benefits are less than face value. The higher currents (and infrastructure) do constitute a real cost to the utility. So while a CFL will use less current, it's not as much of a reduction as is usually claimed.
Actually, the few figures provided in the url are consistent with those of others, and are in direct contradiction of Dave's misinformation in this newsgroup.
To wit:
"Each cone-shaped spiral CFL costs about $3, compared with 50 cents for a standard bulb. But a CFL uses about 75 percent less energy and lasts five years instead of a few months. A household that invested $90 in changing 30 fixtures to CFLs would save $440 to $1,500 over the five-year life of the bulbs, depending on your cost of electricity. "
Dave is on record in this newsgroup that CFLs 'are a bad idea' and that the savings others have actually realized somehow haven't happened. Now he is confused enough to agree with an article that confirm the very facts that he has contested over the years.
Actually, the only mention in the url of that figure is cited as a goal, articulated by ' Andrew deLaski, director of the Appliance Standards Awareness Project. "It's hugely important," he says. "A 60 to 70 percent reduction in light bulb energy use will save as much energy annually as that used by all the homes in Texas last year." '
of actually seeing a 60-70% reduction - 20-25% for lighting (6-8% overall
The imbroglio that has become Dave Houston's mind spills onto usenet once again. What Dave writes is intellectual and arithmetic gobbly-gook. It is yet another attempt to wriggle out of the pit of confused distortions that Dave has dug for himself over the years on the topic of compact fluorescents (and his misrepresentation of information presented in the NY Times).
More FUD. Dave makes up the 60% figure based on the very oldest and very worst specifications he can Google up. This is like projecting the capabilities of current and future personal computers based on the characteristics of a 1983 IBM-PC.
As I pointed out nine months ago in this newsgroup in
formatting link
when Dave posted similar misinformation about the power factor of CFL's, the n:Vision CFL I reviewed has a _measured_ power factor of 0.94 to 0.97
-- not 0.60 as Dave now claims.
This is not an exotic or unusual CFL. I bought this inexpensive n:vision CFL at the Home Depot that is a mile from Dave's apartment and measured its power factor using a Kill-A-Watt meter of the same model that Dave has written that he also owns and subsequently recommended for this purpose in this newsgroup.
And as I previously pointed out in
formatting link
(TCP)+SpringLamp+I+introduced++earlier+the++#52615a29efcdcc27 "There are of course, higher priced CFLs with even better specifications and performance -- They just haven't reached the price point of the n:vision CFLs. .. For example, of the 20 watt (75-watt equivalent) 2700K Technical Consumer Products (TCP) SpringLamp I introduced earlier the N:Vision CFL's discussion has a rated power factor of " >.90 "
And the very technical paper that Dave Houston introduces to use as the springboard for his misinformation in the thread cited above
formatting link
demonstrates that technical solutions to the erstwhile 'problem' of power factor are well known, public ally available, and have in fact been implemented my several manufacturers -- including a model whose actual performance Dave could trivially verify if he actually wanted to be constructive and accurate.
Reasonable folks will take a deep breath and discount the FUD that Dave spreads.
The New York Times article on the front page of today's print business section states:
"Congress has not specifically outlawed incandescent bulbs, only inefficient ones".
And the NY Times article notes that more efficient incandescents are on the way. Dave doesn't like the facts, or credible sources that present them, so he distorts both.
The US 'banned' inefficient industrial fluorescent fixtures years ago with little brou-ha-ha from the purveyors of misinformation. The move toward forcing inefficient incandescents off the market where there are better substitutes is a continuation of this necessary US and global public policy towards more efficient use of energy. It is not an end-all energy panacea and Dave's repeated attempts to create a straw-man argument around his specious notion that it is presented as such is, IMO, unhelpful distortion.
Note that remarkably useful/advanced CFLs including for candelabra base are _already_ available.
I previously posted measured and qualitative information on the n:vision CFLs available at Home Depot (the second-largest general retailer in the United States and the 17th largest corporation in the US).
The Home Depot n:vision CFL line _already_ includes a lamp that:
- has candelabra base - is 'flame'-shape - is dimmable - outdoor rated - has a pleasing incandescent-like, warm color
I have installed these candelabra-base CFLs both in the 4-lamp outdoor fixture over our front door, and in a 4-lamp, 130-year-old combined gas and electric lamp fixture in our dining room. IME, they work great in these two very different environments and applications.
And is about 15w "equivalent" light output unless your Home Depot has something not available in the ones around here.
I use 60w candelabra base bulbs in a fixture about 9ft above a stairway. I'd love to use CF if I could get a bulb that fit and provided the necessary light and life. So far, no luck.
Marc was addressing this Usenet newsgroup, the same as you were by posting here. His comments, far from silly, were accurate and pertinent. Mr. Houston has repeatedly posted misleading and downright dishonest comments here. Marc (who does not hide behind a pseudonym) simply set the record straight.
Early CFLs all had large bases. I disassembled a couple over the years, and they had a rectifier feeding a large electrolytic capacitor directly at the AC power input. Some of those early CFLs attenuated X10 signals, but I never saw them radiate noise in the X10 transmission window, which extends for 1mS after each zero crossing. The early Philips "Earthlights" were totally compatible with X10 transmissions. Unfortunately, ours are finally wearing out after about a decade of service.
Many have reported problems with newer CFLs causing problems for X10 transmission. I wrote a report on several that radiate noise in the X10 frequency band inside the X10 transmission window. Those have much smaller bases. While I have not yet disassembled one, it seems pretty obvious from the radiated noise that the switching converter is running over the entire waveform. That also allows them to eliminate the large high-voltage electrolytic that dictated the size of the base.
To jam the circuitry into smaller and smaller bases, it is impossible to include the large high-voltage electrolytic capacitors that result in the low power factor numbers. The downside is that some of these newer units with high-frequency switching supplies radiate that switching noise back onto the powerline.
I was addressing Marc, the nark, (apparently) and you were not previously involved. His post appeared to be addressing nobody as these OCD personalities like to do. Thank you for your concern. I like to think for myself and can draw my own logical conclusions.
Jeff, I'm not at all sure what you're referring to or how your "large capacitor" or X10 compatibility is pertinent to whether or not CFLs have low power factors but this is taken from the Wikipedia article on Power Factor. You can find essentially the same analysis and numbers at several other web sites having to do with SMPS design. And, people have posted Kill-A-Watt measurements of CFL PFs here that were in the 0.61 area. I doubt that low cost commodity producers of CFLs are going to voluntarily increase cost by using active PF correction. If you read my original post on this, I said "if uncorrected", most CFLs with will have low PF - what was unstated is that most CFLs now use SMPS and will need PF correction - I did not say that all CFLs must have low PF.
formatting link
In circuits having only sinusoidal currents and voltages, the power factor effect arises only from the difference in phase between the current and voltage. This is narrowly known as "displacement power factor". The concept can be generalized to a total, distortion, or true power factor where the apparent power includes all harmonic components. This is of importance in practical power systems which contain non-linear loads such as rectifiers, some forms of electric lighting, electric arc furnaces, welding equipment, switched-mode power supplies and other devices.
A particularly important example is the millions of personal computers that typically incorporate switched-mode power supplies (SMPS) with rated output power ranging from 250 W to 750 W. Historically, these very-low-cost power supplies incorporated a simple full-wave rectifier that conducted only when the mains instantaneous voltage exceeded the voltage on the input capacitors. This leads to very high ratios of peak-to-average input current, which also lead to a low distortion power factor and potentially serious phase and neutral loading concerns.
Regulatory agencies such as the EU have set harmonic limits as a method of improving power factor. Declining component cost has hastened acceptance and implementation of two different methods. Normally, this is done by either adding a series inductor (so-called passive PFC) or the addition of a boost converter that forces a sinusoidal input (so-called active PFC). For example, SMPS with passive PFC can achieve power factor of about 0.7-0.75, SMPS with active PFC, up to 0.99, while SMPS without any power factor correction has a power factor of only about 0.55-0.65.
To comply with current EU standard EN61000-3-2, all switched-mode power supplies with output power more than 75 W must include passive PFC, at least.
A typical multimeter will give incorrect results when attempting to measure the AC current drawn by a non-sinusoidal load and then calculate the power factor. A true RMS multimeter must be used to measure the actual RMS currents and voltages (and therefore apparent power). To measure the real power or reactive power, a wattmeter designed to properly work with non-sinusoidal currents must be used.
Maybe my english is too bad for understand people here - but do you think that old "warm" bulbs are effective enough? In Europe nobody think that - maybe because cost of electricity is far, far higher.
U¿ytkownik "John J. Bengii" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci news:jZqdnU_LUve9F_PanZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@golden.net...
Cabling-Design.com Forums 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.