Posted on 08/30/2009 5:43:44 PM PDT by kingattax
Energy saving light bulbs are not as bright as their traditional counterparts and claims about the amount of light they produce are "exaggerated", the European Union has admitted.
Soon they will be the only kind of light bulb allowed, but now officials in Brussels have admitted that energy-saving bulbs are not as bright as the old-fashioned kind they are replacing.
Soon they will be the only kind of light bulb allowed, but now officials in Brussels have admitted that energy-saving bulbs are not as bright as the old-fashioned kind they are replacing.
From tomorrow a Europe-wide ban on traditional incandescent bulbs will begin to be rolled out, with a ban on 100W bulbs and old-style frosted or pearled bulbs.
Buyers of the main type of energy-saving bulb, compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs), are told on the packaging that they shine as brightly as an old-fashioned bulb. For example, an 11W CFL is labelled as being the equivalent of a 60W incandescent bulb.
However, the European Commission, which was responsible for the ban, has now conceded that this is "not true" and that such claims by manufacturers are "exaggerated".
The Sunday Telegraph has conducted its own tests on level of illuminance provided by light bulbs from different manufacturers to see whether their claims stand up to scrutiny.
We found that under normal household conditions, using a single lamp to light a room, an 11W low-energy CFL produced only 58 per cent of the illumination of an "equivalent" 60W bulb – even after a 10-minute "warm-up".
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
This is an easy thing to test.
Which means they lied.
Lied to once again by the left and the enviro-nazis.
I’m a crocheter and cross stitcher. You cannot see with those stupid CFL’s.
The rooms are always dark, it's very difficult to read — the only way is to use the desk light that you can pull down right onto the reading surface.
There's often this odd and annoying flickering, it may be part of the warm-up cycle, that's totally irritating.
Ever notice these same eco-freaks do not address mercury or other toxic components that must be managed during disposal.
What would you expect from the butt boy Euro-trash, flying around Uranus anyway?
No s**t, Sherlock! You have to be blind or stupid not to notice this! I've found that I need to use at the very least the next step up in order to get the right amount of light... For instance, when I replace a 60 watt incandescent bulb with a CFL, I wind up going with either the 75 watt "equiv" CFL (in multi-bulb ceiling fixtures, if they'll fit), or more commonly in single bulb lamps, the 100 watt equiv. It still saves some energy, but nowhere near as much as advertised.
Mark
My local Wal-Mart still has plenty of incandescents on the shelf.
I would think most folks could afford to stockpile them until better technology comes along.
One thing “they” never mention is that the watts burned helps heat your house in the cooler weather. Perhaps not cost effective, but a benefit that has to be factored in to make a correct analysis.
Never the less, they do save energy and produce less heat. Advantages known before there were any enviro-nazis.
Hydropower.
I bought a lifetime supply of incandescent bulbs last year.
Good for the winter but bad for the summer.
I’ve been buying value-pack 60 watt bulbs. Getting stocked up.
That was obvious to me. I use 20 watt low energy bulbs where I would have used a 60 watt standard bulb before. I also managed to get 9 of the standard 100 Watt bulbs before they banned them.
I hope the techknowlgy of the L.E.Ds improve and we can say goodbye to the CFLs
I have always thought they kind of just glowed in the dark!
CFLs will be ancient history in two years time. Mark my words markL. LEDs will take their place.
Typical liberal hype.
Keep people “in the dark” while you implement your agenda.
remind anyone of health care?
true but at least at my latitude, we use the indoor lights a lot more in winter
We've been using CFLs in this house for many years, expanding their use as the light quality improves (the ones from a decade ago, still burning, are definitely inferior from what's available today) and are happy with them, their energy savings and effect on the wallet.
And by the way, our thermostat is set at 64F occupied, 58F night/unoccupied (we don't have A/C, only heat). If you are a compleat culture-Nazi and don't like our lower-cost lifestyle, demanding inefficient lighting and overheated houses from us, please don't come visit us.
It's a free country, right -- or is it?
The thing is that you either sit in the dark or turn on more lamps than you normally would in order to actually light a room. Where's the savings?
I’ve started stocking up on the traditional 100W bulbs for when they will be banned. My basement’s gonna be full!
That soon? It would be a boon! But I'm not so certain about the cost curve.
Same here. I tried one of the “100W” CFL’s and couldn’t see my knitting. I switched back to the regular bulb and there was a huge difference.
The new bulbs contain Mercury. Where are the Eco-Nuts?
It’s George Bush’s fault - he should not have signed the stupid bill.
Apparently there are some teeny weeny concerns out there.
http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/cfl.asp
parsy, who googles
Agreed. My “green” light bulbs are as dim as an “intellectual” democRat.
The usual FUD.
In breaking just one household fever thermometer in my childhood (I broke more than one) I released far more mercury into the environment than every CFL burned out or broken in this household since we first started using CFLs -- and the amount of mercury in CFLs is dropping.
It’s like trying to use a camping lantern. The law banning real light bulbs needs to be struck down. I’m furious at how intrusive and “in your face” government is getting.
Yes.
This is another illuminancati plot!
Agreed.
Now I KNOW they just glow in the dark! No wonder the damn things hurt my eyes!
How the energy saving bulbs compared to incandescent bulbs
Traditional incandescent:
Osram 60W (700 lumens) – 126 lux
Philips 60 W (700 lumens) -114 lux
Tesco 60W (700 lumens) – 122 lux
Maxim Pearl 60W pearled (no lumen info) – 101 lux
Energy Saving (all claim to be equivalent to 60W):
Philips 12W T60 Softone (610 lumens) – 77 lux
Southern Electric/GE 11W (610 lumens) – 79 lux
Tesco Greener living stick 11W (640 lumens) – 70 lux
Eveready Energy Saver 11W (no lumen info) – 60 lux
Osram Duluxstar 11W (600 lumens) – 67 lux
My experience is that the CFL’s are as bright as their equivalents, but that’s subjective.
Regular bulbs are easy to stockpile, but the big floodlamp bulbs take up a lot of room (especially when you have other stuff that you need to stockpile...). I've been looking at halogen fixtures to replace all the ceiling can lights in my house. I will *not* use compact flourescents; the damned things give me a headache.
Maybe you do prefer the CFLs. That’s fine with me. I have used them in my outdoor fixtures and in other places where I’d rather not change bulbs more than once every few years.
What I don’t like is when the government mandates that I must use the CFLs. I personally prefer the older bulbs I can see with near my reading chair.
Parsy, it’s false that they aren’t dangerous. They tell you if you break one to open windows and leave the room immediately. You have to wait at least 15 minutes before it’s safe to clean up. In 15 years they’ll be screaming about landfills full of mercury.
That's 5.45 times the efficiency. Around here the producers list about 4x (or a little more), so a 13 to 15 W CFL is the claimed equivalent of a 60 W incandescent. When I use them it looks more like a 3x efficiency difference, so you really need a 20 W CFL to light up a room like a 60 W incandescent.
Article by “Gray and McWatt” — is this serious?
I have enough of a stash of the incandescent bulbs to last me the rest of my life. Then my heirs can sell what remains to pay for my funeral! ;^)
I’ve done well enough with the CFLs from Home Depot but buying them has been a personal choice. Forcing them on everyone is wrong.
2 things that Bush was stupid on was not gaurding the border and this damn screwey light bulb which he signed into law that takes a Hazmat team to clean up if broken.
One question, who are you, or the government, to decide what I like to use? Your answer will depend on your understanding of freedom / fascism.
This is series and could be hugh.
I like Bush but I gotta wonder if he was trying to “make friends” or had lost touch with real people.
I personally like the bulbs a lot, but mandating them is dumb.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.