Halogen GLS bulbs, a backward step?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Leon Young on April 13, 2010 at 12:39pm

Consumers need education generally about lighting alternatives. It amazes me how many people think halogen downlighting is energy efficient...simply because they confuse low voltage with low power consumption. There are of course LED alternatives which get under the 10W mark, but these often require different transformers. The example you link to are still consuming 42W. Put 6 of those in your kitchen and that's still a whopping 252W to light a small room. I agree Kim, tha'ts hardly what you could call energy efficient.

In the commercial property world, energy efficiency mandates will result in better lighting choices in the future. But what about in homes? Particularly in the existing home building stock? I believe the government needs tighter legislation on what is sold and how it is promoted, and also has a responsibility to educate home owners so that they can make informed decisions.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul Wiszniak on June 15, 2010 at 4:17pm

Consumers have an improved choice now with a range of efficiencies and application specific globes they can choose from, and with considerably more information now than ever before. I'd agree that shopping for globes at a supermarket isnt the ideal place to expect much information (maybe it should Big-W & Coles !), but I find most hardware stores and lighting shops are happy to provide one-on-one help.
As for halogen replacements for the plain old globe. They only shave off 30% load/heat compared to the 80% gained with a CFL but they do turn on to full brightness almost instantly, they're dimmable 0% to 100%, their lifetime is 3 to 4 times better than an old incandescent, and have a familiar warm colour.
For some situations the Halogen is the least worst option and whilst it may only be a little bit green, the CFL is not automatically the 'greenest' option. With CFL's legacy of mercury and 150 grams of plastics and electronics, it is only as good as the downcycling, recycling or cradle-to-cradle approach we take with its waste that makes a lot of difference.
I'm really disappointed with the lack of CFL-waste receiving places. Currently the best we have is to remember to take the dead CFL along with us on a drive, 16km there and back, next time we go to the local IKEA store. Even our local council doesnt have any arrangement to drop off CFL's. Does yours?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul Wiszniak on June 16, 2010 at 1:24pm

It's getting more rare these days but some early/cheap CFL globes caused Electro Magnetic Interference into radio's or TV channels. Some new LED lamps have also been causing EMI issues.
If you have interference problems with globes then changing over to the halogen types will help eliminate it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kim Ryan on June 16, 2010 at 7:46pm

Hi Paul,

I read this often, the mercury danger and extra waste from CFLs. But most of it no longer applies. According to this http://7myths.planetark.org/index.html, you can dim some CFLs, warm colour light is an option, and mercury output is less than emissions from generating extra power needed for an equivalent incandescent bulb. And with a CFL replacing 6 to 8 incandescents,(slightly less halogens) I doubt if they produce more land fill.

Agree collection is a problem. In Sydney, a few councils are starting to take CFLs.

Just seems a shame that people are taking this half way step to halogen GLS bulbs. The next step in the phase out will be halogen bulbs, so why not start swapping to CFLs and LEDs now. Another great option is magentic induction lamps http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_lighting#Magnetic_Induction_... . All the benefits of flouros but a life of 50,000 hours plus. They are also 'instant on' with very short warm up time.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul Wiszniak on June 17, 2010 at 1:40am

Thanks for the points Kim, but, green energy doesnt have those byproducts of coal/gas power, and halogen bulbs are 99.9% harmless and recyclable using existing channels.
Unfortunately we have to wait a little longer before LED's and other lighting technology really hits its stride, but achieving the greenest lighting selection that is appropriate for the application is getting easier every few months.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jonathan Point on August 14, 2010 at 12:11am

There are a lot of issues at hand here;
- CFLs use a lot more energy to manufacture vs. an old design bulb.
- CFLs leave nasty things for us to dispose of, like mercury, which older bulbs didn't.
- They aren't as efficient as the advertising would have you believe, when power factor and harmonic current distortion are taken into account.

"And with a CFL replacing 6 to 8 incandescents,(slightly less halogens) I doubt if they produce more land fill" What? A CFL has 4-6 times the volume of an incandescent (when crushed) and half of the life when used in a standard fitting! What planet are you on?

LEDs are getting there, but there's no escaping the fact that the halogens produce a better spectrum of light for reading etc. The problem being that humans evolved using sunlight or firelight to see with. Halogens can come close to sunlight, but the spectrum emmitted by CFLs and LEDs looks like a comb and makes reading hard. So, the reason why people use halogens is because CFLs don't look as good as they sound =]

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kim Ryan on August 14, 2010 at 2:28pm

OK, I can see your point about CFLs taking more volume when crushed then incandescents, but they still last 8 times longer, I don't undrestand you are 'saying about half the life in a standard fitting'. It takes me several years to replace a CFL.

I also feel your other points are backwards looking. Isn't this site about changing to more environmentally friendly alternatives?? There are machines to capture the mercury from CFLs when they are crushed, and the amount of mercury in them is much less on newer models. CFLs come in a wide variety of colour temperatures. So the CFL draw backs are gradually being removed or reduced.

Incandescent phase out has already began and halogens will be next to go, so CFLs ane LEDs is where the market is heading. Halogens are also a frequent source of roof fires, and at 2% effeciency are embarrassingly wasteful, hence the phase out by the Australian governement.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kim Ryan on December 23, 2010 at 8:34am

When I moved into my house 10 months ago, I replaced all the halogen down lights with 11W CFLs in a GU10 fitting. Was happy with the results, but the CFLs has a long warm up time. Recently bought 5W LED lights with a GU10 fitting. These are brighter than the CFLs, have no warm up time and a 50,000 hour life. The cool white light works well in the kitchen. They cost $50 each, but will work out cheaper than CFLs in the long run. So I feel I have the perferct lighting solution now.

 

There are lots of good options for replacing energy guzzling halogens.

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion