Texan~to_thelMax
New member
- Nov 29, 2009
- 4
- 0
- 1
energy and has MERCURY they LIED? Apparently we have been sold a pack of LIES. Not only are the new Compact Florescent Light-bulb (CFL) filled with MERCURY they also USE MORE ENERGY then the old incandescent light bulb. The 100 watt equivalent is 24 watts but here I find out it actually is using 105 watts. See recently I got a wattage meter that allows you to go around your house and measure how much wattage is being used by your electronics. When I hooked up to my 13 watt CFL and I got a 50 watt reading. I measured my 24 watt CFL and got 105 watt reading. I shook my head. I replaced a 100 watt bulb with a 24 watt equivalent to replace it and it is actually 105 watts - 5 watts MORE! I measured my old incandescent light bulb and 100 watts = 100 watts, 75 = 75 and 60 = 60 so it was a huge puzzle. I went online scrolled though all the hype and CFL pushers and finally found the answer. ****Florescent bulbs are DC powered**** Our homes have AC power outlets so there is a small AC/DC converter in the CFL. Now the issue is this the Florescent bulbs use 13 watts or 24 watts of DC power, but the energy loss converting to the DC from AC makes the actual wattage used much higher. In the case of my 24 watt CFL that purports to replace a standard 100 watt bulb actually is using 105 bulbs and costing 5 watts more!
The article I read the writer had written the Energy Star people about why don't they take in to account the efficiency of the AC/DC converter as well. While there are AC/DC converters that would be much more efficient and a 24 watt might use 30 watts they also cost much more. The push to get the CFL in every house has meant the need for cheaper bulbs and that comes through cheaper parts ie. a cheaper less efficient AC/DC converter. The CFL makers can say truthfully that there 13 watt CFL is 13 watt, BUT that is in DC power and once they convert that energy from AC it is much more wattage making them use more energy then the bulbs they replace!!! The Energy Star people are more interested in the hype of efficiency much more then the TRUTH.
I am going back to my MERCURY FREE more efficient incandescent light bulbs and I would encourage you too do so too.
But my question is this. WHY should we trust the Government and the Environmentalist who are pushing on us LIES? Some how a MERCURY filled bulb that waste more energy is better for us. Now that the Global Warming Lies have been exposed in the emails of the Climate Research Unit of the UK maybe we can get back to sanity in this world.
Should we not start to unmask the CFL lies and MERCURY dangers???
The article I read the writer had written the Energy Star people about why don't they take in to account the efficiency of the AC/DC converter as well. While there are AC/DC converters that would be much more efficient and a 24 watt might use 30 watts they also cost much more. The push to get the CFL in every house has meant the need for cheaper bulbs and that comes through cheaper parts ie. a cheaper less efficient AC/DC converter. The CFL makers can say truthfully that there 13 watt CFL is 13 watt, BUT that is in DC power and once they convert that energy from AC it is much more wattage making them use more energy then the bulbs they replace!!! The Energy Star people are more interested in the hype of efficiency much more then the TRUTH.
I am going back to my MERCURY FREE more efficient incandescent light bulbs and I would encourage you too do so too.
But my question is this. WHY should we trust the Government and the Environmentalist who are pushing on us LIES? Some how a MERCURY filled bulb that waste more energy is better for us. Now that the Global Warming Lies have been exposed in the emails of the Climate Research Unit of the UK maybe we can get back to sanity in this world.
Should we not start to unmask the CFL lies and MERCURY dangers???