Should the old style, cheap light bulb be phased out?

Brent Miller (United States of America)
Thursday June 19, 2008 While the move towards greater energy conservation is to be applauded, as previous writers have suggested, people don't fully appreciate how dangerous these energy efficient bulbs can be.

Here in the US, there are Hazmat regulations for dealing with broken lamps. Expert opinion suggests that if one of these bulbs breaks on a porous surface such as a carpet, rug or upholstery, little can be done to eradicate the toxic mercury contained in the lamp short of disposing of the contaminated material- this extends to cutting out the affected patch of carpet, sealing it in a plastic container and taking it to a hazardous waste facility.

Doubtless these bulbs will ultimately benefit the environment via a reduction in greenhouse gases, but unless consumers are educated on their safe handling and containment of their contents in the event of a breakage, the downstream effects on the environment will at least rival the issues arising from the disposal of household batteries in landfill.

Karu (Pakuranga)
Thursday June 19, 2008 Wow the math done by PWB is great and your argument is solid as once again we the tax payer will have to fund this change while the non-tax payer will probably get some kind of break by the government - but now to my point please do not bash China( as indicated in your response) they are not the villain we get all our stuff made in China because it is cheaper - we (big western retailers) push suppliers for cheaper prices as we consumers want to pay less and where does this lead to the supplier cutting corners or creating a substandard product - it is a vicious cycle.If we are willing to pay a fair price for a product a lot of the negatives will and can be fixed. But unfortunately we all pay lip service to Ethical sourcing, as long as we do not have to pay for it we are all for it - sadly life does not work like that nothing is for free as we will find out in this government proposal.
No offence to you PWB just wanted to make a point about China who I feel gets bashed for all our ills.

Carlos (North Shore)
Thursday June 19, 2008 Here's something to consider. I have had these new bulbs installed in my office at work, which has a dimmer switch in it. However, you can't dim these eco-bulbs as they make a terribly loud buzzing noise! I'd like to know which is going to burn more power - eco-bulbs running at full brightness the whole time, or regular bulbs dimmed way down (which is how I like them).

Alan Ayres (Henderson)
Thursday June 19, 2008 The mercury thing is rubbish, many of us have more in our teeth than in one of these bulbs. Traditional fluorescent strip lights already have mercury in and I don't hear complaints about them. The solution is to dispose of these products properly.

Jewel (Hamilton)
Thursday June 19, 2008 I am really angry that the government is about to ban the sale of incandescent bulbs. They assume that people don't mind what lighting they have in their homes but this is just not true.

I cannot live under fluorescent lights- they trigger migraines- and the modern CFL lights are no better than the traditional fluorescent ones.There is a population of people out there- migraine sufferers, epileptics, people with lupus etc who will suffer a great deal if the whole environment becomes lit with fluorescent lights.

I want to be able to chose how I am going to consume energy and I want to use a portion of my quota of energy to light my home with incandescent bulbs. I don't have a widescreen TV, I am very economical with electricity and have just about given up using my car so my carbon footprint is otherwise as small as I can make it.

A fairer way to control electricity use would be to allow everyone a certain number of energy credits. If someone want to use CFLs so they can run a large screen TV then fine. But if someone wants to use their credits to have lighting that doesn't adversely affect their health they should also be given that option.

Graham (Northland)
Thursday June 19, 2008 I tried these expensive and guaranteed bulbs some 6 years ago. Save a receipt for seven years to get a refund when the bulb lasts 6 months? None of them lasted anywhere near as long as stated, the light was just terrible. Why not give people a choice by just raising the price on incandescents and lowering the price on fluoros. Most people can't afford to refit perfectly good bulbs with this poisonous gimmick.

tired (Pahiatua)
Thursday June 19, 2008 The bulbs use less power. But not as much as the packet says. The ratio on the packet is about 1:5 (20 watt for 100watt incand) but in reality it's much closer to 1:4 or 1:3 (25 or even 30 watt to get the same brightness, even after "warming up")

The fluoros don't cope well with switching, their lifespan normally measured by the off-on changes rather than mean burn time. So they're not suitable in a house where people turn off the lights when they leave the room.

The wavelength and colour of the light doesn't work well for many people.

And what savings will be had when *I* change over I only have 2 incandescents - all the others are fluoros already. Yay big savings changing over my toilet light (only lit for short times), the bed lamp (which is a low power but used for reading).
I'm going to horde a few incandescents just so I'm ready for any law change.

Sure the bulbs more expensive - but they also react very badly to low quality power. sometimes exploding under heavy induction effects on the line. But I'm sure the government is going to make all the power companies upgrade the supply quality for free right? (yeah right.)

Karu (Pakuranga)
Thursday June 19, 2008 Sadly if it has anything to do with the Greens I am annoyed as they are never practical. I agree with 90% of what they stand for but disagree 100% of how they go about doing things - for a Party that is liberal and should believe in democratic values they are anything but - the Smacking bill is a good example and here again they will force it down our throats as the attitude of the Greens is we know what's best and actually we are better than you.
In a practical and not ranting sense my main concern is the cost of the bulbs with the cost of living increasing and our budgets shrinking cost is something that has to be taken into consideration especially if we have to change all our bulbs in one go - an extra $100 is something we just do not have at the moment -(now back to ranting) but then the Greens would not understand that as it does not happen in their world.

sweetpea (North Shore)
Thursday June 19, 2008 I will be annoyed because:
1. I have a couple of outdoor light fitting that I have a hard time finding compact bulbs physically small enough to fit in, an 75W incandescent bulb fits - just.
2. Fluorescents are not good when instant light is needed e.g. a quick dive into a dark cupboard or a quick trip to the garage freezer where the light is only on for a 1 minute or less.
3. Ones suitable for dimmer switches are hugely expensive and I have yet to find one that gives out less light than a 60W incandescent lamp.
4. Is there a solution for needleworkers who currently use "daylight" bulbs. Fluorescent light changes colours even more so than a normal incandescent light.
Will we have to stock pile incandescent bulbs for just those reasons?

Graham Hansen (Howick)
Thursday June 19, 2008 Anyone with half a brain can Google these energy efficient bulbs and see their inherent dangers. Obviously there is no one in government with half a brain. I wonder what the respective carbon footprint (latest buzzwords)of manufacture and desposal of each product would be. I suspect we are just creating a problem for our grandchildren. We are being used to hide the inefficient and sometimes incompetent actions of our generating industry, all under the guise of "Global Warming". Instead of investing in new generation, we get ridiculous legislation such as banning perfectly good products for so called dangerous energy efficient ones. These new bulbs are rubbish. They are dull, even when fully activated, they flicker and cause distress, they do not last as long as suggested. This is a step backward, not forward.

Submit a comment

More Articles:

Next Your Views Story: Was the decision to end the second England vs Black Caps one-day game fair?

Your Views Homepage

---