# I think I should go stock up on 100W regular light bulbs



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

The lamp legislation puts a stop on manufacturing of general purpose incandescent lamps producing a range of output between 1490-2600 lumens and consuming more than 72W, or in layman's language, "the 100W light bulb" effective 1/1/2012.

I guess its time to go stock up on a few hundred of them for personal use.


----------



## Southeast Power (Jan 18, 2009)

Get some of those 8 gallon per flush toilets too. :thumbsup:


----------



## knowshorts (Jan 9, 2009)

They will still have "rough service" lamps. So why worry?


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

I sure do wish they'd bring back my DDT bug spray. 

I just don't think my AC feels as comfortable since it's not using R-12 Freon. 

And you'll be able to have my mercury-filled thermostat when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.

:whistling2:

-John


----------



## Toronto Sparky (Apr 12, 2009)

Leaded gas always sealed your cylinders/rings better.. 
And there's nothing to legally kill weeds with in Toronto anymore. 
Can't backwash the Chlorinated pool water into the storm drain anymore (guess it may clean the lake) 

Too bad the CFL lamps are so much more harmful to the environment then the good old incandescent lamp.


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

Toronto Sparky said:


> Too bad the CFL lamps are so much more harmful to the environment then the good old incandescent lamp.


You'll need a source for this. Are CFLs the be-all-and-end-all of light bulbs? Of course not. Do they contain mercury? Yep. But so does the smoke from coal-fired power stations. Is there energy use that goes unaccounted for in the production of these lamps? You bet. Just like in incandescents. 

CFLs are a step. Even if it's only a shade better than what we had before, it's still better. If you do nothing, that's exactly what you can expect to achieve.

-John


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

Big John said:


> You'll need a source for this. Are CFLs the be-all-and-end-all of light bulbs? Of course not. Do they contain mercury? Yep. But so does the smoke from coal-fired power stations. Is there energy use that goes unaccounted for in the production of these lamps? You bet. Just like in incandescents.
> 
> CFLs are a step. Even if it's only a shade better than what we had before, it's still better. If you do nothing, that's exactly what you can expect to achieve.
> 
> -John


I hated CFLs. Can't dim most of them. I listened to some congressional testimony on them. One representative asked what about my constituents (I think in Arizona) where outside temperatures would be way over 100? The expert said there is a capacitor in them which will fail prematurely. Then one from Alaska asked about her constituent's outside garage lights. They won't fire up when it's too cold the expert said. And what about the disposal costs? They have about 5 grams of mercury, disposal will cost $3 to $5 each. 

But I went to buy a replacement for a 90 watt flood light over my garage and all I could get was a 28 watt CFL. I was skeptical but I must admit that the light color, brightness, and quality is comparable and it's been on since last September (I never turn off certain lights, I'm not an energy savings kinda guy) and there's been no problem with it. Funny watching it come on for the first time as the phosphors started glowing at the center spiraling outward. OK, for garage lights I'll agree to it but for anything else, I think I'll be stocking up on a lifetime supply of A lamps just in case. BTW, how do you dispose of them, the recycling trash?


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

Shorty Circuit said:


> ...I listened to some congressional testimony on them. One representative asked what about my constituents (I think in Arizona) where outside temperatures would be way over 100? The expert said there is a capacitor in them which will fail prematurely.


I use CFLs in all our plants in the vapor-tight lights. They're mounted base-up, enclosed, in a high-temperature environment. So, without question they burn out faster than they should. I get about 3 months of constant usage out of them, when I should get a year. But I was getting 1 month each out of incandescant lamps, so I'm making out better and still being more efficient. And c'mon: I didn't see the congressional testimony, but if anyone seriously claimed that all CFLs from all the manufacturers have the same capacitor that will always fail prematurely, that is definitely not the type of person you want to take technical advice from.


> And what about the disposal costs? They have about 5 grams of mercury, disposal will cost $3 to $5 each.


Disposal is free in a lot of places, in that you're paying for it with the price of the bulb. You don't pay an additional fee to get rid of it.


> But I went to buy a replacement for a 90 watt flood light over my garage and all I could get was a 28 watt CFL. I was skeptical but I must admit that the light color, brightness, and quality is comparable...and there's been no problem with it...OK, for garage lights I'll agree to it but for anything else, I think I'll be stocking up on a lifetime supply of A lamps just in case.


Not trying to be a smartass, but seriously, if you see that the light quality is decent (much better than they used to be) and it lasts, and it's efficient, why wouldn't you buy them? I'm honestly curious.


> BTW, how do you dispose of them, the recycling trash?


Once in a blue moon, I'll break one, and it does go out in the trash, mercury and all. Otherwise Home Depot has drop off points, and so do most cities. It's pretty easy to get online find a place near you that'll take 'em.

Personally, I've never had to recycle any. No kidding, for about 5 years all my lamps have been CFLs, and I haven't had one burn out yet. :thumbsup:

-John


----------



## BuzzKill (Oct 27, 2008)

could care less....we're doomed anyway.


----------



## Innovative (Jan 26, 2010)

I keep a large supply of lead on hand to add to my gas and my paint........


----------



## wildleg (Apr 12, 2009)

I think you should stock up on bulbs too. Rent an extra space and fill it up with the bulbs. take a pic and don't forget to post it.


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

Big John said:


> I use CFLs in all our plants in the vapor-tight lights. They're mounted base-up, enclosed, in a high-temperature environment. So, without question they burn out faster than they should. I get about 3 months of constant usage out of them, when I should get a year. But I was getting 1 month each out of incandescant lamps, so I'm making out better and still being more efficient. And c'mon: I didn't see the congressional testimony, but if anyone seriously claimed that all CFLs from all the manufacturers have the same capacitor that will always fail prematurely, that is definitely not the type of person you want to take technical advice from.Disposal is free in a lot of places, in that you're paying for it with the price of the bulb. You don't pay an additional fee to get rid of it. Not trying to be a smartass, but seriously, if you see that the light quality is decent (much better than they used to be) and it lasts, and it's efficient, why wouldn't you buy them? I'm honestly curious. Once in a blue moon, I'll break one, and it does go out in the trash, mercury and all. Otherwise Home Depot has drop off points, and so do most cities. It's pretty easy to get online find a place near you that'll take 'em.
> 
> Personally, I've never had to recycle any. No kidding, for about 5 years all my lamps have been CFLs, and I haven't had one burn out yet. :thumbsup:
> 
> -John


"I use CFLs in all our plants in the vapor-tight lights. They're mounted base-up, enclosed, in a high-temperature environment. So, without question they burn out faster than they should. I get about 3 months of constant usage out of them, when I should get a year." 

"Personally, I've never had to recycle any. No kidding, for about 5 years all my lamps have been CFLs, and I haven't had one burn out yet. :thumbsup:"

I'll just take you at your word :laughing:


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

> I use CFLs in all our plants in the vapor-tight lights. They're mounted base-up, enclosed, in a high-temperature environment. So, without question they burn out faster than they should. I get about 3 months of constant usage out of them...


Which is worst-case scenario CFL usage.


> ...when I should get a year.


Because they're rated for 10,000 hours.


> Personally, I've never had to recycle any. No kidding, for about 5 years all my lamps have been CFLs, and I haven't had one burn out yet.


Because the lamps in my place are also rated at 10,000 hours, only mine aren't in vapor-tight globes. Each light might get used for 4 hours a day, so how many years does that come to before it burns out?


Shorty Circuit said:


> I'll just take you at your word :laughing:


You'd learn more if you did! :lol:

-John


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

My first concern about cfls was the bluish light they emit. Since then the soft white is available and I am okay with them. As far as I know the biggest problem with the cfls is the delicacy of the squiggley lamp as far as twisting them into place. Other than that I believe they are a good start.


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

Big John said:


> Which is worst-case scenario CFL usage.Because they're rated for 10,000 hours.Because the lamps in my place are also rated at 10,000 hours, only mine aren't in vapor-tight globes. Each light might get used for 4 hours a day, so how many years does that come to before it burns out?You'd learn more if you did! :lol:
> 
> -John


So which is it, 10,000 hours which is just short of 7 years at 4 hours a day or 3 months which is around 2160 hours with constant usage? Sorry about being unable to believe two contradictory things at the same time. I'm not a creation of George Orwell. 

You're teaching me more and more every day John. :no:


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

Shorty Circuit said:


> So which is it, 10,000 hours which is just short of 7 years at 4 hours a day or 3 months which is around 2160 hours with constant usage? Sorry about being unable to believe two contradictory things at the same time. I'm not a creation of George Orwell.
> 
> You're teaching me more and more every day John. :no:


It really does not matter. What matters is that you keep records of when you bought them and when you installed them, and if you have the guts to take them back if they don't last long enough. I do ...and, I will.


----------



## Toronto Sparky (Apr 12, 2009)

Just install some of these lights...:thumbup:

http://electrictv.net/Archives/Visible-Light-Communication.aspx


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

Shorty Circuit said:


> So which is it, 10,000 hours which is just short of 7 years at 4 hours a day or 3 months which is around 2160 hours with constant usage?


It's both. 

The ones in my plants fail fast because they are used contrary to their suggested use: Base up, enclosed, in high temperatures.

The ones in my apartment are used like they're supposed to be, so they've lasted as long as they're supposed to.

I mean, c'mon brother: You may disagree with me about wanting to use CFLs everywhere. But you admitted yourself that you have a CFL that has been running constantly for 11 months, so obviously I can't be completely full of it. 

If you're that dead-set on not using them, then by all means, don't. My opinion is that they're a much better technology, so I would hope that people would give them a serious shot before deciding that the only solution is to stock up on incandescent lamps.

-John


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

Big John said:


> It's both.
> 
> The ones in my plants fail fast because they are used contrary to their suggested use: Base up, enclosed, in high temperatures.
> 
> ...


"The ones in my plants fail fast because they are used contrary to their suggested use: Base up, enclosed, in high temperatures."

Uh OH!!! Do I detect a self admitted code violation here? Horrors!:w00t:
Shhhhh. If you won't tell, neither will I. :whistling2:

Personally I've never liked fluorescent lamps for most purposes but I will admit that they can be useful for general office, industrial, and even task lighting. :surrender: But except in a few applications, not for general lighting in a home. My basement has a lot of chain hanging fixtures but except for the outside garage light they're the only ones so far. I've noticed a considerable improvement in the T8s over the way they were say 20 years ago. Much brighter, much closer in luminousity to the F40T12s which were and remain my favorites. I look forward to the day when LEDs replace everything else. Of course they do contain trace amounts of arsenic among other things. :nuke:


----------



## Tron10 (May 28, 2010)

The heat generated by incandescent bulbs is not wasted in WA. The heat in my house is on 10-11 months of the year. It is supplemental heating. In residential settings here, fluorescents are better suited for exterior lighting.


----------



## Lighting Retro (Aug 1, 2009)

Where's my darn asbestos? Everything was better with asbestos.


----------



## pesdfw (Jun 23, 2010)

I save a lot of money by using cfl's instead of incandescent bulbs. I don't see going backwards and buying more of an outdated bulb. I'll wait till the led bulbs get better (and cheaper) and go that direction instead.


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

Shorty Circuit said:


> Uh OH!!! Do I detect a self admitted code violation here? Horrors!:w00t:


 Bah! 90.2(B)(5)(c) says that no matter how wrong I do things, it's never a code violation! :devil2:


> I look forward to the day when LEDs replace everything else. Of course they do contain trace amounts of arsenic among other things.


 Yeah, I don't think anything is a magic-bullet. But I'm already starting to see LED lamps in the hardware store. They cost a bloody fortune, and I have no idea how well they work, but I figure we continue down the road of CFLs for a couple more years, it gives them a chance to improve and cheapen the LEDs, then we start using those.

Remember the movie "What About Bob?" it's all about "baby steps." :thumbup:

-John


----------



## Shockdoc (Mar 4, 2010)

I'm still trying to find old white coat 175 merc bulbs for the GE form 109 mounted on the pole in my driveway. I don't wan't the MH conversions. It's only gonna get worst and turn into socialism. Wait a minute, NY is already a socailist police state


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

pesdfw said:


> I save a lot of money by using cfl's instead of incandescent bulbs. I don't see going backwards and buying more of an outdated bulb. I'll wait till the led bulbs get better (and cheaper) and go that direction instead.



When appropriately used, incandescent lamps can last almost forever and save money.

For example, I have a legacy 100W mushroom fixture in the laundry room on occupancy sensor with 5 min shut-off delay. 

To convert to CFL, the occupancy sensor would have to be replaced with a commercial grade relay based control and install a CFL fixture that has a programmed rapid start. Not only would that cost a lot of money, it wouldn't reach full output instantly. 

High wattage incandescent with a short turn off delay is appropriate when full output must be available immediately and duration of occupation is short enough.

If I was to replace the 100W A19 with a CFL and convert to a regular switch, I think more power will be wasted owing to forgetfulness. Occupancy sensors never forget. People do. Put an ordinary instant-on CFL on a 5min cycle and it will fail sooner than an incandescent. 

a 200W incandescent in janitor's closet that is promptly 5 minutes after vacancy will always save more energy than fluorescent that will get left on unnecessarily.

So, if the aggregated average is 20minutes a day, the monthly usage is 10hrs or 1kWh. You could eliminate the light entirely and it would save like $1.00 in energy a year. Even if you were to use a 1600 lumen LED fixture with 3x the efficacy of incandescent lamp, you're looking at 75 cents/fixture saving per year. 

The best energy saving is turning off unnecessary lighting. 

Do you guys disagree?



Big John said:


> I use CFLs in all our plants in the vapor-tight lights. They're mounted base-up, enclosed, in a high-temperature environment. So, without question they burn out faster than they should.
> -John


Ordinary CFLs lose a lot of output as well when they get too hot. For your application, you should be using amalgam CFL like Philips PL-L with a remote mounted external ballast. I think you can even lower the wattage of the lamp since the amalgam CFLs don't lose output at elevated temperature.


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

Tron10 said:


> The heat generated by incandescent bulbs is not wasted in WA. The heat in my house is on 10-11 months of the year. It is supplemental heating. In residential settings here, fluorescents are better suited for exterior lighting.


There is far more to that than you could possibly know. Most energy savings schemes especially based on low wattage lighting are bogus. The numbers are all wrong, the method of calculation of savings is all wrong and then there is the very complex problem of added heating costs in the winter minus air conditioning costs in the summer. The length of the heating season versus cooling season and the kind of heating system you have is a major factor. 18 years ago I took a hard look at PSE&G's "Standard Offer" and it stank. Working through ESCOS real payback was at least 8 years and often more than 10, the book life of the fixtures, not one to two years. Using the internal reflectors also causes real problems with cavitation. There were more holes in their energy savings story than in a wheel of Swiss cheese.


----------



## CrossThreaded (Jun 27, 2010)

Tron10 said:


> The heat generated by incandescent bulbs is not wasted in WA. The heat in my house is on 10-11 months of the year. It is supplemental heating.


This makes no sense. Sure, it is supplemental heating, but it is very expensive supplemental heating. It's like using jet fuel to heat your house, it might work, but it costs more.

Example: the heat energy from all of your incandescent lamps might stop your boiler from coming on and save you $5 per month in heating costs. But you are paying $15 per month more to illuminate your house with incandescent vs. CFL.

Heating your house with incandescent lamps is very inefficient, why would you want to do it that way when your boiler is MUCH more efficient?


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

CrossThreaded said:


> This makes no sense. Sure, it is supplemental heating, but it is very expensive supplemental heating. It's like using jet fuel to heat your house, it might work, but it costs more.
> 
> Example: the heat energy from all of your incandescent lamps might stop your boiler from coming on and save you $5 per month in heating costs. But you are paying $15 per month more to illuminate your house with incandescent vs. CFL.
> 
> Heating your house with incandescent lamps is very inefficient, why would you want to do it that way when your boiler is MUCH more efficient?


If your house or any building is electrically heated, then every watt you save in lighting has to be made up for by an added watt of heating when the outside temperature is cold enough to call for heating. If you use another fuel such as oil or gas you have to take into consideration the efficiency and cost of fuel. For every watt of power you save on lighting you save about a third to a half a watt on air conditioning during the cooling season depending on the system, age and condition of the equipment. Some buildings designed around the 1970s depended on what is called the heat of light as part of their heating systems. Reduce power consumed by lights and may not be enough heat during the coldest weather. Therefore if you have an electrically heated building in a place that is cold year round such as say Nome Alaska, you will save nothing on your electric bill by switching to lower wattage lights.


----------



## CrossThreaded (Jun 27, 2010)

Shorty Circuit said:


> If your house or any building is electrically heated, then every watt you save in lighting has to be made up for by an added watt of heating


 Completely FALSE.

Electric heating is VERY efficient, almost damn near perfect. On the other hand, incandescent lamps are far from efficient at putting out heat. A good percentage of the power goes towards putting out light. Watt for watt, an electric heater puts out more heat energy than an incan lamp. That means that you would be much better off if you stopped heating your house with your light bulbs and let the electric heat do it's job.



> If you use another fuel such as oil or gas you have to take into consideration the efficiency and cost of fuel.


 Which in each and every form of fuel you would have a more efficient, less expensive way to heat your house than using incan lamps.


> For every watt of power you save on lighting you save about a third to a half a watt on air conditioning during the cooling season depending on the system


 That works out great, by using CFL's you are saving in the Summer, but not loosing anything in the Winter like I discussed above. 



> Some buildings designed around the 1970s depended on what is called the heat of light as part of their heating systems.


 Those buildings need special consideration. Hopefully if their lighting is upgraded their heating would be too. That would give them a much more efficient system that isn't relying on the inefficient lighting. 


> Therefore if you have an electrically heated building in a place that is cold year round such as say Nome Alaska, you will save nothing on your electric bill by switching to lower wattage lights.


Again, that is false. Since a watt of electric heat produces more heat than a watt of incan lighting does, you will always have a more efficient system by using the heat instead of the lighting.

I still can't get over the fact that some people believe the hype that incan lamps are efficient forms of heat. If they were, they wouldn't be putting out any light.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

RIVETER said:


> It really does not matter. What matters is that you keep records of when you bought them and when you installed them, and if you have the guts to take them back if they don't last long enough. I do ...and, I will.



Do you take them back if they last _too_ long?:whistling2:


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

Shorty Circuit said:


> So which is it, 10,000 hours which is just short of 7 years at 4 hours a day or 3 months which is around 2160 hours with constant usage? Sorry about being unable to believe two contradictory things at the same time. I'm not a creation of George Orwell.
> 
> You're teaching me more and more every day John. :no:


It depends on how its rated. Put it in a single occupant restroom where its turned on/off every time someone uses it, it won't last long. If the total on-time is less than a few hours a day, you can't beat incandescent on occupancy sensor. 

The standard rating in the US is based on the on-hours it takes for 50% in a large sample size to fail at 3 hrs per switch on usage. If you increase the failure rate to until 70% failure and switch cycle to 16 hours, you can easily extend it substantially on the same product. 

If it takes longer than a second to turn on, it won't pass Energy Star requirements. Consumers expect even faster turn-on. A proper programmed rapid start which can withstand frequent switching cycles takes about 1.5 seconds, so they won't be able to earn the Energy Star label.


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

CrossThreaded said:


> Completely FALSE.
> 
> Electric heating is VERY efficient, almost damn near perfect. On the other hand, incandescent lamps are far from efficient at putting out heat. A good percentage of the power goes towards putting out light. Watt for watt, an electric heater puts out more heat energy than an incan lamp. That means that you would be much better off if you stopped heating your house with your light bulbs and let the electric heat do it's job.
> 
> ...


 
CT;

You are wrong...dead wrong. :hammer:

I don't expect to persuade you here but I strongly recommend you take a course in thermodynamics and then reconsider what you said.

Even if it were true that elecrical lamps were efficient converters of electrical power into light (they aren't) all of the light they produce is converted back into heat anyway. This is the second law of thermodynamics. For all practical intents and purposes, when you consider how much air conditioning you need for a building, you can convert ALL of the electrical power consumed into the mechanical equivalent of heat at 3.41 BTUs per watt no matter what type of electrical device it is. That's what you need to cool. 

"Watt for watt, an electric heater puts out more heat energy than an incan lamp."

False,they are exactly the same. 

"Electric heating is VERY efficient, almost damn near perfect."

Actually the second part is false. It isn't almost perfect, it is 100% efficient at turning electrical power into heat, maybe the only thing we encounter that is that efficient. Every watt consumed is turned into heat. It is also very expensive compared to other forms of heating. Gas, oil, coal, even wood are much cheaper....and much less efficient when considering the conversion of available energy turned into heat. Any unburned residue of fuel is a measure of that inefficiency, chemical bonds not broken by oxygen. Any heat lost up a flue is also a source of inefficiency. The only loss of efficiency in electric heating (which the consumer doesn't pay for directly) is the heat produced by the utility company's power lines delivering power to the end point of use. That cost is built into the rates of what is used. It is why utilities don't like low power factors. The reactive load component costs them money heating their wires and their transformers (I squared R losses, eddy current and hysteresis losses) that is not sold to the consumer as power used.


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

Shorty Circuit said:


> CT;
> 
> You are wrong...dead wrong.


I agree with Shorty here. 



> Actually the second part is false. It isn't almost perfect, it is 100% efficient at turning electrical power into heat, maybe the only thing we encounter that is that efficient. Every watt consumed is turned into heat.


I agree 100% but I think many people have a hard time believing it.


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

Bob Badger said:


> I agree with Shorty here.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree 100% but I think many people have a hard time believing it.


Even the light is turned into heat. Some people may have a hard time believing that because it is usually such a small quantity of heat with ordinary illumination lighting and it is not concentrated. Here are two examples that illustrate that conversion.

Infra-red radiation is light at a longer wavelength than the human eye is sensitive to as visual light. When it strikes objects which absorb rather than reflect it, it is turned into heat. That is why we wear light colored clothing in summer, it reflects infra-rad light to a greater degree than dark clothing.

A laser light can be so intense that when it strikes a surface which absorbs it, that light is converted into heat, at times at temperatures hot enough to melt steel. 

The degradation of all energy into heat and the postulation of the ultimate heat death of the universe is a consequence of the second law of thermodynamics.


----------

