4. Summary - Lamp Type Pros & Cons

Comparison between different lamp types:

I. INCANDESCENT LAMPS

Models:
* Standard A-bulbs and T-bulbs
* Decorative (globe, flame, tinted etc)
* Reflector & PAR

Advantages:
+ Bright point light source
+ Good quality and performance
+ Natural golden-white light
+ Continuous spectrum
+ Highest colour rendering (CRI 100)
+ Lights up immediately
+ Can be used at both freezing and hot temperatures
+ Full compatibility with existing luminaires
+ Fully dimmable on any dimmer
+ Light gets warmer and more candle-like when dimmed
+ Highest Power Factor (1.0)
+ Contains no mercury (and no lead solder after 2006)
+ Easy to produce, use and recycle
+ Low purchase price

Disadvantages:
- More heat than light
- Short lifetime, 1000 hours (Long Life lamps 2500-7500 hrs, at reduction in output)
- Sensitive to voltage fluctuations
- Sensitive to vibrations (except Rough Service bulbs)

II. HALOGEN LAMPS

Models:
* Low voltage halogen minibulbs for spotlights
* Halogen minitubes for floodlights
* Halogen retrofit lamps with outer bulb and scew base
* Halogen retrofit reflector and PAR lamps
* Halogen retrofit Energy Saver bulbs & reflector lamps (new)
* Halogen retrofit bulbs with xenon gas filling (new)
* Halogen retrofit bulbs with IR coating and integrated transformers (new)

Advantages:
+ 10-50% more light than incandescent
+ Bright point light source
+ Good quality and performance
+ Continuous spectrum
+ Highest colour rendering (CRI 100)
+ Sunny white light
+ Fully dimmable on any dimmer
+ Gets warmer when dimmed
+ Full compatibility with existing luminaires
+ Light up immediately
+ Work as well in low as in high temperatures
+ Highest Power Factor (1.0)
+ Do not lose output with age
+ Contain no mercury or other toxic chemicals

Disadvantages:
- Low to medium low efficiency
- Risks due to high operating temperature
- Models with clear bulb or tube may be very glaring
- Medium short lifetime (2000 - 3000 hours, some reflector lamps up to 6000 h)

III. COMPACT FLUORESCENT LAMPS (CFLs)

Models:
* Tubes without integrated ballsts
* Retrofit tubes with integrated ballasts
* Retrofit spiral tubes
* Retrofit A-bulbs with outer envelope
* Retrofit globes & decorative with outer envelope
* Retrofit reflectorlamps

Advantages:
+ "Up to 80%" (in reality closer to 50%) more light than an incandescent
+ Long lifetime (6 000-15 000 hrs, with diminishing output)
+ Available with warm or cool light

Disadvantages:
- No bright point lighting
- Most models still have unnatural colour
- Suboptimal colour rendering (CRI 82-85)
- Naked tubes often glaring
- Relatively long starting and warm up time
- Lower Power Factor (often around 0.5)
- Sensitive to heat; poor function in closed luminaires
- Many have poor performance in cool temperatures
- May be sensitive to moisture
- May be sensitive to rapid on-off switching
- Often not dimmable (those that are often expensive)
- Dimming makes the light cooler/greyer, not warmer
- Too large for some luminaires
- Do perform well in reflector luminaires
- Some require specific burning position
- Higher production, transportation and recycling costs
- Contain small amounts of mercury (2-5 mg)
- Bare tubes may emit a little UV

IV. LIGHT EMITTING DIODES (LEDs)

Models:
* Reflector lamps (diodes stuck in a reflector lamp)
* Retrofit standard bulbs (diodes stuck on a stick and placed in a bulb).
* Decorative (tube lights etc)

Advantages:
+ Good efficacy (high output per watt)
+ Extremely long life (unless overheated)
+ Light up instantly
+ Warm, cool or coloured light
+ Versatile due to very small size
+ Not sensitive to vibrations, power spikes or rapid cycling
+ Not sensitive to cold
+ Give off less heat than other lamps, can be touched
+ Simpler to produce and recycle than CFLs
+ Contain no mercury

Disadvantages:
- Most common as low-watt lamps*
- Give light only in one direction, in narrow beam
- More or less unnatural light colour*
- Unstable colour, warm-white LEDs shift over time
- Mediocre to good colour rendering*
- Sensitive to heat
- Lower Power Factor than incandescent*
- Expensive*

* Under improvement

References:
EU consultants' Technical Briefing (italicised points)
Philips Lighting
OSRAM
Havells-Sylvania
GE Lighting
MEGAMAN
Aura Light

3m. CFL Analysis Summary - Actual Savings

With all the factors below added together, it should be more than obvious that CFLs a) don't save as much energy as claimed; b) don't give the same quality light as incandescent and halogen lamps; c) cannot be used in any light fitting (luminaires); and d) are not as environmentally friendly and safe as previously assumed.

Before dismissing these statements out of hand, please just take the time to read the referenced facts presented below. Then do the math yourself.

1. As shown under Conversion Charts, a good quality 11W CFL gives about as much light as a 40W incandescent bulb when real lumen output and expected light loss is taken into consideration.

2. As shown under Power Factor, a typical 11W CFL really uses an equivalent of 20 watts of energy when power factor and ballast use are added to the calculation.

3. As shown under Luminaire Limitations, when used in the wrong luminaire, at too high or too low temperature etc., output and/or life rate decreases further, though it's difficult to give an exact number as this may vary so much with circumstances, e.g. 50% less light when used in recessed downlights and 1-89% or a mean of 40% outdoors at minus 10 degrees C. (So, either get the exact right info on which luminaire each CFL is appropriate for, or subtract some more from potential savings.)

4. As shown under Efficacy, poor quality CFLs will also give less light right from the start and/or lose more and sooner, so subtract 15-65% of estimated savings if you got one of those bargain CFLs at an outlet store and find that it doesn't seem as bright as it should be or last as long as promised.

5. As shown under Heat Replacement Effect, if you live in a cooler climate zone and use CFLs indoors, the excess heat may or may not, depending on your heating system, lower heating bills but at least make the room warmer. Cut the savings number in half if you've got electric radiators with thermostats, less if you have water radiators or heat pump. If you live in a warm zone and use air conditioning, savings increase.

6. As shown under Production Energy Use, this is not even including the extra energy used for production of CFLs, shipping from the Far East, transportation to recycling facilities, and safe recycling of the mercury. Including these in the calculation, Gad Giladi D.E.S.A., M.F.A. FPLDA, in his calculation makes a rough estimate of a 1.1 or 1.3 total less energy comsumption of the CFL.

Even if we stop after the first 2 points and assume for the sake of simplicity that the rest is not applicable in an ideal case, we still only save half of the roughly 4% (= 2%) of domestic energy used for home lighting, and less if we bring in more of the above factors.

Also, as mentioned under Energy Statistics, only around 50% of lamps in EU homes are still incandescent, so cut the 2 in half again = 1%. (or about 0.25% of total EU energy consumption).

Is it really worth sacrificing both Light Quality in our homes, the Health & Wellbeing of some groups, plus risking massive a increase in Mercury pollution due to suboptimal recycling rate, when such small savings can easily be achieved by installing light sensors, dimmers, timers, remote controls or intelligent IR-sensor light switches like the Watt-Stopper, turning down heat one or two degrees, using fewer electric appliances, or simply turning lights off when not in use?

3l. CFL Analysis - Efficacy

Though CFLs may give a little more light (lumen) per watt than incandescent lamps - a normal quality-quantity trade-off - the "5 times more" is only a nominal value for some of the best, top brand, bare tube 'single-envelope' CFTs & CFLs:

a) in the beginning;
b) in optimal burning position, at optimal temperature & humidity, in optimal luminaire;
c) if they have a good power factor;
d) if the heat replacement effect is ignored;
f) if they last as long as promised (without losing too much output towards the end).

"During 2004, the Test Laboratory then a part of the Swedish Consumer Agency (now a part of Swedish Energy Agency) carried out its second ad hoc testing of 20 different CFLs from Osram, GE, Philips, IKEA and Sylvania. The testing authority concluded that there was no correlation between price and performance of the CFLs.

The information on packaging was often deficient in terms of light quantity. Many models had light output claims that could only be achieved at the optimum operating temperature and/or in some optimum burning position that achieved an optimum internal temperature.

"Many light output claims were outright exaggeration, often by about 15 percent and in a few extreme cases by 25 percent. Furthermore, it was common that the indicated life was inaccurate."[emphasis added] [1]

Other consumer tests have found the poorest performing bulbs in each test to give >15%, 19%, 22%, 33%, 34%, 65% less light than stated, while a few of the best gave slightly more (initially), and most somewhat under stated lumens. [2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]

Update 29 Aug: A new test by The Telegraph sample 11W CFLs to give only 58% of the light from the claimed equivalent 60W incandescent lamps. [8]

1. Swedish Energy Agency: Compact Fluorescents in Residential Lighting
2. Vielen Sparlampen geht das Licht zu früh aus
3. 14 Sparlampen im Test
4. Råd & Rön, 1/2008
5. Ica-Kuriren, 3/2008
6. Öko-Test Themen-Special: Energiesparlampe versus Glühbirne
7. Die Tester: Energiesparlampen
8. Energy saving light bulbs offer dim future

3k. CFL Analysis - Light Reduction

Unlike halogen and most incandescent lamps, all fluorescent and HID lamps lose output with age; some more than others, especially covered and reflector CFLs. 10% after 1000 hours for bare tubes and more and as they age, is considered normal in the lighting industry. Though the general public is usually not informed of this fact and will end up with less light than they thought they were buying if they follow the recommended conversion charts.

U.S. Department of Energy tested ENERGY STAR-labeled lamps and found that:

"In Cycle Four, 38% CFL samples failed to meet the requirement of lumen maintenance at 40% rated life, and the majority of covered lamps and reflector lamps failed this requirement with the exception of two models from a certain manufacturer." [1]

In a 2008 Swedish consumer test, Philips, Osram and IKEAs bare tubes had lost a mean of 19% after 6000 hrs, Philips & Osram covered bulbs a mean of 25%, and Ikea bulbs 30-100% (= some didn't last long enough to measure). [2]

And these are some of the best CFLs on the market. Lower end lamps can be expected to lose even more.

1. Energy Star Lighting Verification Program
2. Råd & Rön 1/2008

Update Dec 2: Finally, some journalists are starting to actually read consumer and governmental tests instead of just mindlessly trusting the inflated propaganda from EU, Energy Star and Energy Saving Trust.

Energy saving light bulbs get dimmer over time

Just as I've been saying. Every lighting professional knows this and plans for it. And you don't even have to check consumer tests: it's right there in manufacturer catalogues (if you know what you're looking for) and manufacturers won't deny it if asked; they're just not going to volunteer that information to the public if you don't ask.

3j. CFL Analysis - Lifespan

According to the few consumer tests that test CFLs for that long, life span seems to have improved over the last decade for the best lamps, though not all CFLs work as long as promised.

* In a German test published January 2009, Osram & Philips CFLs lasted the full 15 500 hours - though with decreasing output - whereas 20% of IKEAs lamps went out before 3000 hrs and most reflector lamps died fairly soon. The tendency was for cheaper lamps to go out sooner. [1]

* Another German test from Dec 2008 gave "less than good results". The first lamps went out after 1500 hours. [2] (However, the exact details were not presented.)

* In a Swiss test from November 2007, Noser, IKEA and Megaman had fallouts before 3000 hrs, whereas the other 11 kept burning. [3]

* In a Swedish test from 2008, various lamp models and wattages from 3 common brands were tested for 6000 hours. 3 of the 4 tested IKEA lamps lasted the 6000 hrs, but one model an average of only 4398 hours. 11 of 14 Osram models (promising 6-15 000 hrs) passed the 6000 hour test, and the remaining 3 (sold as '6000 hrs') lasted 4984 - 5911 hours. 8 of 15 Philips lamps kept burning at 6000 hrs and the other 7 went out between 3189 and 5837 hours, of which one (marked '10 000 hrs') lasted only 4244 hrs and 4 of 8 sold as '8000 hrs' lasted only between 5178 and 5837 hours. [4]

And this is when tested in lab conditions with bulbs burning openly without shades, at optimal temperature, burning position etc. In home luminaires with insufficient air flow and real life situations, e.g. when turned on and off often, life rate may in many cases turn out to be significantly shorter.

One of the most common complaints from disgruntled customers is premature failure after only a few hours, days, weeks or years, way short of the life rate stated on the package; sometimes due to poor lamp quality, sometimes from using good lamps in the wrong luminaires so they overheat, or flicking then on-and-off too often.

Example of long list of typical complaints can be found in the comments section of this (substandard) CFL test by Popular Mechanics and here: Compact Flourescent Light Bulbs - Lifespan A recent article also brings attention to this problem:
New York Times: "Do New Bulbs Save Energy if They Don’t Work?"

"A study published in 1998 examined CFL performance with five different operating cycles. It found that when the length of time the lamps were on was reduced from 3 hours to 1 hour, the lamp lasted for 80 percent of its rated life. When reduced to 15 min and 5 min, the lamp lasted for 30 percent and 15 percent, respectively, of its rated life." [5]

Update 8 Sept: A spokesman for the Energy Saving Trust confirms that frequent switching may reduce CFL life: “Regularly flicking a bulb on for a brief moment and then off again is not recommended as it can shorten the lifetime of the bulb." [6]
When CFLs fail prematurely, calculated long-term savings of course go down the drain.

1. Konsumo: Energiesparlampen-Test: - Zweifel beseitigt
2. Öko-test Online: Energiesparlampe versus Glühbirne
3. Arcotronic AG: 14 Sparlampen im Test
4. Råd & Rön: Lågenergilampor, 1/2008
5. Chen W, Davis R, and Ji Y. 1998. “An Investigation of the Effect of Operating Cycles on the Life of Compact Fluorescent Lamps.”
6. Lifespan of energy-saving bulbs reduced by repeated switching

3i. CFL Analysis - Conversion Charts

European recommendations

In Europe, CFLs are often claimed to give "5 times more light" (or "up to" 5 times more, to cover poorer performing covered, reflector and decorative bulbs). Optimistic calculations on potential savings are almost always made on the nominal initial lumen/watt values of the best performing bare tubes. A typical European equivalence chart may look like this:



These recommendations are, however, quite misleading as those who follow them will get less light than they originally had! Astonishingly, this EU Quality Charter for Fluorescent Lamps accepts lower minimum initial claimed lumen output from an equivalent CFL than what a typical incandescent bulb usually gives (first two columns of this table):


As can be seen in the last two columns (which I've added for comparison) incandescent ("GLS") lamps usually have a higher lumen output than minimum EU requirements for equivalent CFL! [1]

If a typical CFL does not produce as many initial lumens as the lamp it is supposed to be replacing, it cannot possibly be said to give "5 times more light" of incandescent energy use.

Light Reduction

As explained in under Life Span, CFLs give even less light as they age. After 2000 hours, the EU Quality Charter accepts a 12% light loss for bare CFL tubes, 17% for covered CFL bulbs, and 25% for both types at the end of their life.

To illustrate how this works out in lumen output for various wattages, I've used lumen figures from manufacturer catalogues [1, 2, 3] for standard incandescent (GLS) A-lamps and a typical good quality CFL bare tube. In the following columns I've deducted the permitted 12% and light loss after 2000 hours and the actual mean light loss for recently tested CFL tubes of the same brand after 6000 hours [4]:

Here I've deducted the permitted 17% and 25% light loss for double envelope CFL bulbs (a real test showed 15% and 27% for this particular model). [5] In the manufacturer's catalogue, it is sold as "saving 80% light" (= giving "5 times more light" than an incandescent) but as we can see here, it is less than 3½ with light loss included in the calculation.


To get the same lumen output as from an incandescent bulb, and to compensate for the expected reduction in output as the CFL ages plus the poorer light quality, one needs to choose a higher watt CFL than usually recommended (just like professional lighting designers often do when installing new lights, as they are well aware of these factors). This will, however, give a light that may be too bright and glaring in the beginning and too weak and dull towards the end of its life.

Thus, when used in real situations, an Energy Class A-rated, good quality CFL bare tube does not give 5 times more light, but 3-4 for some of the most effective CFLs on the market. Covered CFL bulbs give somewhat less initially and lose more as they age (a mean of 25% loss for Philips and Osram bulbs, and 30-100% for IKEA bulbs in 2008 test). [4]

1. Philips Lighting
2. OSRAM
3. Hawells-Sylvania
4. Råd & Rön 1/2008
5. Råd & Rön 7/01

North American recommendations

U.S. and Canadian ENERGY STAR requirements stay more reasonable and require a minimum initial lumen output that roughly translates to a 3:1 or 4:1 switch. [1, 2]


Again required initial lumen output is slightly less than incandescent output (at 120V incandescent lamps give more light) and light loss is not taken into account, despite General Electric being more open and giving mean lumen values in their online catalogues.


As can be seen in the above example, a fair switch is closer to 3 than 4 for the most effective bare tubes, and of course less for covered bulbs, globes, reflectors and decorative bulbs. Yet on the same page, it is still claimed that "ENERGY STAR qualified bulbs use about 75 percent less energy than standard incandescent bulbs."

1. U.S. ENERGY STAR
2. Canadian ENERGY STAR
3. GE Lighting

Summary

Based on manufacturer figures for initial lumens, with light reduction included, the best tubes give only 3-4 times more light in Europe and around 3 in the U.S.A and Canada. Less for covered, reflector & decorative CFLs, for CFLs used in the wrong luminaires, and for poorer quality CFLs of all types.

Consumers therefore need to be advised to choose a higher watt CFL than recommended to get as much light as from the original bulb and to compensate for the eventual light degradation and poorer quality of the CFL replacement. And the EU standardisation directive needs to be adjusted to reflect reality.

3h. CFL Analysis - Heat Replacement Effect

An incandescent bulb produces about 5% light and 95% heat. CFLs are said to produce 25% light and 75% heat. It is this little difference which constitutes the foundation for all other figures and calculations.

However, as shown above, the best bare CFL tubes only give about 3-4 times more light, while many CFLs on the market give less light, and proportionally more heat.


In cooler climates such as in North Europe or Canada, where it is usually cold and dark at the same time, the "excess" heat from lamps naturally adds to indoor heat and is thereby not necessarily wasted, even if not all of the extra heat affects thermostats enough to lower heating bills or is produced during the heating season.

* A (pro-CFL) study by the Swedish Energy Agency 1998 showed varying results depending on type of house, heating system, thermostat efficiency, season, latitude, amount of direct sunlight etc. [1] "Very roughly [with seasonal variations included] one may expect a net saving of 50% of the lighting savings in a house heated by electricity." [2]

* According to a British 2003 study, about 60% of the energy from lighting throughout the year in a typical British house turns into useful heat [3] (as 60% of the energy lightbulbs consume heats the building they are in so heating needs increase accordingly) with CFLs saving only 20%. In a follow-up study using thermal simulation software, researchers conclude:

"The findings from this study confirm the earlier conclusions that the HRE is a significant factor and therefore one that needs to be taken into account to obtain realistic predictions of the savings from reducing energy consumption by lights and appliances within buildings.

"In a typical UK house, the cost saving from installing low energy lighting, if the HRE is ignored, will be overestimated by about 19% and the carbon saving by about 67%. It would be reasonable to expect a similar level of overestimation when looking at the potential savings for a large group of dwellings, rather than an individual typical house. Failure to recognise this when performing calculations could lead to wrong conclusions being drawn and, potentially, to wrong decisions being made. [emphases added][4]

* Recent Canadian studies suggests that actual savings of potential savings depends on season and what type of energy you use for electricity. In some regions it may even be counter-prodcuctive. [5, 6, 7]

"Physics department head Peter Blunden found using CFLs in Winnipeg could cut energy consumption by 67 per cent, "but that's not the whole story," he said. "The issue is all the heat that's thrown off by the incandescents." Blunden said factoring in heating and cooling changes, Winnipeggers would end up with energy and cash savings of 17 per cent, similar to Manitoba Hydro's findings. Those who use air conditioners would see savings of around 24 per cent, he said, while cash savings will be a little higher for people who heat with gas instead of electricity."

Blunden pointed out that lights make up a tiny portion of a home's energy needs, just three per cent on average. 'We're really talking about a very small slice of the energy pie,' he said." [emphases added] [7]

* Dr Peter Thornes explains the heating benefit in more detail here: A Heat Benefit and makes the astute observation that it's funny how the excess heat from lighting seems to be considered a highly relevant factor when it comes to space cooling when it's too hot, but not when it comes to space heating when it's too cold, although both are two sides of the same coin. [8]

Debunking attempts:
- Faced with these annoying facts, whenever the heat replacement effect is mentioned, CFL proponents have been trained to automatically retort that "incandescent lamps are inefficient to heat houses with" but this argument rather falls on its own ridiculousness as I'm sure no one would dream of turning on a light bulb just to create heat! Lamps are obviously used for lighting houses with and the extra heat is just an added bonus.
- Another early argument was that the light bulbs "have to be placed under windows" in order to have the same heating effect as radiators in reducing cold draft. But why on earth would one place a light bulb under a window? If drafty, houses usually have a radiator there... No one has claimed light bulbs can replace radiators, only complement and decrease the need of some of the heat they give off (a very tiny portion at that).
- With increasing desperation, critics now claim that the heat "only stays near the ceiling" but this is not true either as heat circulates, and most people use floor-, table and desk luminaires besides ceiling- and wall fixtures.
Getting a little extra heat close to where one is sitting is usually an immediate benefit whether themostats register it or not - except during hottest season when it may be a nuisance instead (not a huge problem here in Sweden where the slightly-too-hot season usually lasts about 2-6 weeks and coincides with the little-need-for-light-since-the-friggin'-sun-never-sets season).
The warmer the climate you live in, the less of a benefit and the more of a problem incandescent heat will be, of course, and it so happens that warm incandescent light is most popular in the cold and dark climate zones and decreasingly popular the closer to the equator you get. Perhaps there is a natural reason for this? Seems like consumers are alredy intuitively drawn to the type of light that is most appropriate for their particular climate, so why regulate with a one-size-fits-all solution that will be an ill fit for many?

1. Studie över spillvärme från hembelysning, Enheten för Energiteknik, 1998
2. Fyra frågor om Lågenergilampor, Energimyndigheten (STEM), 1999 (Swedish study)
3. Market Transformation Programme: The Heat Replacement Effect
4. Thermal modelling of the heat replacement effect and its implication for energy saving programmes (UK study)
5. Benchmarking of energy savings associated with energy efficient lighting in houses (Canadian study)
6. "Switching off incandescents a no-brainer?"
7. "Compact bulbs not as green as once thought"
8. A Heat Benefit

Summary

* Lighting only uses around 3% of a household's total energy consumption.
* Used indoors in cooler climates during the heating season, only a part of nominal savings from switching to CFLs will be real savings, due to increased need for space heating to make up for the heat no longer produced by light bulbs.
* How much depends on many factors such as length of heating season in one's particular climate zone, house type, insulation, type of energy used in ones region or utility, energy system (e.g. gas, heat pump, electric radiators, water radiators), presence of indoor thermostats and thermostat sensitivity - though nothing stops the home owner from turning down the heat manually if not sensitive enough, and enjoying both the warm light and little extra heat from incandescent and halogen lamps instead (if one needs the light anyway).
* Only in warm climate zones and seasons which require extra cooling do CFLs potentially save what they are claimed to save.

3g. CFL Analysis - Power Factor

CFL Power Factor may vary from below 0.5 to over 0.9 depending on type of integrated ballasts (traditional magnetic or electronic high-frequency), and also depending on ballast manufacturer and quality of ballast.

The Lighting Research Cente: Power Quality, which includes tables & graphic illustrations of how CFLs, computers and other non-heating appliances distort power supply harmonics, explaines the difference between incandescent (incl. halogen) and fluorescent (including CFL) lamp effect on the power system:

"Incandescent lamps, toasters and other heating devices usually have a power factor of unity = 1. (...) Resistive loads such as incandescent lamps actually reduce voltage harmonics."

"Poor power quality can damage the distribution system and devices operating on the system. (...) High frequency electronic ballasts operate at frequencies ranging from 20 to 60 kilohertz (kHz). The harmonics produced by these ballsts are correspondingly high frequencies and can interfere with some communication equipment including radios, intercoms, and cordless phones. Devices that use power-line carrier signals, such as synchronised clocks and control modules for building energy management systems may also experience problems if harmonics exist at frequencies close to the carrier signal." [1]

However, according to a study at the Vienna University of Technology (cited by the Swedish Energy Agency ), distortions may vary with the actual situation and depend on the CFL in relation to other appliances and other CLFs, e.g. distortions may decrease if CFLs are of different brands, but increase if they are of the same brand. [2]

But this is not the main issue. As demonstrated on this site CFLs Real Power Used, CFLs with poor power factor may use up to twice as much energy as claimed! [3] http://savethebulb.org/cfl-real-power-used
Looking for a second opinion on this astonishing revelation, I made a few calls.

- According to a representative at Swedish Osram, an 11W CFL may in fact use around 18W! The integrated ballasts also use about 2W.

- The Swedish Energy Agency says this sounds about right. That a 15W CFL may have a PF around 0.5 and a VA of 30.

- Vattenfall, one of Europe's biggest energy suppliers, said they are well aware of the difference between active and reactive effect and that they bill larger customers for their VA, whereas smaller customers are only billed for the active effect (= watts used). But to compensate for reactive effect from home electronics and CFLs with poor power factor, a generalised extra fee is included in the standard price per kWh! When I asked what will happen if more people start using significantly more CFLs, the reply was that utilities will have to compensate by making this extra hidden fee higher! This, of course, is nothing customers are informed about (unless one asks, and knows what to ask).

To get a Canadian EnergyStar label "an average of 10 samples tested must be greater than 0.5" - which is not overly reassuring as it needs to be at least over 0.85 in order to not create distortions and tax the energy supply with more than the watts it is marked with.

Technical Editor Margery Conner of EDN also found confirmation of CFLs poor power factor (0.57 in her own CFL, and 0.45-0.50 in a Luminaire Testing Laboratory test) and wanted to know what EnergyStar plans to do about it:

"I emailed Peter Banwell of the EnergyStar program and asked if EnergyStar was considering making minimum PF a requirement for Energy Star compliance. He replied, 'We looked at this in detail several years ago and decided against it, though there are a couple of utilities that still support the idea. We may take this up in the future, as the market share grows, but right now it is still in the noise in terms of impacts.'" [4]

1. Lighting Research Cente: Power Quality
2. Fyra frågor om lågenergilampor, Swedish Energy Agency, 1999.
3. CFLs Real Power Used
4. "Utilities suffer from CFL's poor power factor"
See also "The Hidden Costs of CFLs"

Summary:
The suboptimal power factor of many CFLs on the market means that they both use more energy and indirectly cost more for the customer than consumers and environmental organisations alike have been led to believe, e.g. 18W + 2W for the integrated ballast instead of claimed 11W.

3f. CFL Analysis - Life Cycle Assessment

A CFL with integrated ballast is a complex piece of electronics, made out of glass, steel, aluminium, solder, copper wire, silicon, phosphors, fibreglass, various plastics, ferrites or ceramics, epoxy resins [1] and flame retardants. Different parts (e.g. ballasts) are often manufacturered in different places, sometimes in different countries, and then sent to the main factory for final assembly. See ballast interior here: CFL autopsy

Some have attempted to make "cradle-to-grave" estimates on CFL energy use, mercury emissions etc., so-called Life Cycle Assessments, but this is no easy task and results may vary depending on how many factors are included into the calculation, and what you mean by "cradle" and "grave".

For CFL proponents, "cradle" means when the parts get assembled at the factory, and "grave" means when they're returned to a recycling facility or end up in landfill. For realists, "cradle" means when the mercury, phosphors and rare earths are mined out of the ground and "grave" when the mercury ends up either in a new lamp, or via nature and the food chain, in us. I'm sure no CFL proponent wants to include the costs for brain damaged babies and lowered general health and mental function of future generations through slow mercury poisoning of the entire population.

But even without adding the last to the calculation, realistic assessments like the one done by Klaus Stanjek on behalf of Greenpeace Hamburg, show that CFLs' complicated construction may require 10 to 40 times more energy - and emissions - to produce than it takes to manufacture an incandescent bulb. [2] Even if they outlast 5-10 bulbs, and use less electricity in the use phase, they still seem to require more energy during their whole life cycle.

Compare with how simple it is to manufacture an incandescent bulb:

"It can also be argued that the incandescent bulb is quite environmentally friendly. Unlike higher technology lamps, the simple filament bulb does not require rare earth gases and phosphors, leaches no mercury, and requires no proprietary manufacturing patents. The incandescent light bulb is produced worldwide, and is often a local product, which requires less packaging and less fuel for transport from low-wage factories to high-profit markets."
- Jeff Miller, President-elect IALD, Director Pivotal Lighting [3]

Update 14 September: Before the ban, EU consultants VITO made a very extensive and detailed life cycle assessment attempt, which had the potential of straightening things out. But as far as I can tell, it appears to contain such serious flaws as to make the its final conclusions highly questionable:

1. Using unusual lamp wattages (54W GLS and 13W CFL) for base-cases, both with incorrect lumens for that wattage-class.

2. Putting clear and frosted GLS in separate classes despite the difference in output being virtually non-existent and all other things the same, while the widely varying CFL models (bare, covered, dimmable, outdoor, daylight, improved CRI etc) with their equally varying efficacies, applications and life spans get represented by one (!) class and CFL type only.

3. Incorrect (too short) life span for typical low-voltage halogen lamps, skewing comparison with other lamp types.

4. Overly optimistic estimations of CFL recycling rates ("20%" in all of EU).

5. Like most pro-CFL 'studies', this one does not count the mining process for the mercury and phosphors (stating a "lack of info" on that part of the process). A reader commenting a mercury article online appears to know more:

"To produce purified mercury in a CFL, the extraction process releases about 0.4mg for every milligram produced into the waterways, atmosphere, and soil as waste. This is a well-established worldwide average that includes many processes, both crude and hi-tech. This means that the 4mg in the CFL actually represents 5.6mg of mercury that enters our environment." [4]

6. Making distribution impact estimates on the assumption that all lamps are produced in Europe, while fully aware that most CFLs are produced in Asia:

"The distribution phase contributes more than 5 % of the life cycle impacts for 11 of the 15 environmental impact indicators. Impacts of this phase are the highest for the emission of PAHs (69 %), heavy metals (22 %), volatile organic compounds (VOC) (21 %), and particulate matter to air. This can be explained by the assumption related to transport in trucks from the retailer’s central warehouse to the shop. (...) according to the MEEuP methodology (section 5.3.6, page 96), a mix of means of transport (trucking, rail, sear freight and air freight) with assumptions on distances was used for all base-cases. This assumption could be considered as disadvantageous for lamps mainly produced in Europe (e.g. GLS-F and GLS-C) and advantageous for lamps produced in Asia (e.g. CFLi)." [5] [emphasis added]

7. Not including the energy used to recycle the mercury.

"Collected CFLi’s at end of life are crushed in a closed installation and sieved. The mercury containing fraction is distilated at 600°C to separate the mercury. The pure, metallic mercury is used again by lamp industry." [6]

This process seems more complicated than it sounds, and must require a substantial amount of energy too [7]:





8. Not including all the forced individual driving to remote recycling stations for householders who wish to leave their CFLs for recycling, or to the few retailers who have a recycling program, and then from them to the recycling stations, then transportation from recycling stations to reprocessing factories and from reprocessing factories back to the lamp factories. As Peter Thornes points out, when "the lamp industry" has their CFL production located in China, that's where the mercury has to be shipped back to.

"However, it is not just the energy requiring manufacture (after all, CFLs have longer lifespans, which gives some compensation). It is also the greater emissions from their longer transport from the fewer centra in which CFLs are economical to make (China), and it is also the further CFL transport emissions to recycling plants and the emissions of their reprocessing there, and the further transport of reprocessed parts to different locations.

This means that inter-continental transport between China and North America/Europe can take place twice, since CFL content including mercury may be shipped back to China for reprocessing and new manufacture. Even more significantly, shipping use of bunker oil, the worst CO2 emitting type of oil, greatly increases the emissions involved (more). [8]

Sounds like an awful lot of driving, shipping, processing and polluting, doesn't it?

1. Should There Be a Ban on Incandescent Lamps?
2. "Energy Wasting Lamp" by Klaus Stanjek
3. "What will be the fate of the incandescent lamp?" Pt1
4. Article comment by "lees"
5. Domestic lighting study, Part 1, Chapter 5 (pdf)
6. Domestic lighting study, Part 1, Chapter 4 (pdf)
7. Technical guidelines on the environmentally sound management of mercury wastes (pdf)
8. New Electric Politics: Life Cycle

3e. CFL Analysis - Lamp & Luminaire Limitations

Unlike incandescent lamps which fit and work in practically any traditional indoor or outdoor luminaire (light fitting) and performs as well in the freezer or in the oven as in room temperature, CFLs come in so many varieties - each of which has its specific limitations, besides the widely varying quality and colour range - that it can be difficult to impossible for the average consumer to get the right CFL in the right luminaire without guidance from a professional expert in a lamp shop.

Stricter requirements for such information on the package may come soon but this still requires a more alert customer who knows in advance exactly for which luminaire the CFL is intended and who has the time to run around different stores to find just the right CFL for this application.

Grabbing just any CFL at the supermarket is a real gamble. Using a CFL in the wrong luminaire may cause them to give less light (and more heat), last only a fraction of the rated life, or malfunction immediately. Here are some examples:

- Unless specifically designed for such applications, temperatures over 50 degrees Celsius will also drastically reduce output and life rate in most CFLs. Many CFLs therefore cannot be used in closed luminaires or in downlights as they get overheated and soon fail. [1] Some leading manufacturers have created special reflector lamps for recessed downlights.

- Unless specifically designed for outdoor use, most CFLs light up very slowly - if at all - and don't give much light in cold temperatures.

- Some CFLs may be sensitive to moisture and condensation.

- Some CFLs may still be sensitive to rapid on-off switching, especially cheaper ones, and only 70-75% of Energy Star rated CFLs passed the Rapid Cycle Stress Test. [2]

- Using them with dimmers may kill both the lamp and the dimmer, [3] unless the CFL is specifically designed for dimmers - which makes them more expensive, hard to find, and may not use less electricity, only give an even bleaker light which looks extra unnatural at low light levels since it does not get warmer in colour as an incandescent light source will.

- Most do not work with timers, sensors or ceiling fans.

- Some luminaires are too small to make even the smallest CFL fit.

- Many CFLs are meant to be used in base-up position in order to perform as stated. (In lab tests, CFLs are usually tested in this position, so their performance is likely to appear much better than when used in most home luminaires.) CFLs with specific optimal burning position will not work well in luminaires designed for other burning positions. How many know of this, find this information on the package when they buy a CFL, or know what it means if the information is there?

- Due to the slow start-up time (1-7 minutes in early life for some of the best bulbs produced today in recent consumer test [4]) CFLs with electronic ballasts are not recommended for use in bathrooms, closets and storage spaces as one may have already finished one's business there by the time they reach full output and many CFLs need to be left on for some time before switching off again.

- Bare tubes are more glaring than the CFLs with an extra outer bulb and should only be used in shaded luminaires which are open at the top and bottom.

- Risk of UV-radiation makes bare tubes unsuitable for desk- and reading luminaires, and around children and people with cataracts, lupus and other UV-light sensitivity conditions. [5, 6,]

This leaves very few luminaires and situations where a standard CFL will work as advertised. Possibly only in the garage or kitchen, where many already have pre-installed FL tubes, compact FL tubes (CFTs) or recessed low-voltage halogen.

Tips on where CFLs may be suitable: Using Lights at Home
Another good site for detailed CFL info: Compact Fluorescent Bulb Research

1. The CFL Myth
2. PEARL: Evaluation and Analysis of Residential Lighting
3. Should There Be a Ban on Incandescent Lamps?
4. GP Test: Lågenergilampor
5. Health Protection Agency
6. SCENIHR Report on Light Sensitivity

Summary:
* Incandescent bulbs of common wattages can be bought in bulk and kept in reserve at home for when they're needed, and will fit in practically any luminaire with the same size socket.

* Different CFL models each have their specific limitations & requirements and will only work well and last long within the temperature range, burning position, luminaire type and on-off switching which that particular model is designed for.

* Without professional guidance and knowing in advance which luminaire one intends the CFL for, it can be hard to impossible for customers to get the right CFL in the right luminaire.

3d. CFL Analysis - Mercury

About mercury from the EU Technical Briefing:

"Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFLs) contain small quantities of mercury and emit ultraviolet light which can, under certain circumstances, have a negative impact on people suffering from diseases accompanied by light sensitivity. However analysis shows that these two factors do not present a risk to the general public in normal use."

But there is an immediate risk to all users, especially children and pregnant women, if lamps are broken and mercury escapes into the air and is inhaled (since mercury vapourises at room temperature). Swedish environmental expert Minna Gillberg says all CFL bulbs should be marked with a skull-&-bones label to increase awareness of toxic risk. [1]
Although the risk of breaking a CFL at home is probably not overwhelmingly huge if people are informed of the risk and take care not to place them in luminaires that are easily knocked over, and the amount of mercury each bulb contains usually is minute and decreasing with age, even small amounts of mercury vapour may be harmful to inhale, especially for children, pregnant women and sensitive people. Therefore various national health protection agencies have issued safety instructions in case of CFL (or mercury thermometer) breakage. [2, 3, 4]

If you're lucky enough to be a U.S. citizen, you can always order a Philips Spill-kit for only $100.00... ;-)

"Offers Customers the tools to handle the clean up of broken mercury containing lamps. The materials may be placed in a sealed plastic bag and sent to EPSI in the standard EPSI-PAK lamp recycle box. Kit includes a pail containing training video, safety data sheets, instructions, guidelines for clean-up, mercury chemical information, gloves, scraper, brush, pan, dust mask, safety goggles, sponge pads, plastic sealable bags and large plastic bags."

The European Commission, however, continues to defend the CFL despite its mercury content, using one of the oldest CFL lobby arguments in the book:

"Indeed the decrease of mercury emissions resulting from energy savings (electricity generation in power plants has its own mercury emissions) outweighs the need for mercury in the lamps."

That someone in the 1990s came up with the idea to blame powerplant emissions on the lightbulb in order to get around the uncomfortable fact that FL and CFL contain mercury, is not as surprising as the fact that so many keep regurgitating this argument without ever stopping to consider the blatant flaws in it!

One eloquent exception is Dr Peter Thornes:

"This is based on North American studies, crucially making various assumptions:

"1. That most power is derived from coal. It is about 1/3 in the UK, for example, 1/5 in Ireland, and of course substantially less (and decreasing) in many countries. As an example, the US Government EPA 2002 5-year comparison diagram, variations of which are often used by ban proponents, assumes all power comes from coal, concluding that in such situations CFLs are better."

"2. That emissions remains at the fixed levels. Power station mercury release has for a long time been treatable by using wet scrubbers (chemical, not human, I hasten to add), in combination with recently cheaper and more effective injection and photochemical techniques."

"If and where power station mercury release is a problem, ecological warriors might want to do something about it, rather than just use it as an excuse to ban light bulbs. In a nutshell:

"1. What comes out of ever decreasing coal power stations chimneys can be dealt with: we know where the problem sources are and we can treat them
with ever increasing efficiency at lower costs.

"2. Compare that with scattered broken lights on all the dump sites, we do
not know where the broken lights are, and we can't do anything about them." [5]

Update June 4: According to EuroStat, the EU share of coal used to produce electricity has decreased from 39% 1991 to 29% 2006, though varying widely between different countries [6].

CFL mercury may also constitute a health hazard if thrown away with household garbage or in glass recycling containers:

"'The problem with the bulbs is that they'll break before they get to the landfill. They'll break in containers, or they'll break in a dumpster or they'll break in the trucks. Workers may be exposed to very high levels of mercury when that happens,' says John Skinner, executive director of the Solid Waste Association of North America, the trade group for the people who handle trash and recycling. Skinner says when bulbs break near homes, they can contaminate the soil." [7]

The EU Technical Briefing continues:

"The impact of both elements can be further reduced by using CFLs with an outer non-breakable lamp envelope."

Unless the lighting industry is willing to add more cost to the CFL by putting a teflon-coated unbreakable glass around all CFLs produced, and EU willing to put an immediate ban on all other CFLs sold, this suggestion is pure fantasy and cannot be used as argument for the breakable CFLs on the market today!

* Also note that there are both automated and non-automated factories in China. In the small, non-automated factories, workers distribute the mercury and phosphors into each CFL by hand! Besides the risk of easily exceeding the specified limits, mercury vapourises at room temperature [8] and Chinese factories are not exactly known for issuing protective gear to factory workers. How 'green' is it to poison Chinese labourers and create more toxic waste?

* Not to mention other developing countries where recycling comes very low down on poor people's list of priorities. India's lighting industry, for example, already uses 56 tons of mercury per year. If they are forced to increase the use of FL/CFL from current 10% to 100%, that will be 560 tons! [9]

This is truly alarming, considering the fact that one teaspoon of mercury is enough to poison a medium-sized lake!

Once you've opened Pandora's box and let the mercury out, there is no way of putting it back in again; it will just keep circulating and climb its way up the food chain. Thus, focus should be on the direct sources of mercury: fluorescent light and fossil fuels. Stop mercury emissions it at the source before its too late!

In my opinion, only FL tubes, CFLs and HID lights used professionally should be exempt from the EU mercury ban, as most factories, offices and shops already have well established routines for recycling tubes and lamps correctly and especially linear fluorescent tubes tend to be returned as they don't fit in standard trash cans. To put such a burden on private individuals - who usually already have enough to worry about without needing the extra hassle of safely disposing burned-out bulbs for recycling - can certainly not be called a wise and responsible decision.

1. Nyhetskanalen: "Expert varnar för lågenergilampor"
2. U.S. NPA: Mercury - Spills, Disposal and Site Cleanup
3. U.K Health Protection Agency: Fact sheet on mercury and CFLs
4. Swedish Chemical Inspection Agency: Kvicksilver i lågenergilampor och lysrör
5. New Electric Politics - Environment
6. Eurostat: Panorama of Energy 2006
7. "CFL Bulbs Have One Hitch: Toxic Mercury"
8. Mercury Waste Solutions
9. "Think before you make the switch to CFL!"

3c. CFL Analysis - Recycling

Due to the high risk of adding to mercury pollution if thrown away with housholed garbage and ending up in landfills, everyone naturally agrees that CFLs should be safely recycled. The EU Technical Briefing says:

"It remains that CFL lamps should be disposed properly."

Yes. And this remains the problem. 'Should' does not equal 'will be':

According to their own consultants, in the preparatory study:

"Recycling rate of mercury containing lamps for commercial and domestic sectors (including linear fluorescent and HID lamps which make up the vast majority in commercial sector):

* Bulgaria 2008: 0% despite recycling legislation
* Denmark 2007: total >50%, domestic low (source: http://www.lwf.nu/)
* France 2007: total 36%, domestic ? (source: Recylum.com)
* Germany 2006: total 36%, commercial 90%, domestic 10% incl all lamps (source: LightCycle)
* Poland 2007: total 10% ("lighting equipment", not just lamps), domestic ?
* Sweden 2007: total 75%, commercial 90%, domestic 60% (source: STEM) "The general impression from contact with manufacturers and EU-27 country representatives is that the recycling system for collection of mercury from lamps is in most countries not implemented properly, especially for the residential sector. A large part of the consumers don’t even know that a CFLi contains mercury and that they should give back the disposed CFLi for recycling." [1]

* Baltic States, Belgium, Chech Republic, Hungary, Portugal, Romania have initiated recycling programmes but statistics were not yet available. A recycling fee is often included in the purchase price. [1]

* According to European Lamp Companies Federation, only Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Norway and Switserland currently "have the infrastructure to recycle at least 50% of their mercury containing lamps", with Austria and Belgium starting schemes. [2]

* In Sweden, September 2009, 20% of CFLs do not get recycled, according to a rough - and probably optimistic - estimate by lighting industry representative Magnus Franzell.

"'The problem is that every CFL contains up to 5 milligrams of mercury, one of the most dangerous envionmental toxins. And now CFL sales are increasing drastically. We estimate that it will double or triple within a few years now that the incandescent bulb is banned', says Magnus Frantzell. "This would mean that about 10 to 15 million CFLs per year will be sold. If recycling remains on the same level as totay, this means that up to 10-15 kilograms will not be recycled.'" [3]

* In Denmark, January 2009, nearly 50% of CFLs still do not get recycled and two thirds of end users did not know you need to recycle CFLs! Therefore many throw them away with household garbage or in the recycling containers for glass! [4]

* In the U.S., recycling is not going well either. [5]

* In December 2008, the EU Commision expressed the following concerns:

"EU legislation to restrict the use of hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment and to promote the collection and recycling of such equipment has been in force since August 2004. More than four years later only about a third of electrical and electronic waste is reported to be treated in line with these laws and the other two thirds is going to landfilland potentially to sub-standard treatment sites in or outside the European Union. Apart from losing out on valuable secondary raw materials, this is especially worrisome since inadequately treated products pose major environmental and health risks. The illegal trade to non-EU countries also continues to be widespread. Moreover many electrical and electronic products not complying with the substance restrictions have been found in the EU." [emphasis added] [6]

The EU WEEE directive regarding Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment mandates retailers to take back old electrical equipment when a new similar item is bought. This is of course excellent, providing one really wants to buy a new similar product. You can't take back your old stereo and buy a coffee maker instead, or a CFL and buy a halogen or LED lamp. But it's of course better than nothing and some larger chains like IKEA have volunteered to take back CFLs without strings attached.

Deposit-refund scheme would probably be an even more effective way of raising recycling rates. [7] This needs to be done now! Nothing stops individual countries from implementing such schemes. In Sweden some politicians are already suggesting it. [8]

And even if more users can be persuaded to leave burned-out CFLs for recycling and everything possible is done to facilitate this, CFLs have to be handled with utmost care so they don't break. You can't just chuck them into a container like you can with glass, paper, plastic and metals. So, I decided to make some random calls to see how CFLs are handled at various stages of the recycling cycle. (I'll be updating this list as I make more calls, so check it again if you want to know.)

* IKEA is one of the companies that accept burned-out CFLs from customers without strings attached. I asked if this is done by collecting them safely in small boxes or if people just throw them in a recycling container where they can break. They said the latter may occur at some places. I informed them that mercury vapourises at +20C and can be inhaled by staff and customers alike. This information was new to them! Alarmed, they promised to look into this immediately and change recycling routines a s a p. In Sweden.

* IKEA Denmark seems to be well aware of the mercury risk and claim to recycle theirs carefully in small boxes where bulbs don't break.

* IKEA U.K. couldn't say how recycling was done but promised to forward the information about the necessity of not breaking them to other stores.

* A Home Depot store in Seattle, U.S.A, seemed at least to know about the risk of mercury vaporising at room temperature and assured me returned CFLs were being handled properly, but couldn't say exactly how.

* A randomly picked U.S. Wal-Mart store had no clue what I was talking about and referred to the fluffy sustainability page on their website.

* Ragn-Sells, one of the major recycling facilities in Sweden they said they handle CFLs with care so they don't break before getting recycled. That's reassuring, at least. Well, unless accidents happen in the recycling process...

"Sweden Recycling in Hovmantorp have had problems with one of their machines that recycles lamps with mercury. Employees have inhaled mercury and must until further notice use protective masks. Two empolyees at Sweden Recycling have shown elevated levels of mercury in urine- and blood samples." [9]

1. Domestic Lighting, Part 1, Chapter 3
2. European Lamp Companies Federation
3. Miljoner lampor med kvicksilver försvinner
4. Hver anden sparepære går op i røg
6. Light-bulb ban craze exceeds disposal plans
6. Environment: Commission proposes revised laws on recycling and use of hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment
7. New Electric Politics: Environment
8. Moderat föreslår pant på lågenergilampor
9. Sweden Recycling åtgärdar kvicksilverläcka

3b. CFL Analysis - Health & Wellbeing

Before the EU decision to phase out the bulb, SCENIHR, the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks, made a review of available studies, evaluating possible health risks before the ban. Their Report on Light Sensitivity did find (varying degrees of) evidence of negative impact of CFL (or FL, as there are few studies on actual CFLs and health) on some patient groups [my emphases added in quotes]:

* Retinal diseases
"Blue light may be harmful to those with retinal diseases [Evidence level B]. There is also some evidence that prolonged exposure to blue light may reduce the colour sensitivity of the intact retina [Evidence level B]."

* Snow-Blindness & Cataract
"Fluorescent light does not cause snow-blindness [Evidence level B] or cataract [Evidence level C]. This holds true for CFL, provided that UVC and UVB radiations are adequately filtered out

* Migraine
"Migraine can be induced by flicker in general (up to about 50 Hz) and patients are light sensitive during and between attacks [Evidence level A]. Scientific support for aggravating symptoms by flicker from fluorescent tubes was not found [Evidence level D]. There is anecdotal evidence of problems with blue light [Evidence level D]."

* Photophobia
"Photophobia is eye discomfort in bright light, which occurs in many diseases including migraine. Photophobia is a symptom most often associated with pathological eye conditions such as cataracts, corneal damage, burns, infections, inflammation, injury, retinal detachment, etc. People with lighter-coloured eyes and albinism often suffer from photophobia. Any effect of flicker, blue light and fluorescent tubes has not been investigated, but cannot be ruled out [Evidence level C]."

* Irlen-Meares/Dyslexia
"It is has been shown that dyslexics and Irlen-Meares patients tend to have difficulties detecting flicker. Therefore, flicker from fluorescent tubes should not be a problem [Evidence level A]. There are self-reported indications that the condition is aggravated by mainly UV and blue light [Evidence level D]."

* Autism/Aspergers Syndrome
"There is no evidence showing negative effects of fluorescence light on autistic behavior, however, an influence cannot be excluded [Evidence level D]. People with Autism/Aspergers syndrome have reported problems which they attributed to fluorescent lighting."

* Electromagnetic Sensitivity
"It is unlikely that any EMF emitted from CFL or other fluorescent lamps would contribute to electromagnetic hypersensitivity [Evidence level A]. However, any possible health problems related to flicker and UV/blue light emission are minimized, if CFL are equipped with functional high-frequency electronic ballasts, double envelopes and adequate coating.

* Polymorphic Light Eruption
"It is possible that in the most severely affected, CFL could produce the eruption [Evidence level C]."

* Chronic Actinic Dermatitis
"Degree of photosensitivity suggests there may be a problem with CFL (Moseley 2008) [Evidence level C]."

* Actinic Prurigo
"Severe cases may potentially be at risk from CFL (Moseley 2008) [Evidence level C]."

* Solar Urticaria
"It is possible that some patients could be at risk from CFL. It should be noted that incandescent light sources also cause problems in some patients [Evidence level C]."

* Genophotodermatoses
"It is possible that unfiltered CFL could be associated with increased disease activity. Patients are currently advised to avoid unfiltered fluorescent lighting. There could be assumed to be a similar problem with other members of the group [Evidence level C]."

* Porphyrias
"CFL in extremely sensitive patients could possibly produce a slight increase in the problem compared to tungsten light sources, although there is published evidence against this (Chingwell et al, 2008, in press) [Evidence level C]."

* Lupus Erythematosus
"Through their UV component, chronic exposure to CFL could possibly be a problem. Systemic lupus is an important condition in that skin flares can be associated with internal disease activity [Evidence level C]."

* Drug/Chemically Induced Photosensitivity
"Photosensitivity might be expected to arise with CFL to a greater extent than that seen currently with incandescent light sources because of the greater amount of blue light. However, these patients are closely managed because of their known temporary phototoxicity, and so in practice this is not likely to constitute a significant problem [Evidence level C]."

Sadly, it seems that the lowered quality of life and increased limitations of these already suffering groups due to universal CFL enforcements have not been taken seriously enough by those deciding to phase out the bulb. [1, 2]

"The committee notes that the use of double-envelope energy saving bulbs or similar technology would largely or entirely mitigate both the risk of approaching workplace limits on UV emissions in extreme conditions and the risk of aggravating the symptoms of light-sensitive individuals."

Unless double-envelope CFLs become mandatory everywhere and naked CFLs get banned for health reasons, this only gives UV-sensitive patient groups relief in environments they can control themselves, and still doesn't solve anything for all those who react to CFLs due to other factors than UV.

* We also have the elderly who need more light quantity than a young person. At 60, a person needs about 7 times more light than a child or teenager in order to see as well, and more with increasing age. [3] All who need more light may not be comfortable with CFLs which give a dimmer and more diffused light and which may also emit UV unless in a double envelope. To ban 100W, 75W and then 60W incandescent bulbs may be especially detrimental to those who need more light.

* Good light quality is also as essential for people over 65 as enough quantity, as the lens tends to get somewhat dulled and clouded with age. This gives a lowered contrast perception and colour vision so that colours will look paler. The poor colour rendering of standard CFLs will exacerbate this problem, whereas bright incandescent or halogen light will mitigate it.

* The ageing lens will also scatter light, like sunlight through a scratched windshield, with increased sensitivity to glare as a result, [3] making the ban on frosted bulbs particularly detrimental for those who need bright incandescent light to see colours well, but in a non-glaring bulb.

* For reading, the frosted bulb is also the best option as it lights the book smoothly, whereas clear bulbs and halogen spotlights with clear glass create distracting concentric light patterns on the page.

* Scandinavians have a tradition of preferring warm light and have an extra big need for good quality lighting during the long dark season, according to lighting reserchers at Lund Institute of Technology. [5]

* Then we have all those who just dislike CFLs due to their inferior light quality and unpleasant feel. Especially women [3, 4] (a rather large group!) as well as many lighting designers, artists and others with sensitive colour perception. While these last groups may not get ill from FL/CFL light, sensitive people may still feel decidedly uncomfortable and or unhappy with a poorer quality light.

Isn't light an essential nutrient, just like water and food?
Top quality light (= natural daylight, firelight, incandescent and halogen light) could be compared with organic food or spring water, whereas FL, CFL, HID and LED light is like processed food or tap water. Some may not mind a lower quality, while others are very sensitive to it and willing to pay more for something that feels so much better.

1. Spectrum Alliance for Light Sensitivity
2. BBC: "Low-energy bulbs 'worsen rashes'"
3. Belysning inomhus: riktlinjer och rekommendationer, Ljuskultur, 1990
4. Washington Post: "Fluorescent Bulbs Are Known to Zap Domestic Tranquillity"
5. Torbjörn Laike, Lund Institute of Technology

3a. CFL Analysis - Light Quality

When it comes to light quality, there exists no replacement for the incandescent lamp, other than mains voltage halogen in retrofit bulbs - most of which are also being phased out!

What is so unique about incandescent light then? * Unlike other light sources, incandescent and halogen lamps are tungsten black-body radiators, a version of fire-light which humanity has evolved with since fire was discovered. Like sunlight, incandescent light has the highest possible colour rendering (CRI 100), due to naturally continuous spectrum, and a warm-white, human-friendly light which radiates and makes colours come alive.

Update 25 june: Lighting designer Ed Cansino in a recent, highly informative interview:

"...if I were forced to choose the best lighting for residential overall, it would have to be incandescent. I feel that we as humans have had a deep connection to flame for many thousands of years. It’s almost like it’s in our DNA. It’s interesting that as time moves on, people are still drawn to sitting around the camp fire, a fireplace, even a barbecue. Think of a Yule log. It’s just that this particular quality of light is ingrained in us. You can even get a screen saver of log flames. Incandescents with their glowing filaments are a form of flame and are thus an extension of this inborn affinity that we have for fire."

* When dimmed or used at lower wattages, the light colour gets proportionally warmer and more like candle light. Increase brightness and it gets whiter again. This is how a natural light source behaves.

* Icandescent light is the standard against which all other types of light is measured. This is why the lighting industry has put so much effort into trying to copy its light colour, colour rendering capacity and other qualities.

* CFLs are based on a completely different technology, and LEDs on yet another. Even if the industry can now mix phosphors to decently emulate incandescent light at a superficial level in some of the best brand models, FL/CFL or LED light is no more the same thing as incandescent light than a gold-coloured alloy can be called real gold, or synthetic microfiber real silk. Both have their respective uses, but in many cases a substitute just won't do. CFL light is a composite light, an artificial replica of the real thing that just doesn't feel the same and does not behave in the same way. When dimmed, for example, it just turns cooler and more grey and dull, not warmer.

See this interview with a pro-CFL professor explaining the quality problems with CFLs: Why Efficient Light Bulbs Fail to Thrive

Here are spectral distribution charts (from Osram) for different light sources, which illuminate the quality differences very clearly:
 Incandescent light with continuous spectrum and full colour rendering (CRI 100).


Example of standard FL/CFL with uneven spectrum & limited colour rendering (CRI 82-85).

White LED, a smoother curve but peaking in the blue end of the spectrum instead of the red.

Ron Rosenbaum describes the difference more poetically:

"I've tried the new CFLs, and they are a genuine improvement—they don't flicker perceptibly, or buzz, or make your skin look green. There is a difference, and I'd be in favor of replacing all current fluorescent bulbs with CFLs. But even CFLs glare and blare—they don't have that inimitable incandescent glow. So don't let them take lamplight away. Don't let them ban beauty.

"Don't get me wrong, this is not a plea for Ye Olde Times, for gaslight and quill pens. It's just a plea not to take for granted the way we illuminate our world. Not all change is improvement. Why do I put such a premium on incandescence? For one thing, I am a bit romantic about it. A lamp fitted with an incandescent bulb and dim translucent shades casts a lovely, painterly glow on human faces, while the light of fluorescents recalls a meat locker.

"Why do you think there is such artistry to so many lampshades? They are the lingerie of light.

"But the appeal of incandescence is not just a matter of romance. I suspect there are also answers to be found in the physics and linguistics of incandescence.

"I'd speculate that it has something to do with the different ways light is created by incandescents and fluorescents. Incandescent light is created by heat, by the way an electric current turns a thin metal filament (usually tungsten) red then white hot in a transparent or translucent globe filled with an inert gas that prevents the filament from burning up, allowing it to give off a steady glow. (That explains the warmth: The fact that incandescence emanates from heat creates warmth, distinguishes it from the cold creepiness of fluorescence.)

"Fluorescent light bulbs, on the other hand, are coated inside with chemical material that lights up as energy reaches the tubes. (It's a bit more complicated than this, but that's the general idea.) Fluorescents sometimes appear to flicker because alternating current brings that energy to the bulbs in pulses, rather than steadily. In incandescents, the hot filament stays hot—and therefore bright—despite alternations in current; it can't cool fast enough to dim or flicker.

"The new CFLs pulse faster than their ancestors, so the flickering is less perceptible, but at some level, it's still there. CFL manufacturers may be right that the new bulbs are an improvement, but there is still something discontinuous, digital, something chillingly one-and-zero about fluorescence, while incandescent lights offer the reassurance of continuity rather than an alternation of being and nothingness."

Who wants to have a romantic dinner in the dull gloomy light of a CFL? Why do lighting designers of usually choose halogen, incandescent, high-pressure sodium or metal halide for shops, hotels, restaurants etc. when they want to create an attractive environment, and so rarely CFLs?

Most likely because they are well aware of the fact that even the best incandescent-mimicking warm-white CFLs give a dull, non-radiating light which makes colours look pale and dead due to lower colour rendering (CRI 82-85), spiky spectral distribution (lacking parts of the spectrum - check this out for yourself with the back of a CD and see the spectrum broken up into 3 blocks with all the wavelenghts inbetween more or less missing) and lack of radiance and glow.

And that's not mentioning all those odd coloured ones which still dominate the lower end and some of the high end of the CFL market (according to recent consumer tests).

Lighting designer Gad Giladi, D.E.S.A., M.F.A. FPLDA, explains what happens when wavelenghts are missing:

"Not only are the quantities of light of CFL 'equivalents' not equal to those of the planned replaced incandescents but also the quality of the light greatly differs. This is due to the fact that the spectrum of the incandescent is a continuous one, i.e. has energy in all wavelengths of the visible electromagnetic spectrum while the spectrum of the CFLs, like all discharge lamps is a discontinuous one, i.e., depending on the composition of the phosphor coating of the tubes will present a lack of or a deficiency in energy at certain wavelengths of the visible spectrum.

"This characteristic is not immediately visible to the human eye until the emitted light falls on a surface or an object: the energy in each different wavelength corresponds to a colour perceived by the human visual system. If that colour does not exist in the light, its corresponding pigment in materials cannot be perceived by the eye; if the energy in a specific wavelength is deficient, the corresponding pigment in materials will be perceived as dead, washed-out and distorted. (...)

"That means that where colour perception is important, i.e. everywhere the human being lives and spends time, the replacement of incandescents by CFLs is going to inevitably create dull looking spaces, distort colours of architectural finishes (stone, marble, timber, paint, stucco etc.), of furnishings – curtains, carpets, upholstery, furniture finishes, artwork etc.), warp the colour of skin (people are continuously going to look bad/sick in their mirrors as well as in the eyes of their partners).

"Incandescent lamps are close to theoretical 'point sources' which allow for the design of precise optical systems around them to direct the light in an accurate manner. This permits the creation of accent lighting, a means to create visual interest and drama in spaces. CFLs are diffuse light sources and no engineering will truly make a diffuse light source into a 'point-source'. Gone is accent lighting!"

Lighting designers against incandescent ban (for both light quality and environmental reasons):

IALD - International Association of Lighting Designers
IALD Statement

PLDA - Professional Lighting Designers' Association
PLDA Statement

Kevan Shaw Lighting Design
Summary of points against the CFL

Michael Gehring, Principal of KGM Architectural Lighting
Gehring statement

Jeff Miller, President-elect IALD, Director of Pivotal Lighting, statement

Scott Yu, Principal, Chief Creative Officer of Vode Lighting
Yu statement

Summary:
There are both visible and measurable differences in quality between incandescent light and the light from even best CFLs and LEDs on the market.

Banning a top quality product in favour of a totally different and quality-wise inferior product is like banning wine with the argument that "wine-lovers can just as well drink cider: practically the same thing" because both are mildly alcoholic beverages with a superficial similarity.

FL/CFL light may have its use where lamps are left on all day and quantity matters more than quality, e.g. at work, in public building corridors etc, but not necessarily in retail, hospitality and domestic environments where consumers expect a more attractive and/or relaxing light.

Light is like air, food and water - it's essential to our well-being, and quality matters!

Lighting is also one of the most powerful mood-enhancers, can markedly affect how environments are perceived, as well as both comfort, well-being and health.
For this reason, I'm sure many would be willing to pay a little extra for top quality light just to still have choice.