A minor downside of these seems to be the lower efficiency for a given light output. Given that so much electricity is generated by coal, which releases mercury when burned, the savings to be made aren't quite as high as noted.

yes, mercury will be released by the power plants regardless of the amount of electricity we use. But, it's also true that if demand is reduced, so will production because it saves THEM money as well. win-win. I believe the merucry in the article refers to the contents of the bulb. normal CFL's contain like 4x the mercury of incandescents so don't break it! It lasts 10x longer so (in effect) like 1/2 the mercury than if you were to buy all those incandescents. I also don't like (in effect) calculations. use less mercury/power - period! (or create an unbreakable housing)

Please review article from top newspaper in Ohio USA and the reply by Ray Tapajna. The article is about the Dark Side of Energy Saving Light Bulbs and the contamination issues and the qestioning of the trade off in energy with 90 percent of these bulbs made in China. They are in effect an 8000 mile light bulbs using 8000 miles of energy to get to the USA and the manufacturing environments is another major question. See http://www.phillyfuture.org/blog/1100
http://www.phillyfuture.org/node/5297
http://www.phillyfuture.org/node/5298
For more information about Free Trade versus Green, see http://www.bizarrepolitics.com and http://tapsearch.com/tapartnews/
Is former Vice President Gore really "Green" ?
His participation in Free Trade and Globalization caused the sending of "dirty manufacturing" around the world and the question of energy consumption in all the long haul and the required protective packaging loom large.

Ray,

True, we should consider the pollution and waste involved in producing these bulbs. However, you don't provide any alternative scenario. Do we stick with incandescents?

It's not really the technology of the bulb that's at fault, rather the inefficiencies of our transportation and manufacturing systems. These bulbs could be produced in the U.S. and packaged in minimal containers.

Justin

CCFL bulbs have 1/3rd the mercury of comparable CFL bulbs. CCFL bulbs can be dimmed, and when they are, they use less power than CFLs or put less mercury from resulting power generation into the atmosphere.

Compared to LED lighting the CCFL bulb has a Carbon Footprint that is dramatically less. The materials used for LEDs (like Silicon Carbide/Diamond and Sapphire) require substantial energy to grow or process. Furthermore, since LEDs are very sensitive to temperature they require heatsinks which are die cast metals that require a lot of power to make both the tooling and the heatsink itself. LED systems actually put more mercury in the environment than CCFL's do.

I like my options. Well I would definently use them out side and in a dimmer light switch and as a 3 way bulb lamp. I used a CFL 13watt bulb out side on my porch for five years equivalent for a 60watt incondensent bulb and I didn't have any problems except it took about 30 seconds for it to get bright so I finally put it in the basement. I put a 26 watt CFL bulb in equivalent of a 100 watt incondensent bulb it works fine. it was about 3-4 dollars. Ill have to try these new CCFL bulbs. It will at least cut down the mercury and solid waste.
But I still have a problem we might offer them for recycling but I never see or hear of them getting recycled so what happens to them.

So imam kind of confused if they run cooler shouldn't they use even less electricity then CFL's. Cause from my under standing thats why incondencent light bulbs use more electricity on heat. Thats why they use like about 4 X as much Electricity.

Perhaps 85% less mercury from the bulb than a standard CFL. But almost double the mercury from the power plant, compared to a standard CFL, because it's only 34 lm/W, vs. 60+ lm/W for a standard CFL. And almost double the CO2.

Yes, this is an important technology, but raving about it while ignoring that it burns 2X as much coal is irresponsible. Is it too much to expect Treehugger to consider the carbon footprint of a lightbulb before raving about it?

Remember that it is early days for these bulbs. I'm sure the lumens per watt will be improved if they become popular.

Oh yeah I said I would use a 3 way bulb do they come in a 3 way

Jimmymak,

Good question as to why they run cooler but are less efficient. The answer is that they put out less light. The light out of this 13 watt CCFL is about like the light out of an 8-watt CFL.

One of their best niches is where you don't need as much light--CCFLs come in very small wattages, down to 2 W.

Actually these lamps run hot, only the cathodes are cold. See this explanation:

A cold cathode is distinguished from a hot cathode that is heated to induce thermionic emission of electrons. Discharge tubes with hot cathodes have an envelope filled with low pressure gas and containing a pair of cathodes.

The interior surface of cold cathodes are capable of producing secondary electrons at a ratio greater than unity (amplification) upon electron and ion impact. For accelerating of the ions to a sufficient velocity for creating free electrons from the cathode material cold cathode discharge lamps need higher voltages than hot cathode ones, causing a strong electric field near the cathodes.

A well-written and informed article about the other side of CFLs is here: http://sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm

This article covers some issues mentioned in this thread such as recycling and mercury content, but also discusses the safety and reliability aspects of CFL bulbs which can and do fail is frightening ways.

There is a lot more to know about CFLs than what the media and the makers are telling us, and we need to be informed before we go out and replace all the bulbs in our house.

The CFL paranoia is unwarranted, and the LED promise has yet to be realized.

CFLs and cold-cathode CFLs are superior, cost-effective and environmentally friendlier lighting that deserves a place in everybody's home. The cold cathode lamps are great for low-wattage decorative applications, like where you need a globe or flame-shaped bulb, and/or candelabra base.

Where was all this caution when recessed-can incandescent lighting proliferated like fruit flies through the typical American kitchen? Mom did just fine with one circline fluorescent drum in the middle of the kitchen, an incandescent-in-a-jar over the sink, and one or two more over the range. 220 watts and three switches.

Contrast that with 10-12 recessed cans, each with a 75-90 watt flood. 900 watts and a dimmer (usually at 100%). So that "new" design tripled your lighting energy -- in one room -- and increased carbon emissions by a ton per year (and 45 mg of mercury).

So now we want to invent reasons not to trust a CFL? Lighten up!

They are not the ultimate solution, just a better choice than incandescent. Way better for anything that sees regular use. If you want to worry about mercury, worry about the coal-fired power plants. The one near here belches 62,000 CFLs worth of mercury into the air every day. Even Wal-Mart doesn't sell that many, and only a fraction will be broken or tossed in the trash.

One thing we need to remember is these bulbs are more efficient than traditional bulbs. One reason several people have told me they don't use CFLs is because you can't use them in dimming lights. This solves that problem which should allow wider adoption of more efficient lighting technology. I have heard about a few CFLs which allow dimming but I have never been able to find them locally.

Um, you people DO know that CCFL technology isn't new, right? What do you think illuminates the screens in your laptops and flat-panel monitors?

I will say that the application of CCFL tubes to home lighting situations sounds promising. I have a friend who refuses to adopt CFLs as she hates the "cold" quality of the light. If CCFLs can produce a "warm" spectrum and are useful for situations where dimmers can be used, then I'm all for them, as we transition to OLEDs and LEDs. If they can produce them in fittings as small as current halogen fixtures, I'll give them a try.

nVision (sold in Home Depot) makes a CCFL 3w (15w equivalent) dimmable chandelier bulb (with a candelabra base and an adapter for a standard base socket). It just isn't directly marketed as a cold cathode -its sold right with the other cfls- since many customers are still confused by CFL's.

Justin,

Thanks for your reply to my concern about energy efficiency. I wish I shared your optimism about improvements, but while this application is new, the technology isn't so new. Small CCFLs driven by small electronic ballasts have been used in laptop displays for at least about 15 years. And the cold cathode electrode itself was patented in 1915 by Georges Claude. At the time, it was used in neon lamps, but has been used in some fluorescent lamps, particularly in signs, ever since they were developed in the 1930s.

The efficiency disadvantage is inherent in the cold cathode. Because it's not heated to emit electrons, it needs a higher voltage drop to emit electrons. That "wasted" portion of the total lamp voltage reduces the efficiency. That's why the lamp pictured has such a long, skinny tube--to try to make the electrode a small portion of the overall lamp length so that the efficiency isn't as dismal as it would be with a more normally proportioned lamp.

I have a question for you--where do you get the data that the amount of mercury is half that of a conventional CFL? I couldn't find any data on the mercury content at Better Bulb or at Litetronics. All I found was this that said that said 2 mg is typical:
http://www.khe.co.kr/eng/product/product_9_01.asp
That's in fact half of what an earlier treehugger post had on an EPA graph for the mercury in a CFL,
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/06/what_about_merc.php, and 40% of the NEMA 5 mg voluntary standard, but most of what Walmart sells is down at the 2 to 3 mg level, or will be soon
http://www.prnewswire.com/news/index_mail.shtml?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/05-10-2007/0004585479&EDATE=
I'd rather buy a standard CFL from a manufacturer willing to say how much mercury is in it and know that it is in fact small than buy something based on a vague claim of 2X reduction without a reference point of 2X less than what.

AJ,

The spectrum is determined by the phosphor mix. You can buy "warm" phosphor mix CFLs (labeled 2700K). The cathode type won't change the light color.

An attempt to compare total mercury emissions:

Suppose this has 2 mg, and I can buy a standard 10,000 hour CFL from walmart with 2.5 mg. Both 13 watt, but in fact I need two of the CCFLs to get the same light output. That's 4 mg for 25,000 hours of light. Or, for the walmart ones, I need 2.5 lamps, at 2.5 mg each, for a total of 6.25 mg. So far CCFL is ahead. But let's look at the power plant emissions. From the chart in an earlier treehugger post, there's 2.4 mg from coal over the life of the regular CFL, so that's 6 mg for 25,000 hours. And for the CCFL, I need two of them, so that's 12 mg. The totals are: CFL 12.25 mg. CCFL 16 mg.

Without knowing those numbers with more certainty, I'm not ready to say the CCFL is better, but I don't see low mercury as a reason to buy it, at least not until the manufacturers and retailers are willing to say how much mercury they really contain (in mg, not as factors less that some unstated reference point).

I do see the availability of small sizes and ability to dim as good reasons to buy them--for applications that need those particular features.

Repating a comment I tried to post but that perhaps got filtered due to many URLs contained in it:

Justin,

Thanks for your reply to my concern about energy efficiency. I wish I shared your optimism about improvements, but while this application is new, the technology isn't so new. Small CCFLs driven by small electronic ballasts have been used in laptop displays for at least about 15 years. And the cold cathode electrode itself was patented in 1915 by Georges Claude. At the time, it was used in neon lamps, but has been used in some fluorescent lamps, particularly in signs, ever since they were developed in the 1930s.

The efficiency disadvantage is inherent in the cold cathode. Because it's not heated to emit electrons, it needs a higher voltage drop to emit electrons. That "wasted" portion of the total lamp voltage reduces the efficiency. That's why the lamp pictured has such a long, skinny tube--to try to make the electrode a small portion of the overall lamp length so that the efficiency isn't as dismal as it would be with a more normally proportioned lamp.

I have a question for you--where do you get the data that the amount of mercury is half that of a conventional CFL? I couldn't find any data on the mercury content at Better Bulb or at Litetronics. All I found was a Korean company (KHE) that said 2 mg was typical for CCFLs in general (omitting the URL this time).

That's in fact half of what an earlier treehugger post had on an EPA graph for the mercury in a CFL,
(omitting URL for June 2005 post), and 40% of the NEMA 5 mg voluntary standard, but most of what Walmart sells is down at the 2 to 3 mg level, or will be soon
(omitting walmart press release).

I'd rather buy a standard CFL from a manufacturer willing to say how much mercury is in it and know that it is in fact small than buy something based on a vague claim of 2X reduction without a reference point of 2X less than what.

Repating a comment I tried to post but that perhaps got filtered due to many URLs contained in it:

Justin,

Thanks for your reply to my concern about energy efficiency. I wish I shared your optimism about improvements, but while this application is new, the technology isn't so new. Small CCFLs driven by small electronic ballasts have been used in laptop displays for at least about 15 years. And the cold cathode electrode itself was patented in 1915 by Georges Claude. At the time, it was used in neon lamps, but has been used in some fluorescent lamps, particularly in signs, ever since they were developed in the 1930s.

The efficiency disadvantage is inherent in the cold cathode. Because it's not heated to emit electrons, it needs a higher voltage drop to emit electrons. That "wasted" portion of the total lamp voltage reduces the efficiency. That's why the lamp pictured has such a long, skinny tube--to try to make the electrode a small portion of the overall lamp length so that the efficiency isn't as dismal as it would be with a more normally proportioned lamp.

I have a question for you--where do you get the data that the amount of mercury is half that of a conventional CFL? I couldn't find any data on the mercury content at Better Bulb or at Litetronics. All I found was a Korean company (KHE) that said 2 mg was typical for CCFLs in general (omitting the URL this time).

That's in fact half of what an earlier treehugger post had on an EPA graph for the mercury in a CFL,
(omitting URL for June 2005 post), and 40% of the NEMA 5 mg voluntary standard, but most of what Walmart sells is down at the 2 to 3 mg level, or will be soon
(omitting walmart press release).

I'd rather buy a standard CFL from a manufacturer willing to say how much mercury is in it and know that it is in fact small than buy something based on a vague claim of 2X reduction without a reference point of 2X less than what.

Regular, filament, light bulbs do not use mercury but are less efficient than the fluorescent bulbs and use more energy for the same light output. Therefore more coal must be used which produces more mercury pollution. They have shorter life and thus takes more energy to produce replacement light sources. Cold fluorescent lamps have mercury however, and the long spiral construction makes them less durable, releasing mercury. The currently more expensive LEDs last much longer, but with lower light output.

Sol Aisenberg

Regular incadescent light bulbs produce more mercury from the energy used in coal fired power plants than the mercury used from CFLs plus the mercury inside the CFL if it were to be broken. Recycling the CFLs reduces this number significantly.

Did you notice these new bulbs are dimmable! Excellent. I'm very excited to see this next generation!

the shape looks cool.