Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 22 of 22

Thread: Why you think CFLs suck (and how to change that)

  1. #21
    Email problem
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    China
    Posts
    1
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: CFL

    I think LED maybe a good choice.
    However, its price is much higher than CFL.
    And it do not have high power items.

    In our country, the goverment support CFL industry because it's
    a good way to replace HPS lights and incandescent lamp.
    Many workers rely on this industry to feed their family.

    Here's a website, they manufacture CFL and LED bulb.
    http://www.cfl-bulbs.net


  2. #22
    Full Member Inprogress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Port Elizabeth
    Posts
    32
    Thanks
    17
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Few problems I have with CFL's, although I use them cause the one thing they do is save me money at the moment.

    With the Incadescent light bulb, you have metal, glass, and some or other putty that hardens to stick the glass to the metal bit. With CFL's, you have plastic, glass, and mercury. I seem to recall a time when mercury batteries was banned...

    Why do we need CFL's? Is electricity running out? I can't quite see it from a pollution point of view either cause I am sure it takes more energy and polluting processes to create a CFL than an incadescent. Plus, CFL's will pollute in the long run cause its not biodegradable. Yeah sure, we should recycle, but in reality, 95% of the world doesn't, me included...to be honest. And to say it causes less pollution cause we need fewer coal plants...bah humbug! We have increased our electricity needs a 100 fold with the likes of technologies like the one I am typing this post from. Build a PBMNR plant and problems solved...sure PB reactors isn't the ideal solution, but we have ridden on the easy train of fossil fuels and now we need to change, and until we find the ideal solution, PB reactors is our best, least pollution bet.

    Solar is a waste cause the input costs (material, cost, pollution) far outweighs the output gains.

    There is research being done to increase the efficiency of Incandescents since no inprovement has really gone into the technologo in quite some time. Last I heard someone was working on a Incadescent that is 3 times more efficient that the current CFL's, plus last twice as long as the CFL's.

    To me, CFL's is merely good business. Its very much like the Digital SLR's. SLR technology started to stagnate at around 1992. Then came DSLR's, which again, apart from increasing the light sensor chip, its pretty much still a SLR camera. So what do the companies do? They create a DSLR camera which is really difficult to use. A million buttons, 2 million menu options..for what? All you need in a proper camera is Aperture control, shutter speed control, and film(censor) sensitivity. Yet look at DLSR's, this feature and that feature and left and right. Its all marketing..same with CFL's.

    I see CFL's and the "Green" movement is the new business arena...you can almost sell anything under the "green" label, people wont ask questions about the cost in pollution during manufacturing. Don't get me started on the ruse of new cars...the European Emmision Standards is the best thing to happen to the auto industry in decades...the best in terms of business. I made a conservative calculation comparing auto production figures, pollution generated during production, pollution from the use of the car; using a 1995 VW car and comparing it to a 2010 model. The crude figures are astounding...and not in the favour of "green".

    Enough rambling. Chow!

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Tags for this Thread

Did you like this article? Share it with your favourite social network.

Did you like this article? Share it with your favourite social network.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •