Talk:Banning of incandescent lightbulbs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Energy
Energy Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, which collaborates on articles related to energy.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating within energy.
Comments:

Congress is about to pass a law doing this very thing - it's already through the Senate and now onto the way to the House. Anyone got news articles on this? 68.36.214.143 (talk) 22:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I heard it they were going to be banned in 2009. Idk, but im gonna buy as many incandescent bulbs as possible before there banned. I hate fluorescents. 69.142.126.121 (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


Controversy Section
Many of the points cited in this section are opinions stated as fact. I think they should either be linked to evidence or deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elizabeth.baer (talk • contribs) 22:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


Personally I will be stockpiling these things. People who want to ban incandescent bulbs are idiots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.188.169 (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unreferenced text removed from controversy section

I have removed the following unreferenced text from the controversy section, until sources can be found. Johnfos (talk) 01:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

1* unnatural light — phosphors lack many colors of the visible spectrum, resulting in unnatural color rendition 2* emit higher levels of ultraviolet (UV) light — harmful to eyes, causes accelerated color fading of furnishings 3* generate broadband radio-frequency interference (RFI), particularly in the AM band 4* may cause interference with infrared remote controls (television, radio, etc.) 5* time delay in startup — cannot be used where instant light is needed 6* poor cold start characteristics — may not start in extremely cold environments, or light output is significantly decreased in low ambient temperatures, making them significantly less energy efficient 7* sensitivity to heat, making them unsuitable for use in existing enclosed fixtures, or high temperature environments 8* poor suitability for some applications, e.g., ovens, refrigerators, chandeliers 9* lack of significant heat output makes them useless where heat and light are needed or desired 10* most won't operate in circuits with existing dimmer controls[citation needed](- according to manufacturers' warnings on packs)

11* most not suitable for use with timers or photocells (- according to manufacturers' warnings on packs) 12* fragile printed circuit assemblies inside fail quickly in high vibration applications, e.g., ceiling fans and garage door openers 13* limited cost savings for lamps which are used infrequently 14* poor availability of large sizes (above 23 Watts) and lamps of small physical size, e.g., candelabra bulbs 15* visible flicker causes fatigue and increased risk of epileptic seizure, and may adversely affect migraine sufferers 16* high level of harmonics, leading to network pollution 17* poor power factor - carbon dioxide savings much less than wattage indicates 18* when used in three phase networks, considerable currents may occur in the neutral conductor, leading to overload and breakdown 19* the polar distribution particularly for the more efficient straight tube types is very different to normal lamps and in many fixtures will give less useful light.

In order to address some of these issues, a levy or tax on incandescent light bulbs has been suggested as an alternative to an outright ban. This would make them more expensive than CFLs, but would make them available in applications where CFLs are unsuitable.

I have removed the above unreferenced text from the controversy section, until sources can be found. Johnfos (talk) 01:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have numbered the point above and would offer the following; 1 The Colour rendering Index of CFLs is about 80 with a very poor R9 [1] The Lighting Industries Federation is a manufacturers' Trade Association. This document acknowledges low PF and harmonic generation and [2] [3] 19 Obvious by inspection. but see [4] For the others see: [5] [6] [7] [8]

I hope this helps (Redcliffe92 (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC))

Thanks for your reply. I've taken a look at the 3 weblinks provided at the end of your post:

We need better sources if we are to substantiate claims made. Johnfos (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the dead link, (an "s" left out) http://sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm
  CIBSE seem to use the same page number for two pages. Go to http://www.cibse.org/index.cfm?go=page.view&item=369 ,click on SLL News on the right, then scroll down to "SLL urges industry to consider the impact of withdrawal of tungsten lamps"

This item was published in SLL Newsletter 6 Sept/October 2007 p9-10.

  A summary of the ILE Position Statement (the pdf referred to) appeared in Lighting Journal 73.2 April 2008 p5

SLL is the Society of Light and Lighting, part of the Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers and ILE is The Institute of Lighting Engineer, all professional institutions in the UK I should have said that these three references refer to a number of the issues in the list. (Redcliffe92 (talk) 09:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC))

It is claimed that people suffering from a variety of medical conditions cannot tolerate non-incandescent lighting see http://spectrumalliance.org.uk/ (Redcliffe92 (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC))

You need to be aware that a source such as Spectrumalliance is not seen to be a reliable source on WP. (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources).

"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable."
"Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

One would hope that if claims about medical matters are to be made then a reputable medical journal would be the source. Johnfos (talk) 07:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Johnfos: I agree, but this is a web page sponsored by four charities, not an individual. I did say "It is claimed" in the hope that someone else could provide better information. (You might like to take a look at refererences (in the Article) 11 - which appears to be a politician's web site -with no infromation. and ref 22 - which are claims for the future in a commercial company's press release.)
I think that the article, as it stands fails to indicate that there is considerable controversity. Are you prepared to re-instate at least some of the list that you removed ? (Redcliffe92 (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC))

Absolutely, that is why I didn't just delete the list but moved it here. I think we should reinstate as many points as we can, one at a time, with a reliable source to support it, following discussion here. Which point do you think has the most reliable source at this stage? Johnfos (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I have reinstated the points on power factor and harmonics. A typical CFL gave in fact the following measurements:

U=233 V

I= 0,11 A

S=25,2 VA

P=15,9 W

Q=19,5 VAr

PF=0,633 leading

Current harmonics:

1 100%

3 78,2%

5 45,6%

7 18,1%

9 11,7%

11 12,6%

13 9,4%

15 6,7%

Total harmonic distortion on current: 94,6 % !

Now take three CFL of the type mentioned above and connect them in star. With this balanced load, one would expect the neutral current to be nearly zero of course.

Not so: the current in the neutral is 0,177 A, exceeding even the current in the phases (see above).

And the harmonics level of this current is just awful: THD nearly 600 %!

LHOON (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to sound like a cracked record, but we need to have each point substantiated by a Reliable Source, or else what we have is just Original Research.

I think it would be difficult to reinstate at one point at a time. I have rearranged the material for which there are references under three headings :

Controversy While it is generally agreed that the consumer benefits financially by replacing ordinary incandescent lamps, which are in use for a significant time, with CFLs There are many issues which have raised concerns:

Differences in performance The CFL recommended for the replacement of a 100W incandescent is usually 20W, but for 230V lamps the total light output is 1200 lumens compared with 1300 lumens. But the light output of the CFL may be as low as 70% of initial, at half life [9] while the incandescent lamp should be >93% at three quarters life [10] (However, the leading manufacturers claim their CFLs have better lumen maintenance). Additionally, the polar distribution particularly for the more efficient straight tube types is very different to normal lamps and in many fixtures will give less useful light. [11] Light output is lower when burnt base down, but this is a better burning position in low ambient temperatures [12] Although CFLs are available with different colors, Warm White is usually used for domestic types and is similar to that of incandescent lamps, however the Color Rendering Index is about 85 as they do not radiate at all visible wavelengths. Incandescent lamps have an CRI of 100. [13] The CFLs are particularly poor in the R9 band [14] resulting in unnatural color rendition. A number of organisations believe that certain people suffer undesirable effects if they are exposed to fluorescent lighting, but are not affected by incandescent lighting. [15]

Not suitable as replacements There is time delay in start-up and reaching full brightness- cannot be used where instant light is needed ://www.ile.org.uk/uploads///File/Technical/CFLs.pdf accessdate=2008-4-9 </ref> Warnings on manufacturers' pack often indicate that CFLs are not suitable for enclosed fixtures or for use with timers or photocells. Most are not recommended for use on existing dimmer controls, though this situation is changing.[16] Generally none are available above 23 Watts, and most are bigger than the lamps they replace (particularly so for candelabra bulbs) so they do not fit in some luminaires. [17] A UK Government Department stated that 50% of domestic light fittings are not suitable for CFLs. [18]


Hidden Undesirable effects CFLs have a very poor power factor, therefore carbon dioxide savings are much less than the wattage indicates, and. produce a high level of harmonics, leading to network pollution, if many are in use, as is becoming the case. When used in three phase networks, considerable currents may occur in the neutral conductor, leading to overload and breakdown [19] [20] [21] (Redcliffe92 (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC))

Once again, too many old or self-published sources. I have expanded the controversy section using a recent published source. See what you think. Johnfos (talk) 23:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)