Utilities suffer from CFLs’ poor power factor

teasdale genomics doctor packing flickr notgrudge dangerous conveys codn milton collating

Power factor is an almost usless measurement for non linear loads. If I put a capacitor on an AC mains socket, I use (theoretically) no real power, only apparent power. The only generation costs that apply are the I2R losses between the generator and the load. Any small DC appliance (clock radio, ampplifier, CFL) that uses a bridge rectifier creates a peak load at the top of the sine wave. This is bad, in that passive power factor compensation by the utility does nothing for this type of load, and as others have mentioned, the higher odd harmonics are dissipated as heat primarily in the distribution transformers. It is just that these loads have normally been a small fraction of the total load. Any 'large' appliance (such as a PC) must have a PFC front end. The PFC front end chops the AC at high frequency and low pass filters it to emulate a resistive load. Once CFL's become a significant enough load source, PFC front ends will be mandated.

PFC is easy. You simply feed the rectified voltage to the PWM chip without using a large filter capacitor. The PWM chip adjusts it's duty cycle to the voltage in such a way as to to pull current in phase with the voltage. It has been considered unnecessary for low power applications in the past, so the ICs for low power have never been designed. Now we realize that with multiple CFLs, the total power is significant and warrants power factor correction. The required ICs will be to market soon and should not cost an appreciable amount more. Just give it time.

I left out one more thing. I'm still using incandescent reflector (flood) lamps in the bathroom fixtures. I tried the CFL versions, but they take waaaay too long to get to full brightness. Nice in the morning, but not at other times. I've read that as of 2009 the U.S. government wants to ban *them* by 2012 now (as well as the 1.5 inch fluorescent tubes in favor of the smaller diameter ones), so I've stockpiled incandescent floods as well. You can buy Feit brand flood lamps in bulk at home improvement places. The local Big Lots store has a 12 pack for just $15.

Railroad, you may be a power EE, but you overlooked the obvious. The reason your incadescents fail is because of the vibration in the garage door opener. If you use incadescents designed for trouble lights (higher vibration resistance) you'll find they will last far longer, and probably longer than the CFL's. My experience with CFL's is disturbing at best -- I have had all but one fail due to high thermal dissapation. One failed structurally as I removed if from the socket (ah, but the glass did not break...) It seems that the el cheapo CFL's that So, Cal. Edison sent me (and I mean el cheapo because there was not a word of English on the boxes) were hack designs and the overheating lead to burned (nice golden brown) plastic enclosures. Oh, and although the instructions were in Spanish, I still can remember enough of it from high school to read them -- the bulbs were used in appropriate enclosures where heat should not have built up. Oh, and whoever said that CFL's will NOT impact the low power incandescent bulb availability forgot simple engineering economics. If the infrastructure to make most incandescents goes away, only specialized lines will manufacture the incandescent bulbs. Gee, If I was making incandescent, I'd need to turn a profit and with a much reduced manufacturing capability supporting the specialized lines, I'd have to raise prices. Hey, that's just like the military parts industry that is something less than 1% of the overall electronics market -- I guess we can count on $700 light bulbs in the future! We are selling our souls for the supposed benefits of lower CO2, and subjecting ourselves to far more mercury than ever before. Personally, I'll take the CO2 plant food over mercury -- I really don't want to end up like the Mad Hatter.

After having read all posts front til back, I conclude, that there are many sides to this coin. This makes the decision (pro-contra CFLs) much more difficult. Unfortunately the issue is either convoluted by people who do not have any real knowledge in the subject or skewed by people with an ideological bias. On the positive side, at least everybody on this blog has an opinion, while the majority of the population does not care one way or the other. On one side of the spectrum are people who do not want to be told (especially by a black liberal), on the other hand there are those who cannot find any good in this country. Like always in such a situation, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I am an EE myself but 3.3V is the max in my world, so I do not want to add to the confusion, but allow me to conclude: CFLs are more efficient than incandescent, but when commonly used, their poor PF causes all sorts of problems in the grid as well as generator. These problem may not be significant or can be reduced by numerous modifications to the CFLs or the grid. The addition of PF compensation circuitry at the bulb will certainly increase the cost, but may also allow the bulb to be dimmable. It is not clear, that this circuitry will reduce the overall (generator and user) power consumption or even increase it. While the mercury content in a CFL is relatively small is large enough to warrant recycling. The problem (or advantage) of a market economy is, that you must follow the money to stay in business. However once in a while we must make a conscious decision to take the ?high road? for the greater good. We still can have it both ways (lower energy consumption and no mercury pollution), but it will cost money. This will only happen if it becomes a law. Unfortunately any mandate by our government is fiercely opposed by some on the right, solely on ideological grounds. Let me remind you, about the debate about the catalytic converter many years back. It was the US not Europe who led the world. I still remember the whining about costs and lower efficiency. Now we are mighty glad that we do have the catalytic converter..

From the OSRAM DULUX EL Technical Guide: 3.5.10 Phase shift Power factor PF correction The phase shift factor cos φindicates the phase shift between mains current and mains voltage and relates exclusively to the fundamental harmonic (50Hz). The phase shift of harmonics that occur because of non-sinusoidal current draw is not considered here. OSRAM DULUX®EL lamps have a phase shift factor cos φ of ≈0,95 (capacitive). The power factor (λ) is defined as: λ= active power N/(rms current lrmsx rms voltage Urms). For OSRAM DULUX®EL LONGLIFE and ECONOMY it is approximately 0.6. This value results from the distorted non-sinusoidal draw (mains current harmonic content) of OSRAM DULUX®EL LONGLIFE and ECONOMY and to a lesser extent from a current/voltage phase shift of the 50Hz component. For this reason, correction of the power factor by capacitors, which is usual with fluorescent lamps in CCG mode, is not possible. The actual energy consumption of OSRAM DULUX®EL LONGLIFE and ECONOMY lamps is only 20% of that of an incandescent lamp of similar light output. It is independent of the power factor and is determine only by the active power, which can be measured by a standard ammeter. The savings of 80%have a direct impact on fuel consumption (coal, oil, gas) and on emissions from power stations. Because of the lower power factor of around 0.6, the power consumption of OSRAM DULUX®EL LONGLIFE and ECONOMY lamps is not reduced to 20% but to around 33%. This causes an appropriate reduction in current draw and not an increase in the losses between the generator and load, and therefore additional energy savings.

I think I'm gona learn glass blowing, buy a vacuum pump and start making my own incandesant bulbs, This is America and I for one am tired of rich greedy people ruining this country and the world just so they can bleed people dry for a few more years. I have already writen to my congressmen about my thoughts on CFL's and the lack of any common sence in the matter of energy use and polution control both realy need the same thing that is to get off burning fossil fuels period, not in thirty, forty, fifty or perhaps never, but NOW! If the rich people in charge of the oil, coal, natural gas etc. companys have thier way, this planet which is slowly dying with people starving to death everyday, Skys above our citys gray with smog, thousands of species disapearing every single day, but they would rather turn farmland into fuel, kill more and more people completely destroy this planet, just so they can make billions more. I say the time is now to make a change, hell the energy barons will still make billions, as they have bought up all the patents on any technology that would cut fossil fuel use, so no one suffers by making the right change and hell it would be a boon to our economy with thousands of jobs and uncounted billions to the robber barons already swolen coffers, so I say talk to your congressmen tell them you want real change and a real future not stupid backward steps.

Power utilities have always charged Large power consumers by the V*A and not watts. If the consumer loads continue to increase the V*A and not watts we can expect the same. With Electronic meters, the software can be modified to do this. Its only some typing away.

Have been using CFLs and predecessors for 20 years now and happy pay a much smaller bill than when using incandescents. Even if the PF would be billed, the savings are huge, that is why I started using them. Solar PV systems (by definition DC) preferably power loads with that DC directly, that is why there are DC CFLs. My house was net producer: 2100kWh per year generated by the PV, 1800kWh per year consumed. LED lamps are showing that they will be the next big thing, so CFLs will automatically disappear just like the incandescents (except in specialty applications) as LEDs are more efficient and lack the mercury, as well as being extremely rugged.

It is scarcely surprising that politicians don't know much about power factor. It is abundantly clear that many of the people posting here have very limited knowledge of power factor, other than in the simplistic terms of phase angles. That is pretty appalling, considering this site is associated with a supposedly professional electronics engineering publication. ?They sit in the bar, And they sing and they shout, And they talk about things They know snuff-all about.? Considering that CFLs are things designed to be shoved in existing holes as retrofits, they are pretty amazing, in spite of shortcomings.

in a CFL lamp achiving high powerfactor is not a problem achiving powerfctor of 0.96 in vally fill circuit is easy but , the powerlosses in the ballast go upto 20% which is a subject of concern how to reduce it?

can any one suggest the ballast powerloss of 20% for a 20w CFL high power factor cfl lamp with PF=0.92

What a lot of posts! Anyway pfc certainly adds cost/bulk and as CFL's continue to shrink in size, heat in the electronics is an issue. Cheapest method I know of is the well tried and trusted Valley Fill topology, but this means EMC filting is more difficult and transformer design is more demanding. But correctly done I've acheived 0.92 power factor. Utility companies shouldn't complain too much though. On 230V mains: Typical 20W CFL (pf=0.5 eff=87%) current = 200mA rms Compared with 100W tungsten @ 434mA Less rms current = less I²R losses (ignoring harmonics which should be taken care of to some extent by supply inductance). In the above case it's 4.7 times less series losses! So overall there is much less strain on the supply system..although it could be better of course with pf=0.92.

IAM LIVING IN MUMBAI I come to know that many of the MALLs in Mumbai, India are suffering from this low pf of .57. since the current is nearly doubled, heating of wires and possiblity of short circuits and fire have increased. few of the malls have put special PF correcting equipment - a capcitor bank.

Sorry about not including ALL of this post in the last. I've been monitoring the energy use in my home for 10 years with a dedicated multi channel logger that measures temperatures, volts, amps, PF, kVA, KW. I've been aware of the lousy power factor for a number of years. I'm an energy engineer that's currently retired. I was saving this for part of my dissertation but will likely not finish it so I decided to put this info out on the web. As proof that something could be done with existing CFL's, I soldered a 5uf capacitor in parallel to two Lights of America circline self ballasted table lamps in my home (each uses a 22w circular lamp FC8T9 that is replaceable). I was able to increase the power factor from 0.556 to 0.978 with of course with a corresponding reduction in amperage. I found this to work only on CFL's with magnetic (heavy w transformers inside) ballasts and adding the capacitor to electronic ballast CFL's actually reduced the power factor. These two modifications have been working with no problem for about a year. The capacitors I use are only about 1" square and 1/4" thick in 5uf size. I?m sure the manufacturers could do much better size wise. GE biax CFL?s with magnetic ballasts and changeable lamps also can have their PF improved by adding a capacitor based on my testing. I?m sure there are other types of CFL?s that this would work on but none of my electronic CFL?s benefited, so I have only a couple of 15W CFL?s that are electronic. I did the same thing to a fixed light fixture having two lamps, a 22w and a 32w and an advance magnetic ballast. This was the only occasion where the actual wattage was reduced. I added a 12.5uf capacitor permanently in parallel inside the fixture. Before the retrofit the fixture drew 60 watts at a pf of .58 .After the capacitor was added, the wattage reduced to 53w at a PF of .963 . The amperage changed from 0.855 to 0.464. I installed a toggle switch where I could quickly go back and forth from having the capacitors connected or not for verification purposes. I did the same type correction on my refrigerator, dishwasher, and washer for a large reduction in current, big improvement in PF, but not wattage. One last note: If you add the capacitance to any electrical load, the capacitance needs to be wired directly so it automatically is removed from being present when the lamp or other load is turned off. If not the capacitors will be present on your entire power distribution system and reduce power factor and cause an increase in amperage. I verified this by having the proper size of capacitors needed for the dishwasher (70uf) and seeing the effect on the PF and amperage of the entire house. Shouldn't be done unless you can measure wattage and power factor. Manufacturers should definitely go to high power factor ballasts for obvious reasons. Right now I'm looking for a 15w CFL with high power factor, preferably made anywhere but in China. Does anyone have a suggestion? I need something compact so I won't be adding a capacitor.

Not only that, but CFs which have long since bleached the notes on their fixtures, exhorting future users to keep the coin-and-FIMO(clay) air gap around bulbs, fail after people take the coins (and airflow) away! What a world; I thought the baseboards would cedar-oil themselves by now. On the other hand, most everything seems to be self-lighting [shakes Kindle], so why bother until you get your hands on real winners. Gurdatta; happy DC railing.

So the capacitors installed by Utility companies to correct the PF induced by inductive loads produced by all those power transformers of yester-years have to be disconnected? Back then, when you turned a TV or radio off, it was really "OFF". Funny, no one is raising issues about "Standby Mode power consumption" in todays electronic devices.

Great stuff! Keep it up

High power factor CFLs are available in the U.S. right now. I work for a New Zealand company called Energy Mad, which has been making high power factor (HPF) CFLs for over 5 years. We sell them under the Ecospiral brand in North America through an online retailer: www.altestore.com/store Just search for 'Ecospiral'. I have yet to see a higher quality CFL on the market - we're Energy Star rated to 15,000 hours, independently rated at 0.96 PF and have less than 1.4 mg of mercury per bulb, plus high lumen output/watt and excellent light quality. You can learn more about us here: www.ecospiral.com We're currently working on a dimmable product that works.

We are the technology licensing agency for Queen's University. We have developed and tested a CFL ballast that is dimmable, has very high power factor (nearly ideal), 80% efficiency, and is dimmable. Best of all, it is cheaper than the standard transformer based ballast used in most non-dimmable bulbs. We are working to license this to the industry. I think it is much better than PureSpectrum's product. see www.parteqinnovations.com

The comment about distributing DC in the house doesn't apply to southern homes. Despite plenty of electronics, the majority of my annual electric energy consumption is air conditioning, followed by refrigeration and CFL/fluorescent lighting, all demanding AC power. If I had an electric oven and stove, that would make the balance even more to AC. The trend among electronics is more efficiency and lower standby power, so I don't see this changing anytime soon.

What I have found most interesting about this discussion is that so many have forgotten the point. It doesn?t matter if lighting is a big or small percentage of the problem, all that matters is that ?we? fix the problem. The use of bulk Active Power Filters will only mask the problem, and encourage poor design, the best solution is to correct the problem at the source. In a recent major construction project I specified an energy efficient design. The major plant was easy; in fact the payback on the energy efficient new plant was only a few years e.g. 4 x 2.5MW chillers with unity PF, THDI <7% (max COP of 14). The same applies for the lighting; if we tell the manufactures to provide a unity PF and low THDI solution then they all come back and say, yes sir. If we as consumers demand energy efficient products, manufacture will supply them and the cost increase is not prohibitive. I think that consumers must lead the regulators if they are too slow to react.

Dear Sir . Let me congratulate you for your hot topic and please allow me to add few tips to what you has mention about CFL power factor issue . CFL uses high frequency to operate > 20000 Hz , when power factor is < 80% the harmonics are > 100% , the correction of Power factor is quite impossible , we may have to riconsider the circuit consumption calcolation including the harmonic effect and the VA consumed ( power meter will show the Watt consumption while generation need to supply this CFL with needed VA in addition to contribution for losses due to the High level or harmonics ) . I puplished this concept during world congress engineering meeting in Egypt on Dec 9th 2004 . In my country Egypt we changed the CFL requirments to be of HIGH POWER FACTOR > 92 % also we limited harmonics to < 25% .. This changes made a huge savings for EGYPT , let me say that each 10 Million CFL according to this performance will save the cost of a midium power generation that costs 500 Million US$ in addition to fuel costs etc.. I'm quite confident that High Power factor or let me call green lighting CFL that respect the environmental issues will replace present CFL of low power factor ..

I would rather use 10W with PF of 0.5 than 100W and a PF of 1.0.

It´s obvious that you can´t add a PFC to a $2.- CFL, but if you transfer the PFC and driver electronics to the fixture that drives several CFLs or LEDs, the picture changes. Over here in Europe, utilities promote the use of intelligent metering devices even for household current. And btw: what is the the power factor of the 100+ million CFL fixtures in use worldwide. My employer 3000 employees pays lots of euros for "blind" current. VERY interesting discusion. Frank

Distribution loss vs usage loss. CFL is typically 3x more efficient in producing light compread to tungsten. Let's say tungsten PF is 1, and CFL is 0.5, do the maths. You should see that CFL wins. Also, power is distributed in very high voltage(low current) until it gets somewhat near your housing area. The ratio of delivered power vs power lost in distribution is >> 1. You don't lose 1W to deliver 1W of power to household. Minimising end-point usage losses is the way to go. You all has been toy-ed by utility companies... and I don't work for any lighting companies.

The most significant problem for the described PF issue is the existence of current harmonics generated by those CFLs(non-linear loads). The utilities will see a nightmare in the future if they don't start getting prepared for the increase of current harmonics on their lines. PF correction with capacitor banks won't work for the harmonics and other passive filter techniques won't be able to work for the scenarios that are comming which are expected to behave with frequent changes in non-linear loads let say during a day. The best alternative are Active Power Filters (APFs) which cancell harmonics and adapt in time based on load changes. These are more expensive but do the perfect job. Utilities should start thinking on that alternative.

Comparing real watts in to lumens out, CFLs are 3-4X more efficient. When PF is taken into account, CFLs still consume less apparent power VA than incandescents with the same light output. If you want high PF in a CFL, buy a dimmable one. The amount of mercury in a CFL varies, but the lamps with the lowest amounts (like Philips) contain less Hg than the extra emissions from an average coal-fired power plant caused by running a comparably bright tungsten lamp. Anybody who says that LEDs still have lower efficiency then CFLs should try reading electrical engineering magazines like, say, EDN. Cree just announced 130+ lumen/watt LEDs. Surely Seoul Semi, Osram and Avago can't be too far behind. An 85% efficient PFC power supply for these devices is already very doable at reasonable cost.

Before applying the "Rubbish" label, you should have googled "CFL Life Orientation" and you would have seen studies describing the relationship. Obviously, more expensive/higher quality CFLs will be less affected, but its still true.

There is more mercury in one silver filling in your mouth than 100 CFL's, which are at least sealed. The mercury in your cheap fillings will cause more damage overall, and when you urinate what has come out of your body goes into the ocean and the fish. Power plants release less mercury than the crematoriums! Please don't breath on me, especially while having a cup of coffee! An ME's response to the EE's delimmas.

A side topic perhaps, but I am one of many people who ''suffer'' under CFL and similar lamps. Not headaches as such, but they are not good for my well being. The governments of the World appear to be discriminating against people like me who have difficulty in living under CFL lamps. It matters not to me whether they consume more or less power than advertised ... they are horrid horrid lamps!! And I will be using them as little as possible. I am completely in favour of energy reduction, but CFL''s are not the answer!

SDS-23 from U Lighting America is a dimmable >0.90 power factor 23 Watt. Have been using them for a year. Tested on Kill-a-Watt also. If it fails within 7 years, U Lighting will replace. If in California-no receipt needed. Available at Grocery Outlet, Save Mart & Rite-Aid FYI

Kevan: You are demonstrating a real problem but your interpretation is flawed. The generator regulator is unstable because of the CFL negative resistance. It?s a feedback problem, not a loading problem. Also, the current meter is probably a peak detector, which will read a lot higher than the RMS value. To you folks who are not familiar with the operation of switch mode power electronics: Please update your knowledge before posting comments or you will just look silly as so many have done. Another point: the way to make a high PF, dimmable CFLs is remove the DC storage caps, not add a PF circuit. Also, I use a CLF in my trouble-lite because 120V incandescents are so delicate. Automotive incandescents are more robust because they are low voltage making their filaments shorter and thicker. I have had a number of cheap CFLs fail in the cold, used as yard lights. It is always a filament failure. As you may know, classic florescent lamps do not work in the cold (~< 0C) without special custom electronic ballasts. In general, measuring the performance of current products does not mean those product represent the limitations of the technology. Many LED lamps, for example waste most of their power in voltage dropping resistors because it?s cheap.

I should have said that we were told the whole story in school, but we only remember the simplification with pure sine waves and not the rigorous math that came before the simplification. That is, unless we had to re-learn it on the job!

To JiM: Very well put! OK people; many of us were not told the whole story about PF in school, PF is not simply the phase angle between voltage and current sinewaves. It aslo involves waveform distortion (harmonic content in the current mostly). The old simplifications do not hold up anymore! Capacitors on the power line do not make the problem go away. They are for power line inductance anyway. Another poster brought up an interseting point about the net efficiency of a CFL with added PFC circuitry baing possibly as bad a power waster as the original CFL. I do not agree that this has to be the case.

How much mercury in a normal CFL bulb? What is the EPA recommendation for maximum mercury that will have negative affects on human body systems? How are CFA's normally disposed of...throwing them in the trash. How much CFL based mercury ends up in landfills?

1. "start up" current is not the issue. 2. yes they DO waste twice the distribution power compared to a PF=1. 3. most "modern efficient appliances" are heaters and the power draw has not changed. The new stuff DOES have a considerably shorter service life however. This whole bag of reader comments reminds me, sadly, how few supposed engineers know what they are talking about and how willing they are to pontificate in public on issues they are not versed in. Ms. Connor got it right but everyone wants to be a critic to show how little they understand. Kids, these days

Not sure what to say about all this. actually surprized to hear this (actually read it). with CFLs I have knocked my sailboat power usage from 900W to light the interior and running lights YES running lights first tried the 12 volt led approach. stuck one of those AWSOME 4w candelabra guys in the port lights and mast light, PERFECT. and you can see me 4 miles away!. STATS: I use a measured actual 50 watts including my 8 watt pc. measured by current x voltage. and watt meters really is 50 watts. APC 120 watt inverter ran for 6 days on my battery before giving up the ghost. WHAT IS UP WITH THE PF?

When you say "CFLs are still an efficient form of household lighting,...", do you mean "compared to oil lamps or candles"?

I like the ability to choose a color temperature that fluorescent lamps provide but have many applications where they "don't fit". Can anyone point to a CFL that does three simple things; 1 operate inverted in a closed can light, 2 Turns on instantly (> 95% brightness in 1 Sec.) 3 Dims to 25% or less of full brightness.

PHILIPS HAS hpf cfl''S ALWAYS HAD THEM AVAILABLE, EXACTLY FOR LARGE INSTALLATIONS THAT HAVE HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OR MAYBE THOUSANDS. sO DOES ge AND oSRAM, WHAT''S THE BEEF? Philips invented the CFL hard to believe it''s been around over 20+ years, they gots smaller and cheaper, but they are already obsoleted by LED getting better and better, how could anyone still be using and incandescent lamp for general illumination in the 21st century, they are room heasters, not light Wake up, If you are still using 20 year old appliances at home, don''t worry about your few CFL lamps causing any issues, get some modern efficient appliances from GE of course. Amazing how non issues become an issue if someone wants it to be. Maybe GE, Philips, Osram have stirred the pot to get people warmed up for LED, like Freon became bad after the thing was used for 50 years, then new stuff with new patents was available, can''t function if ya don''t have new stuff to make and sell. New is ALWAYS better. T5 is also better than T8 mlamps, smaller more efficient etc.If you still use T12''s what planet are you from?

A typical CFL rectifies the input 120V line, sort of filters it and then powers an inverter running at 40 or 50 KHz from the rectified line voltage. If you look at the current consumed by the CFL, you will see that it is concentrated over a rather short portion of the AC cycle. This is not a classic inductive load power factor issue that can be corrected by series capacitors, but rather a peak current problem, which causes harmonics and other bad things in the power distribution network. I've provided some current and power waveform measured data at my web site. I can't post the link, but if you search for Clifton Laboratories CFL it should be at the top of the Google result. Jack

As with all quantum devices as the power factor increases so to emissions (electromagnetic). In particular [with this device]the 260 nm (mid to long shortwave)UV. This frequency in particular dimerises aminoacid Tyrosine. Thus making it impossible for hair folicule cells to form Keratin required to build hair. Almost any polycarbonate transparent / translucent will block but even today people are still burning their hair off.

Whups! Good call after all, as reactance from house copper does not fix power factors (typ. < 0.52 for CFLs and test rigs in the lighting aisle trouble; Tube Testers 2.0?) Regenerative amplifiers, anyone? Protective mobiles which do the charge storage deed to spackle up sinewaves? Then there are end of life power and waste management profiles.... nee: peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Compact_Fluorescent_Lighting_(CFL)_Downsides I had a CFL last 4.5 years in a small globe; until the heat-bleached note and penny spacer at the top were dislodged. Notes on aluminum foil next time?

With CFL bulbs, as most everything, you get what you pay for. I''ve seen very good lifetimes for nice full spectrum name brand bulbs and no-name bulbs bought from a good lighting store. costing $6 or so, I''ve consistently gotten lousy lifetimes from the $2 home center CFLs. As for the mercury, in my area there are several stores that recycle CFLs and fluorescent tubes for free.

One key comment regarding consumer costs of CFLs has gone largely unrepeated: these things do not last as long as claimed. In particular, if they are oriented with the base above the light source and/or are in a confined/enclosed installation, they have a shorter life than incandescent bulbs. I have some that are in cooler locations (garage/basement) that have lasted surprisingly long, but use them in overhead ceiling lights for example and they go quickly. And of course, if you have not kept all the paperwork and packaging you can't use the "7 years" guarantee to get your $ back.

Interesting comments...Can anyone tell me if a lower power factor of a cfl causes an increase in the amount of radiation released from one of these bulbs?(ie. some bulbs change channels on tv''s) Or is this a different story...

To JMS: Thanks for the info. I''m glad to hear I can still buy oven and refrigerator bulbs. I hope they eliminate the law and let the consumer choose the product for the application, but you know congress.

Here's an older article which has a much better PF device. www.paragonlighting.com/pdfs/Benefits%20of%20High%20Power%20Factor%20Ecospiral%20CFLs.pdf

RE the vibration issue with CFs: I have replaced the incandescent lights in my Sears garage door opener with CFs and they are lasting. I would get maybe a month from an incandescent before failure but the CFs have lasted over 4 months so far. As far as power factor is concerned the utility could do several things: 1. make the large appliances such as ACs and refrigerators have PF capacitors as standard equipment, 2. make electronic users such as TVs and computers have a minimum PF and 3. finally install additional switchable PF capacitors on the distribution lines. As far as the harmonics most likely the utiity distribution transformer in the back yard is crappy enough to filter out most of the noise. I am a power EE.

Finally someone is thinking about their power factor. It is pretty obvious when you multiply their voltage and current ratings and end up with a number much higher than their power rating. CFLs have never been that good of an idea. Too much hype, too little light, too short a life in most applications, too expensive, too much mercury, among fit and functional problems in some applications. Why bother?

So where does one get these PureSpectrum bulbs starting next month? I checked their web site and saw nothing about availability. All I saw was marketing hype and pretty language.

Utilities can easily correct adverse linear lagging power factor with capacitor bank PF correction, or in cases of very large lagging PF from motor loads (say a hot summer day where air conditioning is used), by connecting a gas turbine generator to the grid, turning off the turbine and over-exciting the generator field to turn it into a synchronous capacitor. What they cannot compensate for is the harmonic distortion caused by line rectification, high frequency oscillators and non-linear loads. CFL's fall in the latter category, and I suspect that the Kill-O-Watt meter frequency response is insufficient to show how really adverse the PF actually is.

It is not just the power factor. CFLs introduce harmonics which have worse effects than even power factor. Utilties shall face a real tough time in future managing that.

This story is based on hog wash! When one considers the VA base in the calculation - the power losses are neglible. A lighting circuit is fed from a 15A breaker and typically feeds 4 CFL''s or 90 W on a 1,800 W base.

To w17053: The ban on incandescents will not affect special-purpose bulbs like the low-wattage devices that go in your oven and your refrigerator. So rest easy: your 7-bone roast will not be contaminated with mercury by your oven light. Now if only you had the same assurances about your kitchen chandelier...

Don''t leave out the fact that CFLs and all other types of constant power loads introduce negative resistance to the grid. i.e. as voltage goes up current goes down. Not good for stability of the grid.

bad PF and the inability to use common dimmers and light controls. About half of the circuits in my home are either dimmed or controlled. That means I can't use common CFLs or LEDs, even if I leave them at full brightness. PF control can be added for pennies and dimmer ability for a couple of nickels. Come on guys! Give us a true replacement for the tungsten lamp! (First post truncated.)

It was not the startup that was in question, Tiamation. PF is an entirely diffent animal. This is one of the two things I dislike about current CFLs and HB LEDs

The way I understand it is that while ratepayers may not be charged directly for low power factor devices, utilities still charge "line loss" fees to compensate for these losses, so end users are still paying, just as a whole instead of by account. And, when smart meters roll out,end users will be billed by the kVAh instead of the kWh, as before. At this point, assuming the issue gains attention and understanding, end users will likely have a problem with being charged, say, 30 VA for their "15 W" bulb.

Very interesting article. In most of the cases things greatly advertized are like that.It''s like ATX power supplies in PCs that draw a constant current with computer turned off.That was a revenge of utilities companies for initial switching power supplies which drastically reduced current demand of computers.Story pretty much repeats.I have a few of CFLs with a real balasts on them.They have been long discontinued - we know why,LOL.Not only longer lasting but also MUCH higher power factor if you know what else to connect to a circuit.I have a nice supply of incandescent lights and no CFL can replace them as living area lights.Many store were and are discontinuing very high quality "sun spectrum" bulbs made by Phillips and few others.Try one of those.Super reading light.As for CFLs , I have them only in "utility areas".My Kill-O-Watt meter will be busy tonight.Have a great evening and thank you for an interesting article.

When you say the real load is twice the wattage, that is confusing. The real power is the wattage. Perhaps what you meant to say is that the apparent power is twice the wattage. That doesn''t mean that CFLs actually use twice the rated power

Power factor is not to blame for CF startup current at all! The draw is not quite so bad a design if you have a bunch of copper leading out to the lights, or a mix of loads. Nice reminder to just buy the tubes and do one''s own appropriate supply for major fixtures. Banks of lights, though...did you put on The Philadelphia Experiment as local theatre, and inevitably need to green up all those glowing thyrodes?