A View against Fluorescent Light Bulbs

  Velvet Underground drummer Moe Tucker: “The government deciding what kind of lightbulbs we can use (all you “think green” people, three objections to this b.s.: 1) Those bulbs give off the light of a candle; 2) They’re very expensive; 3) They have mercury in them – how the hell are we supposed to dispose of them?).” Interview  
Posted in CFLs | Leave a comment

LEDs have Problems Too!

  Update: A further extensive post on LED issues gone up on the Greenwashing Lamps blog, Lighting industry on LED issues basically comparing the 2009 promises with the 2012 delivery… The always readable and fact filled Greenwashing Lamps blog, had a good post the other day about LED Tubes and Bulbs. Looking at the LED Bulb section of the post… with testing and reports from Sweden and the EU, but likely applicable elsewhere too, at least in the general observations. Some of it has been auto-translated from Swedish, but thankfully with adjustments by the author! My emphases, some editing:  
Banned LED bulbs Report from Dec 14, 2011 With the new energy conservation requirements, incandescent bulbs be phased out, increasing interest in alternative lighting. The lamps which the National Electrical Safety Board has looked at are (therefore) the incandescent bulb replacement LED bulbs. They are based on modern LED technology and all the lamps tested contains a small power pack, situated in the lamp socket. The Safety Board has recently given a variety of (these) LED lamps sales ban. The most common reason is electrical grid disturbances, but they also interfere with radio frequencies.

List of products which have so far received sales ban: Lamp 1, Lamp 2, Lamp 3, Lamp 4, Lamp 5, Lamp 6, Lamp 7. [3 more but links required login]

  Result of market supervision More than half of the LED lights purchased through the market and tested have received sales bans. This is a remarkably high figure, which may be because most of the lights checked had built-in dimming, i.e. that they are dimmable. Dimmable LED lamps contain control electronics that often require specific measures to achieve acceptable properties to make electrical devices work together, known as electromagnetic compatibility (EMC). This is sometimes overlooked by the lamp manufacturers. It is important to you as a manufacturer or importer to ensure that the LEDs have been tested properly with EMC.   How does the disturbance manifest? LEDs produce disturbances in the distribution system which, among other things, can cause radio interference. Radio interference caused by the conducted noise radiating from the connected wires. This is because the lines, e.g. to the luminaire, act as transmitting antennas for conducted interference. The disturbance may affect other electrical products in the local area, even those that are not connected to an outlet. It can also affect communication such as wireless broadband and telephony.   What rules apply for manufacturers? The Electrical Safety Authority on electromagnetic compatibility (ELSÄK-FS 2007:1) has to be followed. Regulations based on the EMC Directive (2004/108/EC EMCD).   Cooperation within the EU about LED lights There is currently a campaign in the EU to have LED lighting examined. The aim is to investigate if the new LED lights on the market comply with applicable EMC requirements.   A few months later, EU authorities found similar problems:   Disruptive LEDs are examined in the EU Feb 10, 2012 The National Electrical Safety Board has in 2011 looked into LED lights, half of which got sales bans. The reason for the bans is that the lights did not meet the applicable requirements for electromagnetic compatibility (EMC).

Market of LED lamps 2011The lights disrupted other electrical products. Only one in five LED lamps passed the test without comment.

  European survey In parallel with the National Electrical Safety Board’s market surveillance of LED lights, the EU carried out an investigation. The EU surveillance is not strictly comparable to the Safety Boards’s market surveillance, but shows similar shortcomings. The results also show that manufacturers who use LED technology are very poor at complying with the Directive: The reason for this is that LED technology is so new and there have appeared many new manufacturers in the market that are simply not aware of the directive, said Ulf Johansson at the Safety Board.   Clearer rules One of several measures aimed at improving the situation is that the European Commission gives the European Committee for Standardisation mandate to supplement and clarify standards in the field. The aim is to help traders in the market to more easily use the current rules.   Continued control The National Electrical Safety Board will, in line with other market surveillance authorities in the EU, check the LEDs in 2012 as well. It also plans to follow up on last year’s surveillance with a campaign aimed at improving information about the LED lights.   References Förbjudna LED-lampor [Prohibited LED-lamps] Störande lampor granskas i EU [Lights causing disturbance analyzed by the EU] Final Report on the 4th Cross-Border EMC Market Surveillance Campaign – 2011 LED Lighting Products
  Comment   Overall, it should also be noted that lab tested specifications, as agreed among the manufacturers, rarely conform with real life usage. [A problem of course familiar to fluorescent bulb users too – as with the long unnatural 3 hour on-off cycle lifespan testing, given that many bulbs are switched on and off for short periods… which happens to markedly reduce CFL life, and again, the loss of brightness that also effectively reduces their life]   The problems with LED, and the standards applying to them is also covered on http://ceolas.net/#li15ledax and onwards, with some safety issues covered on http://ceolas.net/#li20ledax.   From an American angle, an interesting court case against false LED advertising: From the Federal Trade Commission press release, 2010:
FTC Shines a Light on Company’s Deceptive Claims for its LED Bulbs Agency Charges Firm With Misrepresenting the Light Output and Life Expectancy of its Bulbs: The Federal Trade Commission has sued a California-based light bulb manufacturer and its principals to stop them from misleading consumers by exaggerating the light output and life expectancy of its Light Emitting Diode (LED) bulbs. As part of the FTC’s continuing work to stop deceptive advertising,the agency filed a complaint charging that since 2008, Lights of America, Inc. has overstated the light output and life expectancy of its LED bulbs on packages and in brochures. The agency also charges that Lights of America misled consumers about how the brightness of its LED bulbs compares to traditional incandescent lights.
  A 2011 update, pdf document: http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0923145/110330lightsofamericamotion.pdf “Accordingly, the Court should deny the Vakils’ Motion to Dismiss and enter its Tentative Decision as its ruling on this matter….”   Meanwhile, in 2012, with the FTC supervised new lighting label regulations, GE has found its own color coding way to give the information:
GE is currently rolling out a series of five new boxes that’ll hit store shelves by summer and, it hopes, change the way Americans do their bulb shopping. The FTC-mandated label will appear (where else?) on the back of the boxes
  The color coding is meant to represent “strong, vibrant”, “cozy relaxing” lighting etc
For example, the lowest-power bulb (210 lumens) comes in a lavender box labeled “subtle, reassuring light,” while the higher-power 1,170-lumen bulb’s box is bright green termed as “fresh, energizing light.”
  Never mind the uneven light spectrum of this kind of lighting, as indeed with CFLs 😉 Light spectrum compared for different lamp types in an earlier blog post here dealing with UV light radiation, some more diagrams in the equivalent post on the Freedom Light Bulb blog.  
Posted in CFLs | Leave a comment

A Comprehensive Criticism of Fluorescent Light Bulbs

Paul Wheaton is an interesting critic of the pushing of CFLs as replacement light bulbs, and indeed of the supposed necessity of restricting the use of simple incandescent light bulbs: He is a committed environmentalist, as seen from his permaculture farming forums, and yet has an engineering background that allows him and his team to make credible real-life observations about lighting and lighting use. A point about light bulb manufacturers and their products is that their specifications may be correct under the lab test conditions, but do not correspond to real life use – like with lifespan or brightness. He has a good and extensive critical account of Fluorescent light bulbs here: http://www.richsoil.com/CFL-fluorescent-light-bulbs.jsp as also displayed further down on this post.

A recent video complements this well, containing further testing…

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gjvOOlHmsU?feature=player_detailpage&w=640&h=360]
Not forgetting his earlier Mr Stinkypants video... A criticism of light bulb manufacturers and politicians, and how they don't act in the consumers best interest, humorously illustrating the Phoebus cartel limiting the lifespans of regular incandescent bulbs, and then how CFLs get pushed by subsidies before the ultimate resort to simply ban the incandescent alternatives...

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ta2ozf_uJJ8&feature=player_embedded&w=640&h=360]
...And the mentioned CFL page, which is a lot longer still, scroll for more...
Posted in CFLs | 1 Comment

New Study on CFL UV Radiation

  As has widely been reported, a recent study highlights the problem of UV radiation from compact fluorescent bulbs, albeit only at close quarters. It is therefore recommended that the squiggly tubes are enclosed in capsules for such use, as with the pear shaped CFLs that are available. From the Daily Mail article 20 July   Edited extracts, highlights
Energy-saving light bulbs can fry your skin, study claims Energy-saving light bulbs can fry your skin, a new study claims. Researchers at Stony Brook University in New York State examined the impact of the compact fluorescent bulbs - or CFL bulbs - on human skin cells prompted by a similar study undertaken in Europe. They discovered that healthy skin exposed to light from the CFLs experienced damage found with ultraviolet (UV) radiation. 'Consumers should be careful when using compact fluorescent light bulbs... our research shows that it is best to avoid using them at close distances and that they are safest when placed behind an additional glass cover' Stony Brook University Professor of Materials Science and Engineering Miriam Rafailovich said. The scientists tested a number of CFL bulbs from across New York State to determine their UV emissions and the integrity of each bulb’s phosphor coatings. Results revealed significant levels of UV, which appeared to originate from cracks in the phosphor coatings that were present in all CFL bulbs studied. They also tested the impact on collagen-producing skin cells and the epidermal cell that generated keratin from the light. Comparing skin cells exposed to the CFLs with those exposed to incandescent light bulbs, they discovered that only the CFLs damaged skin, the same trauma as sun burnt skin, they found. Incandescent light of the same intensity had no effect on healthy skin cells at all.
  The study itself: The Effects of UV Emission from Compact Fluorescent Light Exposure on Human Dermal Fibroblasts and Keratinocytes Tatsiana Mironava, Michael Hadjiargyrou, Marcia Simon, Miriam H. Rafailovich Article first published online: 20 jul 2012
Abstract Compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs can provide the same amount of lumens as incandescent light bulbs, using one quarter of the energy. Recently, CFL exposure was found to exacerbate existing skin conditions; however, the effects of CFL exposure on healthy skin tissue have not been thoroughly investigated. In this study, we studied the effects of exposure to CFL illumination on healthy human skin tissue cells (fibroblasts and keratinocytes). Cells exposed to CFLs exhibited a decrease in the proliferation rate, a significant increase in the production of reactive oxygen species, and a decrease in their ability to contract collagen. Measurements of UV emissions from these bulbs found significant levels of UVC and UVA (mercury [Hg] emission lines), which appeared to originate from cracks in the phosphor coatings, present in all bulbs studied. The response of the cells to the CFLs was consistent with damage from UV radiation, which was further enhanced when low dosages of TiO2 nanoparticles (NPs), normally used for UV absorption, were added prior to exposure. No effect on cells, with or without TiO2 NPs, was observed when they were exposed to incandescent light of the same intensity.
  Scotland based lighting designer Kevan Shaw of Savethebulb.org has a particular interest on the effects of CFLs on people with light sensitivity disorders, as he points out in the introduction to his post on this research, extracts:
Frying tonight? As previously blogged I am assisting the Spectrum Alliance with their campaign to retain incandescent lamps for people with specific photosensitive disorders. In the course of this I have learned a lot about skin problems caused by CFLs. It seems that such problems are not just confined to specifically photosensitive people. The Daily Mail ran an article on 20 July this year following up on recently published research in the USA. It seems that the light from CFLs has a significantly greater damaging effect on skin than incandescent lamps. As previously experienced, CFLs do emit UV despite the claims of manufacturers. Double envelope CFLs do reduce UV emissions considerably and should be used in any situation where lamps are at all close to people like task lighting, table lamps and bedside lights, particularly for the very young and very old whose skin tends to be more sensitive. Kevan Shaw July 20 , 2012
    Comment Some comments elsewhere are taking this quite lightly, even welcoming a bit of sunburn and vitamin D formation. However, an important point not mentioned is that UVC, one of the UV types emitted, is the most damaging UV source and happens to be blocked by the atmosphere ozone layer when coming from the sun. An interesting runthrough of UV light can be seen on Digplanet.com, here. The same source on Fluorescent lamp UV radiation
Fluorescent lamps Fluorescent lamps produce UV radiation by ionising low-pressure mercury vapour. A phosphorescent coating on the inside of the tubes absorbs the UV and converts it to visible light. The main mercury emission wavelength is in the UVC range. Unshielded exposure of the skin or eyes to mercury arc lamps that do not have a conversion phosphor is quite dangerous. The light from a mercury lamp is predominantly at discrete wavelengths. Other practical UV sources with more continuous emission spectra include xenon arc lamps (commonly used as sunlight simulators), deuterium arc lamps, mercury-xenon arc lamps, metal-halide arc lamps, and tungsten-halogen incandescent lamps.
Incandescents have a red shift and relatively low UV output
unknown source
  CFL lamp spectrum   A comparison between light sources (a CFL is of course a type of mercury vapor lamp)
  The sourced Olympusmicro.com site for the last diagram has a good account of lamp technologies and spectra.   As for the issue at hand here, there is more coverage of UV radiation and other health concerns, with research references, on http://ceolas.net/#li18rx Note that the double envelope CFL recommendation dates back several years from other studies...   BBC article 9 October 2008:
UV light fear over 'green' bulbs Being too close to energy-saving light bulbs could cause skin reddening because of ultraviolet light emissions, health experts have warned. The Health Protection Agency (HPA) cautions against being closer than 30cm (1ft) to some compact fluorescent (cfl) bulbs for long. As a result of testing which revealed the potentially high levels of UV light, the HPA has issued guidelines against people using unencapsulated light bulbs - where the light coil is visible - closer than 30cms to the body for more than one hour a day. Professor Harry Moseley, Consultant Clinical Scientist at the University of Dundee, said: "We are concerned about risks to patients who have severe light-sensitive skin disorders. "The small levels of ultra-violet emitted by some low energy light bulbs could be harmful to these patients. I recommend use of lights with a protective shield to absorb the UV." Experts stress that healthy people are at no risk providing the HPAs advice (above) is followed.
  Also a similar EU Commission study 2008, albeit a typically poorly written EU report, seemingly drawing on other studies, and full of conclusions without presenting underlying data evidence (surprise, not).   In December 2009 The Canadian Federal Government Health Department finished a review of CFLs, again mainly relating to UV radiation, but other electromagnetic radiation was also studied. The report mirrored the UK HPA findings: "It is recommended that single envelope CFLs [classic tubular type lights] not be used at distances less than 30 cm to avoid any long-term health effects in the general population"   Note a certain irony here... Double envelope CFLs protecting from UV light also means reducing their ordinary light output still more There is other irony about CFLs already, eg leave them on, waste energy, switch them on-off, shorten their life... Basically, bulbs are the wrong format for fluorescent lighting technology, best in long tube form, just like LEDs have natural lighting advantages in sheet form. The CFL and LED natural advantages are compromised in offering politically pushed incandescent-copying lighting.
Posted in CFLs | Leave a comment

“Don’t Send Your Light Bulbs to Washington”

  Hey, squiggly CFLs can be attractive too…or at least less ugly… But don’t go picking this flower!  
CFL Flower
by Laura McNutt and Tracey Trumbull. Source   http://timesfreepress.com/photos/2011/apr/19/43467/  
Posted in CFLs | Leave a comment

CFLs “All Fail” Study…

    Interesting last post on the Savethebulb.org blog. It concerns the need to review the already imposed ban in Europe, not least because of the low savings from banning simple incandescents, as also a UK Dept of Environment (DEFRA) study seems to confirm. Indeed it even says that households with CFLs use more electricity, albeit that it also highlights the need for further study. Overall, much else is seen as relevant in lowering household energy use, apart from switching light bulbs. The DEFRA study, and the low savings from a switchover, are further covered on the companion blog Freedom Light Bulb, in a post last updated 11 July.   Worthy of note here is the other research mentioned on Savethebulb, into the quality of CFLs on the UK market (and likely applicable in USA and elsewhere too)
Much has been said about the quality, or lack thereof, of Compact Fluorescent Energy Saving lamps. The EcoDesign [EU standard setting office] regulations made some effort to include quality criteria to answer criticisms by user groups. Each European country is supposed to undertake necessary market surveillance to ensure that the products placed on the market meet these quality criteria. In the UK a new QUANGO , the National Measurement Office, (NMO) was set up to deal with this across all of the EcoDesign regulations. There was some discussion before it was set up as to what it would be doing in respect of the lighting regulations. So far it has undertaken one study on domestic lighting and the results were published here. It was always acknowledged that there would not be sufficient funding to realistically tackle the vast number of lamps imported and sold each year, however this report really does show that quality standards are not being met and that NMO are taking a softly softly approach with suppliers rather than a strict an punitive approach. During the MTP consultation we were told that these studies on lamps would be annual however I had a conversation with a spokesman for NMO who absolutely refused to say if or when another study on domestic lamps would be taking place. As things stand and from the meager evidence available I would say that, certainly as far as domestic lighting is concerned EcoDesign regulations are neither delivering the promised energy savings nor the guarantee of reasonable quality of lamps to the domestic market in the EU. Kevan Shaw July 4, 2012
  Looking then at the study by the National Measurement Office as mentioned All bulb models tested were CFLs, 20 each, of 15 models...
"At the start of the project, fifteen models of lamp were identified according to risk, purchased in a batch of twenty and secured into evidence by the NMO. Once photographed and given individual codes the lamps were transported to the Lighting Association for accredited testing. The results of the tests showed excessive failures and high levels of risk within the domestic lighting industry. All fifteen of the lamps showed some area of failure, ranging from information displayed incorrectly on the free access website to an 85% failure on a switching cycle test."
[images here are not from the test report, but base burn is one failure cause]    
Posted in CFLs | Leave a comment

Light Bulb Hell and Heaven… or vice versa…

Update: Having to take down the Flash app as embed in the post, dumb background music on it unfortunately, so is annoyingly present in archive listings of several posts etc. Not noticed before! Still, amusing enough, as described below…   Light Bulb Heaven Why roast in Incandescent Hell when you can go to the Fluorescent Heaven? 😉 See the “Unscrew America” flash movie Nicely done… pity about “wasting so much energy” doing it! The supposed switchover benefits in that flash application are repudiated here, with institutional links: Freedom Light Bulb, the Switchover Deception The small switchover energy savings are specifically referenced here http://ceolas.net/#li171x
Posted in CFLs | Leave a comment

The Hidden Energy Use of Fluorescent “Energy Saving” Bulbs

dim cfl bulb idea Common fluorescent “energy saving” bulbs, the CFLs, use more energy than might first be apparent. This is because of their so-called “power factor”. This is not the same as their power rating – and does not show up on home electricity meters. Typical CFLs have a power factor of around 0.55. That means they – effectively – use twice the energy that you see, although the actual effect on power plant and grid depends on other factors too. As an online search of “CFL” and “power factor” will show, it is a complex issue of current and voltage phase differences, and industrial users – unlike domestic users – are penalized for it. The overall point, however defined, is that it is an extra, hidden, resource waste and an extra cost for utility companies to deal with, that users have to pay for in some form or other. As in the Wikipedia explanation:
The significance of power factor lies in the fact that utility companies supply customers with volt-amperes, but bill them for watts. Power factors below 1.0 require a utility to generate more than the minimum volt-amperes necessary to supply the real power (watts). This increases generation and transmission costs.
Also see the US Dept of Energy example illustrated with a horse pulling a load! To put into an overall context of light bulb usage, from The Deception behind the Arguments used to ban Light Bulbs and other Products from the Freedom Light Bulb website
8. “But at least home consumers will see great savings on their electricity meters!” Politicians like to emphasize how consumers save in running costs from buying more expensive bulbs. Common switchover examples only use main household lighting. Not only is the main kitchen lighting often already a fluorescent tube, there are many light bulbs that are rarely used in 20+ (Europe) or 40+ (North America) lighting point households, giving minimal or no savings in such situations when using expensive bulbs, that might also get lost or break before use, or be seen to be “dud”. The mentioned energy savings section (http://ceolas.net/#li171x) includes why consumer savings are less than expected. A longer rundown can be seen from http://ceolas.net/#li12x onwards. A general point, as covered by research references from the above link, is that if electricity effectively becomes cheaper to use, more will be used (and wasted). More specifically, the so-called “power factor” (not the same as power rating) of ordinary “energy saving” fluorescent bulbs means that they in layman terms use twice the energy compared to what the CFL bulb or your meter says. http://ceolas.net/#li15eux, with references, including Sylvania/Osram factsheet admission about the energy usage of common CFLs. [Strictly speaking, about VoltAmperes, “apparent power”… utilities do not charge residential customers for apparent power, as they do industrial customers. However, apparent power requires additional current flowing across the grid, and thus creates distribution losses in transformers and power lines in the form of heat] That is not all, since many cheap LEDs for domestic use also have power factor issues (and LEDs have their own issues affecting usage savings). Electricity consumers of course have to pay for this “hidden cost” in higher bills – especially in large scale pushed transitions to the alternative bulbs, which also require alterations to the domestic grids. Electrical Construction & Maintenance Magazine: The Hidden Costs of CFLs. Also… Not only do incandescents often usefully release around 95% of their energy as heat: http://ceolas.net/#li6x Proponents conveniently “forget” to add that CFLs and LEDs really waste energy as heat, CFLs 80% and LEDs 70%. That is because the CFL/LED heat is internalized, to give a greater, unseen, unpredictable fire risk, particularly with CFLs (incandescent heat being more noticeable, to warn users). http://ceolas.net/#li18eax Conversely: With any electricity saving the electricity companies make less money, and they simply raise the electricity bills, or receive state subsidies (out of citizens pockets) to compensate, as already seen in several countries and states (http://ceolas.net/#californiacfl and onwards) Heads we lose – Tails they win!
Posted in CFLs | Leave a comment

“Many Lights Make Handy Work” ;-)

Posted in CFLs | Leave a comment

Update on Rik Gheysens CFL study

  Relating to the post May 17 Research Report: Mercury in Fluorescent Lighting, the author has let us know some recent news on his website (slight editing of the translation used):  
May 2012   Website Test-Aankoop, May 24 2012: CFLs (in the lab and in the waste collect centers): not always energy saving or environmentally friendly In the June issue of the periodical “Test-Aankoop/Test-Achats”, 13 double shell compact fluorescent lamps with a brightness between 500 and 700 lumen and with an E-27 fitting were investigated.   Some conclusions are:  
A certain model should, according to the packaging, have a lifetime of 8000 hours (= 8 years). Four of the five test samples were already broken down before they burned 5000 hours. The only still burning lamp reached at that moment only 70% of its brightness. A sample of another model failed already after burning 1800 hours. ” The samples which reached 5000 hours, had lost at that moment more 35% to even 80% of their brightness. Moreover, this lamp could hardly be switched on and off 5000 times.” This lamp can actually no longer be named a ‘low-energy light bulb’.
  The Belgian newspaper “De Morgen”, May 25, 2012: “CFLs are not always environmentally friendly” In the June issue of the periodical “Test-Aankoop/Test-Achats”, 13 [double shell] CFLs were investigated.   The results are:  
No lamp reached half the full intensity of light within 30 seconds. “These teething troubles can no longer be justified “, said spokesman Ivo Mechels. The lifetime of the lamps does not appear to correspond to the promised lifetime on the packaging. “Six of the thirteen species scored very poorly”, said Mechels. The collection of broken bulbs is not always as it should. “They usually end up in an ordinary plastic bin. In places lay broken lamps. That mercury is released in this way, is hardly realized.”
  Another Belgian newspaper “De Standaard”, May 25, 2012, writes: “The CFL is almost dead”  
” CFLs are less efficient and ecological than their manufacturers try to make you believe. And they seem to have lost faith in them themselves.” Ivo Mechels of Test-Aankoop/Test-Achats: “CFLs are more sparing and last longer than conventional incandescent bulbs. But they still have teething problems that (no longer) should be allowed. This is no new technology anymore, so manufacturers can no longer hide (behind that idea).” According to Stefaan Forment, researcher of the Laboratory of Lighting Technology of Ghent’s Catholic College St Lieven, manufacturers seem to believe much more in LED lamps…
  As seen on that news page, it has more information going back in time – as with the EU (Swedish) scandal of unrecycled dumped fluorescent light bulbs end 2011, also covered in a report on the Ceolas.net website. As for LED lighting being so much better, that is not necessarily so: RGB types are effectively combinations of pure red green and blue sources, without the smooth light output spectrum of incandescents. Meanwhile the now popular and generally simpler/cheaper “white LEDs” have additional issues from effectively mimicking the light quality of fluorescents, that is, from bluey (relatively bright) type LED source light hitting phosphorescent wall coating. More on LED issues here. And that is of course without going into the not always warranted “great upfront expense for long term savings”, for many less often used bulbs.
Posted in CFLs, Scientific Research | Leave a comment