Re: Anyone moved to LED Lighting?

[don@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Don Klipstein)]

In article <hhng7d$8hk$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, mike wrote:
>David Nebenzahl wrote:
>> On 12/31/2009 3:07 AM salty@xxxxxxx spake thus:
>>
>>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 03:18:55 -0500, "Robert Green"
>>> <robert_green1963@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 4) Does it take into account the addition of mercury to
>>>> environments where most of the energy developed is from hydro or
>>>> nuclear power?
>>>>
>>>> No. CFL bulbs are poised to bring significant mercury pollution
>>>> issues to areas where there isn't any mercury pollution from nearby
>>>> coal plants because there AREN'T any nearby coal plants.
>>>
>>> Do you have ANY idea how long florescent's have been in wide use?
>>> Where do you see them? How about ALL large buildings being almost
>>> completely lit with full sized florescent's which contain FAR more
>>> mercury than CFL's?  When you flip the typical light switch in a home,
>>> maybe 1-4 lights are powered up. When you flip a switch in a
>>> supermarket, there may be hundreds of lights lit up. All Florescent.
>>>
>>> Any idea why they use florescent's ?
>>
>> Of course he knows this; that's implicit in his arguments. He's not stupid.
>>
>> What he's saying, which I agree with, is that the use of CFLs, primarily
>> for *residential* lighting (not commercial, which as you point out has
>> already been using fluorescents for many decades) will result in a
>> massive upsurge in the amount of mercury in transit out there, some of
>> which will escape into the environment. This is the 900-pound gorilla of
>> CFL usage which isn't getting nearly as much attention as it should, and
>> makes the claims that Don K. and others have made about how much CFLs
>> will result in *reduced* mercury emissions dubious at best.
>>
>>
>How about we make CFL's RELIABLE so we don't send nearly as many of them
>in the landfill?
>CFL's are the LEAST reliable lighting in my house.  And it ain't the
>part with
>the mercury that's failing.
>8000 hours my a$$.
>But there is a warranty.  Just figure out the vendor...find your proof of
>purchase...mail it in to the warranty center with $4.50 return postage
>and they'll send you a brand new 99-cent light.
>Disposal problem solved...

  In my experience, the 99 cent or $1 ones in single-packs account for a
lot of CFL problems, while being unreturnable - also in my experience,
disproportionately lacking UL "listing" for "self ballasted lamp", the
"FCC ID" usually required of line-voltage-powered self-ballasted lamp
having electronic ballast, or even usually the FTC-required statement of
light output in lumens (and in my experience falling short significantly
in the few cases they do).  Along with in my experience above-average
rates of DOA, early failure, spectacular early failure, and notable
malfunctions.

  These problems in my experience are from CFLs of "dollar store brands",
not so much a problem of ones with "Energy Star" logo or of "Big 3 brands"
(GE, Sylvania, Philips).

 - Don Klipstein (don@xxxxxxxxx)