8 Apr
2011
8 Apr
'11
9:49 a.m.
--- On Fri, 4/8/11, Chuck Guzis <cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
Most CFLs are garbage and hugely wasteful. I used to
scavenge the
components from the bases, but gave up after I accumulated
a pile of
the things (funny, they were supposed to last longer than
that). Why
on earth aren't they made with replaceable fluorescent
tubes like the
old days?
I've had to replace a lot of them too. Due to the fact that I usually forget to turn
the lights off in the basement (shop area has normal flourescents, but the basement main
lights are standard edison base), I installed CFL's, thinking it would save a little
electricity. They haven't lasted very long - and as they've died I've put the
incandescents back in. What's troubling to me about CFL's is that a couple of the
failed ones have been burnt and blackened around the base. One was melted badly. While I
know the risk of fire is low, it's still troubiling to see the electronics fail so
catastrophically. And these were GE branded bulbs (not like GE actually makes, the things,
but still).
So, those CFL's have all died in about two and a half years. I think there is still
one left. The standard flourescent fixtures I installed eight years ago are still working
perfectly, on their original bulbs.
Basically, the only way they're going to achieve their goal of getting everybody to
use CFL's is to ban the alternatives. CFL's just don't work properly - and if
they don't ban incandescents, nobody would use them.
As for proper disposal - I never even thought about it. I've been chucking them in the
trash - like I'm sure everyone else does.
So, in summary - using resources to make hazardous material containing devices that
don't last long in their intended purpose, necessitating replacement, plus the fact
that maybe 1% of those failed devices gets disposed of properly... Yup! Sounds
environmentally friendly to me!
-Ian