Comments on: Are We In The Dark About Lighting?

By: Tod Buckingham

Tod Buckingham — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 17:22:24 +0000

Sylvania may be the brand name but I bet they are made in China! As for the mercury, sure 125 equals 1 thermometer but how many light bulbs are in the USA? Trust me, this will be an issue for landfills at some point in time…LEDs are the way to go, we are just not there yet.

By: David G. Wallace

David G. Wallace — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 22:47:44 +0000

WE HAVE FOUND, OF ALL THE LIGHTING PRODUCT COMPANIES THAT WE HAVE USED (SYLVANIA), IS THE LEAST RELIABLE. THEIR LIGHT BULBS ALMOST BURN OUT AS FAST AS WE CAN REMOVE/RECYCLE THEM. …WE HAVE MANY AREAS THROUGHT OUR INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR DWELING CONFIGURATION THAT REQUIRE LIGHTING, & WE HAVE FOUND SYLVANIA NOT TO BE THE PRODUCT THAT WE WOULD RECOMMED, OR USE IN THE FUTURE…………….

By: DED

DED — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 16:36:03 +0000

There’s only 4 milligrams of Mercury in a CFL. It would take 125 of them to equal the amount in a thermometer. Also, by requiring less energy, it decreases the amount of coal required to generate electricity. Coal is the #1 source of Mercury pollution and coal is the #1 source of electricity in the USA.

For more info:
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf

By: John Smith

John Smith — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 03:32:52 +0000

Not a word about mercury in CFLs!
John

By: Drew

Drew — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 15:27:38 +0000

Long live the medium base! You know true inovation is here when the new product makes the users of the old product look foolish for using the old product. When an office building buy’s new recess lighting without medium bases and the plug-in CFL’s deplete fast and never come close to meeting thier 10,000 hour avg… then the ballast that runs them needs to be replaced every two years or so at a cost of $50. Well, frankly the user of the new “Inovation” devices looks pretty silly. Self ballasted meduim base CFL’s are ready for prime time but, the urge of the fixture makers to create proprietary bases and sockets is going to ruin what we are trying to accomplish (reduced carbon output). Smart building owners will learn fast that these new sockets are there to drive up the cost of the devices that light thier building. Under engineering worked well in the computor business and will create super profits in the lighting business. The moral of the story is that where the fixture has room a medium or candle base, they should be used for maximum lamp choice!

By: Dennis

Dennis — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 11:31:02 +0000

However, a watt is still a watt – I often see where one 100 watt bulb in a old-fashioned porcelain socket on the ceiling would provide plenty of light – yet we put in a typical ceiling panel with 3 florescent tubes, burning together well over 100 watts – I am against the phasing out of 100 W incandescent light bulbs, though most of my condo is lit by florescent, with just a bit of LED lighting.

You often saw this inefficiency in the 70′s, where you walked into a kitchen lit by florescent – more wattage was being used by putting the light where it wasn’t particularly needed – behind a false ceiling – and using many florescent tubes to flood the area with light.

I work at a store that just opened a new store down the street, phasing out our old store. We have an energy-management system, which is supposed to save us about 20 grand a year in utilities – great. However, we have the same “sins” – ceiling panel lighting that provides too much light, when one old fashioned fixture every so often could use one 100 watt bulb, or a 15W or so florescent – instead of a ceiling panel fixture. Our automated lighting does not allow us to turn the lights off early on a holiday, and comes up as if we were open on the 1 day a year we close.

Also, as I get older (47) I realize that if grandpa needs a particular lightbulb to comfortably read a book by, he has the right to use it – whether it uses a bit more energy or not. After all, lighting is not most of our electrical bill. I know a trip to the optometrist is coming up for me this year. Also, lighting is very closely related to depression in many cases – so if someone wants some regular light bulbs in their house, the government does not have the right to tell them they can’t have them.

All this is coming from someone who loves florescent, for most things! But I also want the right to stick a regular old-fashioned light bulb in my sockets if we have power system problems (which is likely with our again power grid) where florescent bulbs may not work at all in these conditions.

Let us not forget the problem with the LED traffic lights – no one thought about the fact that these new energy-efficient lights, which are very long lasting – do not get hot enough to melt the snow and ice accumulating around them. Now we have had many traffic accidents because motorists can not see the blocked by snow/ice traffic light. So we must design a little heating element or some fix to make the traffic lights visible during bad weather again – negating part of the energy savings -