Consumers may already consider CFL Energy saving light bulbs too dim, but an investigation by E&T magazine has found that CFL lamps will also lose significant brightness over time.
The article also reports that official guidance telling us which CFL bulb to buy is overly optimistic with regards to their performance, with the combined factors resulting in a CFL lamp ending up 40 per cent dimmer than the incandescent bulb it was bought to replace.
Furthermore, recent EU legislation promises more confusing labelling and could result in lamps that fail to meet the standards originally recommended by the UK Government’s Energy Savings Trust. The latest EU directive on the lamps has reduced the required lifespan, approved longer warm up times and allowed an increased loss in brightness – particularly over the first 2,000 hours.
Concerns have also been raised over how long the CFL bulbs last, particularly if subjected to repeated switching on and off. The Energy Saving Trust has dropped rapid cycle testing – where bulbs are repeatedly turned on and off to simulate actual use – despite research in the US showing that up to 25 per cent of samples failed during such tests.
Part of the problem with the new energy saving bulbs relates to consumer complaints about poor brightness performance, which the E&T article claims is in part due to the overly optimistic equivalence ratios adopted by the Energy Saving Trust and used by many manufacturers on bulb packaging. While the equivalence ratios used give impressively low power consumption figures, they are also a key component in consumer dissatisfaction when comparing the new bulbs with the incandescent versions they replace.
Currently the Energy Savings Trust bases its recommendation on power consumption and uses a 5:1 equivalence ratio, so a 60W incandescent bulb would be replaced by a 11-14W CFL and a 100W incandescent would be replaced by a 20-23W CFL. Other authorities base their recommendations on the actual amount of light produced which gives a different picture.
The European CFL Quality Charter recommends that the ratio should be 4:1, while the Lighting Research Centre at the Rensselaer Polytechnic suggests 3:1. While energy savings might not be as compelling under such ratios, consumers would still use a fraction of the energy of a conventional bulb and would have more satisfactory output performance.
Commenting on the article, E&T Editor-in-Chief, Dickon Ross said: ‘Our article goes some way to explaining consumers’ dissatisfaction with CFLs and it’s interesting that the major manufacturers have switched their focus to the development of LED lighting, though it too has its problems.’
http://kn.theiet.org/magazine/issues/0920/energy-saving-bulbs-0920.cfm
Bookmark with:
del.icio.us
Digg
Add to Discover
Comments
Additional drawbacks are: - 1. The CFL is its lower colour rendering index. This has the effect of distorting colours due to the non-continuous wavelength of the light produced. 2. Cheap CFL's are prone to flicker.
ajsyseng, LINCOLN
24 Nov 2009
(Report to moderator)
CFL has the following concerns:- 1/. Uses rare elements in CFL internal circuitry is this all being wasted? 2/. What is energy used in manufacturing CFLs versus incandescent? 3/. High Wycombe dump now takes flourescent lamps, but, how many people are recycling dead bulbs of any sort versus using the waste bin? I agree with Philip Lamming that on cold days the "waste" heat is not waste - it helps warm the building (house or business premise).
Mr Christopher Tolmie, FLACKWELL HEATH
23 Nov 2009
(Report to moderator)
Mr. Lamming, you are forgetting that we are only supposed to mention heat load as a negative to promote alternative lighting sources. Anti green, scientific argument is not generaly appreciated; however accurate it may be. Kevin Wilson
Mr Kevin Wilson, CATERHAM
23 Nov 2009
(Report to moderator)
An interesting article confirming what most people have felt subjectively about CFLs. I wish the issue could be looked at holistically, incandescent filament bulbs may be only 20% efficient in terms of light output, but the 80% which manifests itself as heat is not wasted, and changing to CFLs just means that the central heating stays on that much longer, burning that much more oil or gas. So it is just a question of which generates the greater quantity of CO2 in giving that heat. In the UK at the moment it might seem that electricity would, but bear in mind in the evening when lamps are used a greater proporion of electricity generated comes from the base load nuclear generators. What about summer? Well obviously the later sunsets reduce the requirement for electric lighting, but even so there have been few evenings in the last three summers when the odd 60W of heat has not been welcome, at least here in the north. Perhaps it is different in the balmy south (or is there an "r" in that!)
Mr Philip Lamming, HARROGATE
20 Nov 2009
(Report to moderator)
All comments
You need to be registered with the IET to leave a comment. Please log in or register as a new user.