blog

Hi all, and please - I will not engage in any flame regarding opinion on CFL's vs. other when it comes to Power Factor - its implications to an energy bill are as many as there are utility suppliers. The energy waste of power factor, reactive power, apparent power and resistance is physics. It might help if we first agree what we are talking about. See this summary for an explanation of real power, apparent power, reactive power and power factor <a href="http://open4energy.com/forum/dc/dce/real_power" rel="nofollow">measuring electricity</a> The article has a link to Wikipedia for those who want an even more detailed explanation. A low power factor means that energy is being supplied by the grid and then not used by the device - but the energy is NOT wasted. The energy is returned to the grid, physics - it has to go somewhere. There are much more complicated subjects on how the consumer vs. the industrial users are billed for the inefficiency of a low power factor. In addition to the resistance losses there are implications to how much power the energy company needs to supply. At peak loads they do not want it back at all. Unfortunately you have to deliver 100% always, even if the device the returns a large portion to the supply. But they are small losses, typically less than 1%, depending on the cable quality and distances involved. Every utility has a different rule, depending on the implications to them of a reduced power factor. I mention circuit for there are two types of power factor loss, that caused by elctrical inefficiency, and that caused by the back resistance of a motor. In a home we create both, the fridge creates a back current when to compressor runs, and it may be on the same circuit as a CFL - it is quite possible that the two cancel each other out (electricity is a wave) and there is an advantage to having a CFL with a low power factor ..... In California there is no charge to consumers for low power factor. The utilities do not even measure it. The consumer is only charged for the active power - what you used. This is because compared to industry, in the same sub-station, commercial power dwarfs the consumer issue. Commercial companies are penalized for a nett power factor of less than 85%, and incentivised for being higher than 75%. I stop here, for it is quite impossible to determine the billing implications to any of us for this effect, remember the actual loss is less than 1% - the rest is what we get charged in one of the power companies schemes. With that out the way, back to the energy saving. CFL's give off less heat than incandescent bulbs, for the same Lumens of light. This is why they use approximately 75% less electricity. If you are in a cold climate, you could argue that the incandescent bulbs are no less efficient for their extra energy will be less heat to create. I am not making this up, it was argued to me once. It is not a good argument though, for they are not good heaters compared to other gas burning heaters. This 75% saving is so much bigger than any other costs of mercury disposal, etc etc - that it makes sense to replace working incandescent bulbs immediately. The 8000 hour life of these bulbs gives them a life of up to 10x that of an incandescent. Total energy saving is thus 75% less electricity, up to 10x manufacturing savings of the additional regular bulbs, and energy requirements for 9 maintenance visits. Here is a graph of the old bulbs, plotted against our new bulbs, in our two bedroom apartment. I wrote this post, but was still amazed at what a 75% reduction in energy requirement actually looks like. http://open4energy.com/forum/home/lig/energy_saving_light_bulbs_0912102218 Please lets make the savings, they cost a little more up front, but they are one of the ways to actually reduce the energy used to make light, by an increase in efficiency.

(had to split comments to get them published -probably a spam links block, understandable enough !) ..... continued re power factor etc.... <a href="http://donjunior.com/images/The_CFL_Myth_article.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://donjunior.com/images/The_CFL_Myth_article.pdf</a> (with references) <a href="http://www.savethebulb.org/CFL%20Power%20Used.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.savethebulb.org/CFL%20Power%20Used.html</a> also from long entry by an electrician at <a href="http://www.greenmuze.com/blogs/guest-bloggers/1031-the-dark-side-of-cfls.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.greenmuze.com/blogs/guest-bloggers/1031-the-dark-side-of-cfls.html</a> "CFLs Do Not Save On Energy Consumption Power Factor An incandescent bulb has a power factor of 1. Most CFLs sold in Canada have a power factor of about 0.55. That means there are about 45% more energy losses in operating the CFL compared to an incandescent bulb. This does not show up on a power bill but the power company has to supply about 45% more power than what the bulb is rated for. Astonishingly, CFLs can take almost twice as much energy to operate than what is on the label and still be listed as an energy star product, something few consumers know. CFL cheerleaders seldom tell consumers that the power factor is not included in their energy consumption calculations."

I have a lot of info about CFLs etc on a website and so I get a lot of emails from China (unsolicited but good fun) trying to sell me new types they are developing, do you get them too? (maybe your email address isn't as easily seen as mine) The last one was one in which the customer can put parts into..a modular CFL light Appeals to the tinkerer in me. I would like to emphasize that I agree all lights are useful, just to answer some points all the same... re: "If you get most of your electricity from coal, you’re doing greater harm by burning incandescents which emit more mercury into the air than the CFLs have in them!" This is no longer true, recent activated carbon injection and photochemical techniques are rapidly spreading and bringing coal emissions down, emissions already lowered in recent years as a bi-product of "clean coal technology" More <a href="http://ceolas.net#li19x" rel="nofollow">http://ceolas.net#li19x</a> In a nutshell: 1. We know where the ever decreasing coal power stations chimneys are and we can treat their emissions with ever increasing efficiency at lower costs. 2. Compare that with billions of scattered broken lights on dump sites, when we do not know where the broken lights are, and so we can't do anything about them.

Ack! This is such a great site. Therefore I find it extra distressing to see the usual CFL PR arguments repeated here too. Fine to state that you personally like CFLs, but please check the facts and do the math first before taking part in the global CFL campaign. CFL facts: * All CFLs lose output with age so you either need to buy a stronger one, e.g. 20W to replace a 60W incandescent, or replace them before they expire naturally, in order to get as much light as from the incandescent you had before. * Most have poor power factor, making them use about twice the power they are marked with - which you end up paying for indirectly by a higher kWh-price even if it doesn't show on your energy bill as watts used. * CFLs use more energy and pollute more in production, transportation and recycling than other lamps. * Even if some of the best have gotten softer and more incandescent-like recently, CFLs still have a mediocre colour rendering (CRI 80-83). * Sensitive to heat and cold (except those extra expensive special purpose lamps) and don't work well in downlights and closed luminaires. * Most can't be used with dimmers, sensors, timers or fans. When dimming those expensive few that can be dimmed you will only get an even more grey and dull light. * Flicker or start-up flicker should not be a problem with newer CFLs with electronic ballasts which light up gradually, but some time to reach full output is hard to get around since it takes a while to excite the elements that produce the light even though newer ones give more light sooner than they did just a couple of years ago. * Contain mercury. Yes, I've read the pro-CFL propaganda too so I know all the tricks used to make them seem safer and cleaner than they are. Very clever. (I've debunked them on your other page.) * Varying life span. While good ones may last a long time (though at reduced output) many cheap CFLs don't even last as long as standard bulbs. N:Vision CFLs are infamous for their early failures, so good luck with those! I hope you've saved the receipts and dated them. ;) Please let us know how it goes.