×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Incandescents use less energy, CFLs an elaborate c

bluefoxlucid (723572) writes | more than 2 years ago

2

bluefoxlucid (723572) writes "From the article, "BANNING the humble 60-watt light bulb to make way for so-called energy-saving ones and 'help save the planet' was last night exposed as an elaborate EU con." What justification could the have for such accusations? "The carbon footprint of manufacturing, distribution and disposal of a compact fluorescent bulb is far greater than the energy usage of a standard bulb." Imagine that. Complex electronics and mercury tubes are harder to make than an evacuated glass bulb with a wire in it; and reclaiming hazardous waste takes more energy than just chucking a harmless glass bulb in the standard recycling bin."
Link to Original Source

2 comments

please promote this to the main news feed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37359788)

In addition to the complaints in the news article, there is also the question of lights used with short duty cycles. The incandescent bulb in my closet is on for perhaps 20 seconds at at time, a few times a day. That duty cycle will kill a CFL pretty darn fast.

Another one--lamps used in trouble lights (working under the car) are always getting bumped/dropped and CFLs are pretty fragile. A harsh service incandescent has a good chance of lasting much longer.

CFLs make great night lights, ours stays on for about 8 hours at a time, overnight, and is the only application around the house that seems to last about the rated lifetime.

Re:please promote this to the main news feed (1)

slack_justyb (862874) | more than 2 years ago | (#37360484)

I don't think this is main news feed ready. It's got a real good story but it is way too one sided (I know Slashdot is famous for lopsidedness). The UN study is a good find but the "con" part really kills the story. Whoever submitted this story really should try again with less brash language to get my vote up. I won't vote it down. The UN study is a good one that really should be read.

My take on CFLs is that there is a usage for them in the household. However, incandescent lights aren't going anywhere, just the cheap ones that are most likely made in some third world country and convert about 20% of the energy into useful light. The light under your hood will continue to be incandescent. The ban only applies where the usage is clearly for home use (ie, in your lamp). I use CFLs in my light fixtures that are far removed from normal floor traffic. The last one I had ran for six years before needing replacement, a good life for a second gen light bulb.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...