While it seems like a good idea, it may be premature. Where will you recycle these bulbs, they contain mercury and can't be disposed of in a landfill. There are very few facilities that will take products containing mercury. The old fluorescent tube fixtures are also toxic - the ballast has PCB's.

Landfill? You can recycle CFL and reclaim the mercury (if the bulbs you're using contain it). Where facilities exist of course (they do here).

The amount of mercury in each CFL is also less than is released into the atmosphere from the coal burning required to produce the electricity to power an incandescent bulb. This is a much more important factor in most of the US than it is in Southern Ontario, but notable nonetheless.

I don't have any old ballasts. Every ballast I've touched in the past 10 years is electronic.

There just seems to be absolutely no environmental advantage to incandescent bulbs. At least I haven't read anything yet.

I just wish I could take advantage of the sweet subsidy some CFL products receive in California. Picking up 15w bulbs for less than 30 cents and 23w for under a dollar? Mmmm.

Bruno

Are you up on the mercury recycling facilities in Australia, and what they will be in 2010, when the law takes effect?

Tubes have no had PCBs in them for at least ten years now.

The U.S Govt is looking into the recycling/disposal of CFLs right now. They are attempting to get the largest seller and marketer of CFLs in the U.S. to assist with that. So far, that company has flat-out refused to even consider it, even as they push the sale of more CFLs.

That company is Wal-Mart.

I am sure this wil be addressed within the next 3-4 years here, when my first CFLs are due to expire.

Hi from Canberra, Australia. From time to time there are free giveaways of CFL's at local shopping centres, funded by our electricity authority I believe. Luckily I thought to ask if they are okay to use with dimmer switches. I was told no, there's no such thing as a dimmable CFL. I didn't know there are recycling issues with CFL's. Another thing we're not hearing about. At the moment the ban sounds like a kneejerk reaction to the overdue realisation that maybe our drought is caused by global warming. If we get autumn rains something else will become an election issue. Sorry to sound so cynical. We've had energy ratings for houses here for years. New houses have to achieve at least four stars (I think it was recently raised to five) and when any house is put up for sale it has to advertise its energy rating. You'd think this would have led to an increase in solar passive houses, solar hot water systems, etc. We went on the annual solar house tour a few years ago. People who have been treading lightly on the earth long before the government got interested open their homes so others can see what can be done, in both new and renovated houses. The owner of one house said his energy rating would be pretty average because the system is heavily weighted in favour of one specific thing, switching from electricity to gas. Another owner told of her battle to get approval to install a watertank in a suburban area. Now the government is giving rebates to people who do. So I guess that shows that they can move in the right direction. Hopefully by 2010 they'll have sorted out the finer points of the switch to CFL's.

I think a ban on incandescents is going to be overtaken by events. LEDs (Light Emitting Diodes) are surpassing/have surpassed fluorescents in efficiency and will find their way into mainstream residential lighting sooner ratherthan later. LED lamps will be dimmable, won't experience the color shift of incandescents and should have a life measured in tens of thousands of hours. I would think the lighting industry is behind the move to ban incandescents since such a ban would create instant demand for LED-based PAR-type lamps.

As I've remodeled my house I've used recessed incandescent lamps on dimmers extensively, but have also used fluorescents where it made sense. If there were no source of dimmable replacements in California (my home state) we would see a rebirth of the prohibition era, only PAR lamps instead of booze.

It's a lot easier to make alcohol than it is to make incandescent bulbs.

GE has announced (rather foolishly) this past week they'll be coming out with higher efficiency incandescent technology that will come close to, but not match compact fluorescents (in their first iteration). Subsequent versions of these bulbs will better current CFL.

GE must think the CFL industry is moving backwards.

LED tech is still a ways off. The best diodes are still in prototype stage. I don't think we'll see replacement bulb units at acceptable price ranges and efficiencies by 2010.

This is something the big bulb produces aren't ramped up for either (many of them don't make CFL either). So assuming these companioes are in favor of bans is probably not on the money. At least not yet.

Bruno

I was told no, there's no such thing as a dimmable CFL.

Nonsense. Here they are.

H8 is right about LEDs. When it comes to area lighting they have great promise for the future, but sorry to say the future is a long way off unless you have very, very deep pockets. OTOH for dim lighting (night lights, etc.), indicator lights, and strongly colored lights, LEDs are the critter of choice already.

Plenty of dimmable CFLs exist.

Here is another one.

Here is a link that might be useful: Dimmable CFL - R40

$13 for a dimmible? Hopefully the price comes down. I use cfbs in my home, I get them from WalMart for about $2.5 each in bulk. But $13 for one!!! It will be hard enough to get people to switch from eligant chandileer bulbs that cost 50 cents each and ca be dimmed to fat bulky chandelier cfb bulbs that can not be dimmed, much less switch there FR recessed lighting to dimmible bulbs that cost $13.

Still, I thik they are a good idea.

It will be interesting to see how these bulbs behave after a year or two...will we be waiting 2 minutes for them to brighten. I think they should be phased in gradually.

Watch batteries contain six times the mercury of a cfl, but I've never heard anyone express concern about that.

Face it, we humans are very resistant to change, overall. and it's amazing the logic leaps we'll make to avoid change.

Incandescents not only waste energy themselves, but they are all little heaters that add to the air conditioning load considerably in the summer. CFLs, even dimmable ones, are still far more economic in the long run than that 50 cent incandescent, and you can get them in pretty much any size and shape now (though not the candle style, yet).

LED lights are not yet as efficient as CFLs, but may be someday. Present models don't use much power, but they don't produce much light either.

Incandescents are on their way out, and it's about time.

Thanks for the links. I've bookmarked the Aussie site. Some really interesting stuff.

I remember hearing that CFL's last longer if they are not switched on and off all the time. This was just a bit of info that was circulating when they first became available in Australia. So they were recommended for living rooms but not toilets, for example. Wondering if it's true.

I've never heard that increased cycling shortens the life of a cfl, though it seems logical that the ballast would eventually fail with extensive cycling. I use them in every room and the only place I can recall replacing one in the last 5 years is in a bathroom, but that was just one bulb.

So much information, misinformation, half-baked information out there. At the first shop where I tried to buy dimmable CFL's I was told there's no such thing, which was what the free giveaway lady had said. When I went back and said that I found out (on Gardenweb) that the technology does exist I was told that they were introduced a while back but are no longer legal or certified for use or some such thing. Sorry, just needed to vent a bit.

I'd be really interested to know how long have CFL's been around, how long have dimmable CFL's been around and how long have ones that work with your existing dimmer been around?

By the way, I only just thought to look at the prices. In Australian dollars $30-40 plus $7 delivery.

I found another website www.neco.com.au that even has a candle bulb. The local lighting stores just aren't trying.

$30-40 for the dimmable ones. The candle bulb is $15.

Banning incandescent light bulbs smacks of fascism.

Why pick on the humble incandescent light bulbs anyway. What about the energy guzzling tumble dryers? The North American ones are particularly awful, guzzling about 7000W per hour.

Fluorescents take a little while to brighten properly compared to the instant incandescent bulbs. We were taught as children to always switch off the light when leaving a room. Those who frugally always switch lights off when leaving each room may even consume less energy compared to those who have fluorescents on all over the house.

Hybrid8, you just seem to be prejudiced against incandescent light bulbs. If GE and others can make incandescent bulbs as energy efficient as CFLs, why not. I think that would be great. I guess you don't care about those who might lose their jobs if incandescent light bulbs are banned, as long it's not you losing your job.

Also not everyone can afford CFLs, that are more expensive than incandescent light bulbs.

I found a retailer halfway across town that stocks the dimmable CFL's. I'm happy to try them in my living areas but I've gotten confirmation that using them in a room where you switch the light on and off a lot like the bathroom wears them out quicker. So what's worse I wonder, using an incandescent for short periods of time, leaving a CFL on when you're not in the room, or regularly throwing out expensive bulbs that contain mercury. Maybe the energy efficient light bulb issue would be more appropriately dealt with by education rather than legislation (and that goes for some retailers as well as consumers).

I can't help myself.

Ojoy, your postition could use a little refining. There is no such measurement as "watts per hour." The supposedly super-efficient incandescents are, as yet, nowhere to be seen. Yes, switching lights off saves electricity, but this is true regardless of the type of bulb. The suggestion that cfl use threatens jobs... huh?? When you factor in bulb life and the cost of electricity consumed, incandescents are far more expensive.

I think there are legitimate arguments to be made for the use of incandescents in many situations. Heck, just say you like them better. The ideas you're tossing out aren't rational; they're just rationalization.

ojoy doesn't deserve much thought in composing a reply. A simple "shut your trap and know your role" is enough. Grow a few more cells onto that brain stem and then come back.

1. Doesn't know how to measure energy consumption
2. Has no idea what Fascism is
3. Has no clue about manufacturing and emplyment rates
4. Doesn't know much about mass production and the economies of scale

There's just so much to dismiss and so little time.

Bruno

Jon1270, it's a pity you can't help yourself making absurd statements, i.e. "There is no such measurement as "watts per hour."" Here is an excerpt from Mr. Electricity's web site: "
If you didn't include the time in the equation, the number you got would be meaningless. (If the answer was "400 watts", would that be every 12 seconds, every four hours, or every three months?)"

Therefore the example I gave of the dryer means that a dryer that uses 7000W will consume that amount of electricity per hour. If you want to express it the way the utility company does then you simply divide by 1000 (1000 watts in a kilowatt) which gives you 7kWh. That is a lot of energy, in case you didn't realize that.

All I can suggest to Bruno is to follow your own advice, i.e. "shut your trap and know your role" Maybe even you will learn something from the provided link.

Here is a link that might be useful: Ask Mr. Electricity: Questions about Electricity

Pity away, ojoy. A kilowatt-hour is 1000 watts of power sustained over a period of one hour, not 1000 watts per hour. It's the per that makes you wrong. You could also say "kilowatt-hours per hour" and be technically correct, but that would just be a long-winded way of saying "watts." The phrase 'watts per hour,' is meaningless.

We just purchased an energy-hog of a house, and we are trying to replace all of the lights with fluorescents, hoping it will save a little on the electric bill.

I just wanted to mention that I saw an episode of MythBusters recently, in which they looked at the question of whether it was more cost effective to turn a light off and then turn it back on when you enter or just leave it on. In all cases, including fluorescent, it was more cost-effective to turn it off and then on again. That doesn't, of course, take into consideration any early wearing from turning it off and on, but I did find it "enlightening." Sorry. Couldn't help it...

Mary

EU to join Australia in adopting energy-efficient luminaires. Taking an even more aggressive schedule:

EU leaders to make Europe change lightbulbs

Time to write to your legislators asking them for help in stomping out production of incandescent light-producing heating elements.

Bruno

I haven't seen that episode. Thanks Mary. Did they throw any light on the issue of disposing of the mercury?

1. Frequent cycling of any fluorescent, including CF, shortens its life. That is also true of incandescent lamps, though perhaps to a lesser degree.

2. Lithium button cells contain no mercury. They also last much longer. I avoid buying products which use short-lived alkaline button cells.

3. The quantity of mercury in fluorescent lamps has declined appreciably in recent years. A few are so low in mercury that the EPA now approves of their disposal in regular trash. You can identify these tubular lamps by their green-colored ends.

I still think that saving any fluorescent lamp for disposal at your area's household hazardous waste facility is a good idea. That's what I do.

The following is speculation and subject to correction. Based on other circumstances, I would guess, but don't know for sure, that one might find less interest in reducing mercury in CFs from producers in countries that don't rigorously enforce environmental laws. Regrettably one such nation is China, which produces the vast majority of CFs now sold.