patentreporter (patentreporter) wrote,

Ur doin it rong: incandescent light globe V energy-efficient compact fluorescent bulb

 Ur doin it rong.
This will be the title of all my simple rants about the issues of a modern world. No attention will be paid to spelling or issues of grammar. I just want to get it out and not let it take too much time.

Today's 'Ur doin it rong' is related to compact fluros (compact fluorescent bulb). There are moves afoot to completely ban old-fashioned filament light-bulbs (incandescent light globe) some time over the next few years in Australia.

Replacements are fine when they are of an equal or at least very close substitution with some benefit or an avoidance of some disadvantage. 
In this case it is that old cheap carbon pumping light bulbs are being replaced with new slightly oddly coloured and slow in reaching their full brightness more efficient light bulbs with massively longer lifespan.

But here is the rub...and there is always going to be one in these articles as well as inferior substitutions of a dubious environmental nature.

We are told that the new ones are so much better than the old because they last 12 times (or whatever big number is the real one) as long for 6-8 times the price. Sounds good right? I like it when the economic/financial analysis is done for me because like everyone else I am too busy and don't have all the facts.

The problem is that every one of these new light bulbs that I have installed has not achieved anywhere near the stated lifespan.  It does not matter which brand the bulbs have been.  Most of them have not even lasted a year.  All the old type bulbs newly installed in parallel to the new funky ones are still going strong. These new bulb are doing a better job of contributing to land-fill than the old ones. I wonder what the carbon footprint of the production of the new vs the old is under these circumstances.  I also hope that the new ones are free of mercury as is found in the long sort of tube lighting.
I think the stated lifespan on the packaging of these light bulbs is downright fraudulent.  I know what they have done to obtain the figures -they have taken a few thousand light bulbs and turned the all on and then waited to see how many failed over various time points. They  may have also done some accelerated product testing where they cycled the surrounding air temp and or humidity etc. They cant have done any real world testing -or any sort of testing that emulates the daily switching on and off of lights in my house.  I want to see real-world data on these packs and I also want this information incorporated and taken account in government programs where they are subsidising or providing some other incentive to get rid of the old ones.  What about applications where the new bulbs cant be used such as in enclose fittings or those connected to infrared sensors? Where will we find lights to do the job here.

I am all for substitution where it is an equal substitution.  I refuse to be held to ransom over dodgy economics to sell some pseudo green shite onto me that does more harm than good.

Next issue: Banning of plastic bags.

The old Vs the new.....Better or not?

  • Post a new comment


    Comments allowed for friends only

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded