Response to another CFL doubter

D.C. Agarwal from CFL - Devil in Disguise, decided to post a load of information he believes in my letter to another CFL doubter.  D.C. has one or two valid points, but makes all the common mistakes as well.  I also have reason to question his sincerity.  This is the first time I've run across a doubter who seemed to have a motive other than just being egregiously misinformed.

Read on, first he says:

CFL low-energy light bulbs are up to twenty times more expensive to produce than the standard tungsten-filament bulbs

To which I say, this is unimportant when the cost to produce is under $3.00 and differential cost to operate is $45.00.  Dollar stupid and penny smart?  Such a common mistake.

Also, he says:

You might also like to know that the manufacture process for CFLs uses up to ten times the energy used in the manufacture of traditional bulbs.

Which is the same mistake.  It's impossible that the manufacturing energy exceeds the energy saved because manufacturers aren't in the business of selling products for $3.00 which require $45.00 of energy inputs.  Energy is not free anywhere.

Next:

In addition, CFL’s need much more ventilation (top and bottom).

It's situational, but sometimes true.  Many newer bulbs need much less.  It's a reasonable point except that CFLs can be used in 95% or greater of the situations an incandescent can.  Also, incandescents have limitations as well associated with their waste heat, and so in many cases you may find you can use a CFL where an incandescent could not have been used.

Then:

Low-energy light bulbs do not give off a steady stream of light as they flicker fifty times a second, which can be expected to contribute to health and safety problems, with associated financial costs, down the line.

What he describes is an old lamp using a magnetic ballast.  Current bulbs, using an electronic ballast, such as Energy Star rated bulbs, do not.   I have personal experience with this as I've bought both Energy Star bulbs and non.  I did notice the flickering with the inferior bulb, but not with the Energy Star bulbs.  I understand where the misconception comes from, but that doesn't change that it's wrong.

Then:

A technical study of ERTL (East) Calcutta on CFL’s shows that these lamps discharges ultra violet rays which are harm full to eyes and causes skin cancer.

This is the only point I can't refute.  It's true a CFL can produce UV rays.  Incandescents do as well, but generally less.  Regardless most information I've seen states there is no risk associated with that level of UV radiation which is many many orders of magnitude less than what 30 minutes of sun exposure will cause.  And I also know that many studies suggest that while overdosing on UV is definitely harmful, the human body needs a limited amount daily as well.

Then:

But perhaps worst of all, is the fact that low-energy bulbs are currently made using toxic materials. Chief among them is mercury, a substance that, ironically, the EU banned from its landfill sites just last year. For the EU nations special recycling arrangements will have to be made to dispose of CFLs thus incurring a further cost. With between 3 and 5 milligrams of mercury in each CFL and with an estimated 150 million CFLs sold in the United States in 2006, that’s a whole lot of non-recycled bulbs that could end up in garbage dumps. Mercury can affect the nervous system, damage the kidney and liver and, in sufficient quantities, can kill. No wonder scientists and environmentalists are worried.

Net sum, CFLs produce less mercury than current alternatives.  In addition you have the option of reducing this further by recycling.  Incandescent bulbs contain lead too and ideally would be recycled too (I recycled mine when I replaced them with CFLs).  D.C., what do you do with you're incandescent bulbs?

Then:

All the CFL manufactures claims its long life more than 5 years or in technical terms 6000 hrs to 10000 hrs. Is it true in Indian conditions? The answer is not at all in Indian condition. CFL’s have built in electronic Blasts (PCB), which require a constant voltage supply of electric as other appliances require. In India there is regular voltage fluctuation in power supply. So the Life of CFL’s is very much less than the declared life by the manufacturers. Nobody will use voltage stabilizers for CFL’s. In India All the companies are selling the CFL’s on one year warranty. Now all the ELCOMA members have decided to withdraw this warranty. Why? The data of all companies shows that replacement of CFL from the markets is more than 20-40% in one year of warranty periods. It means that mostly CFL failed to complete the 1500 hrs life instead of declared life of 6000hrs.The study of these failure CFL’s shows that 80% lamps failed due to failure of electronic blast due to irregular voltage power supply, use of inverters & generators.

I would suggest a better course of action here would be requiring all CFLs sold in India to be dimmable, rather than avoiding them entirely.  The cost will be about 2 times more, but still an order of magnitude less than the savings.   It's a good point for certain markets, but in markets with reliable power systems it's mute.

Then:

In Europe the ban on incandescent lamps, due to come into effect in under two years, does not give much time to EU member states to plan for the changes, a decision taken centrally without consultation with member nations. Thus the EU has chosen to pursue the same dictatorial path chosen by Cuba’s Fidel Castro (in an attempt to ease the strain on the island’s hard-pressed electricity grid) two years ago.

In Europe most bulbs sold are already CFLs.  They've been in use for years, even when they flickered, had slow warmup, and had odd coloring.  The savings was worth those inconveniences to millions of consumers.  With those issues solved there is not much point in the incandescent left.

Then:

The potentially hazardous CFL is being pushed by companies like Wal-Mart–a distributor of GE, Royal Philips, Osram Sylvania and Lights of America which wants to sell 100 million CFL’s at 5 times the cost of incandescent bulbs during 2007 and surprisingly, became an environmentalists?

It's surprising you should question others motives.  I know it's the rage to suggest any company making money is doing evil, but that just isn't true.  But as long as we are questioning motives, how about your's?  A little research shows that you're a scientist who's primary field of study is incandescent lamps!  Yes, I've found your papers (also (2)).  I've been wondering why anyone would have a motive to criticize CFLs other than plain being misinformed.  Now I've finally found one.

Then:

Greenpeace also recommends CFL’s, while simultaneously bemoaning contamination caused by a mercury thermometer factory in India. But where are mercury-containing CFL’s made? Not in the U.S. or EU, under strict environmental regulation but in India and China, where environmental standards are virtually nonexistent.

Mercury thermometers contain 100 to 500 times more mercury per item than CFLs.  They also do not help prevent mercury emissions through power consumption.  D.C. Are you defending that factory?  That's the height of hypocrisy if so.  Greenpeace is just making a tactical tradeoff.  I'm sure they would support the ban of CFLs if LEDs were marketable replacements, as when that day comes, so will I.  But hoping for LEDs does not change the comparison of CFLs and incandescents.

Then:

We can understand easily that in a housing unit we use at the most one piece of thermometer. Can you imagine? What will be happen when we use at least 4-5 pieces or more mercury based CFL’s in a house?

If you use 5 CFLs in a house with a mercury thermometer you'll raise you're houses mercury content by 1%-5% depending on the type of bulbs you use.  FIX THE THERMOMETER  BEFORE YOU WORRY ABOUT CFLS!!!