Canada bans the incandescent lightbulb

[banquo's_bumble_puppy]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/living-green/lightbulbs.html

"Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn announced that Ottawa will phase out inefficient incandescent bulbs by 2012. The ban is expected to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more than six million tonnes a year and save homeowners abuot $60 annually in electricity costs."

[Ronald Brak]

The article makes an interesting point that in Canada you might actually want the heat the incandescent bulbs make. They also mention that utilization might go up due to increased efficiency, however this is probably not going to be a major problem. Personally my decisions on whether or not to turn on an incandescent bulb always depends on whether or not I want the light, not if I can afford the cost of the electricity.

[crosscountry]

not quite Two Seeked (http://bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=53664)

[cbacba]

The article makes an interesting point that in Canada you might actually want the heat the incandescent bulbs make. They also mention that utilization might go up due to increased efficiency, however this is probably not going to be a major problem. Personally my decisions on whether or not to turn on an incandescent bulb always depends on whether or not I want the light, not if I can afford the cost of the electricity.

An acquaintance from a while back will be in dreadful trouble. He does amateur astronomy in the frozen northlands. Aside from wearing about 200 W of strip heating inside his insulated coveralls, he has to run about 60 to 100 Watt light bulb inside his sealed cased desktop computer to keep temperatures high enough for the computer to run. Simply insulating the computer case and sealing the ventilation grills doesn't permit it to operate.

No telling how much other electronics north of the US border requires such considerations. Not to forget that in lieu of having a variac, attempting to deal with old electronics which haven't been turned on for years, a 60 W lightbulb in series with the AC power helps do a low voltage reforming of capacitors that is much better than just plugging the device in at full voltage.

I've already made the trade off for the most part to use compact florescents in most of my regularly used lights. Trade off is more cost up front and less cost in operation for something that appears somewhat more fragile, apparently contains mercury which can be dangerous to dispose of and to damage the bulb and the amount of light and the 'quality' of the light is less than that of the typical incandescent. For many less used lights, I keep incandescents installed.

The notion that government (anyone's government) wants to get involved in controlling people's lives to that extent is quite offensive.

[snarkophilus]

This really, really aggravates me. CFLs make my head hurt. They also take a few seconds to warm up, which means that the lights don't come on right when you hit the switch. I just hope LEDs are cheap by that time, or I'll have to stock up on several years' worth of incandescents.

[Gillianren]

The notion that government (anyone's government) wants to get involved in controlling people's lives to that extent is quite offensive.

Not to me, but I guess I have a different view of how much this is controlling anyone's life.

[Doodler]

I know what i'll do when I retire. Smuggle incandescent light bulbs into Canada.

[TrAI]

Seems to me that the production of fluorecent lamps i requires more resources, more handling of dangerous substances and more energy than making incandecents and one would need to use some other source of heat in colder places like Canada.

Its easy to say that one will save energy and so reduce pollution by using them, but proving it would seem to me to be more of a task, you would have to map the entire lifetime of energy use and pollution from the extraction of the raw materials, through production, use and through final disposal and possible recyceling to actually have the data to say if they are that much better...

[Van Rijn]

California has been considering a similar ban. I mostly use CFLs and I like them, but I'm still against it. There is the government control issue, but there are practical considerations as well. CFLs simply aren't appropriate for all situations. They make mediocre spot lights, aren't a good substitute for decorative bub uses, when you can find the expensive dimming CFLs they still don't do dimming as well or in the same way, and they don't do as well in some harsh environments (which again often requires specialty models). Some people don't care for the light of even the "warm" CFLs, and while I don't have a problem with it, it should be their choice. Also, they should be disposed more carefully than incandescents, due to the (admittedly small amout of) mercury in the bulb.

[Pinemarten]

I feel it is long overdue. I am an electrician and the less I have to get the apprentices to change them the better.
I wired a 32 unit apartment back in the early '90s. The owners had 'compacts' installed in all the hallways and exit lights. Their kickback money from the power company for doing so was $17,000!

A few points to consider:

-dimmers are out, they only work on incandescents

-most new compacts are 'full spectrum', not heavy in the orange or green/blue like incandescents and fluorescents respectively

-it takes about 2 hours worth of energy to turn on fluorescents, and pressurized gas lamps (mercury, sodium, halide- these are all 'mercury vapour' they just add stuff and change the name)- if you are going to use it again in 2 hours, leave it on

- halogens are incandescents

-the most efficient lamps are low pressure sodium, the 'orange' street light type

[Van Rijn]

-dimmers are out, they only work on incandescents


Unless it is a dimming CFL. I have one, but it was relatively expensive and I don't see this model or other dimming models in any of the local stores these days. It works reasonably well, but doesn't dim like an incandescent. The color doesn't change at all, it just gets dimmer, and the dimming range could be better, though it isn't horrible.

But it's an important issue, if you want dimming lights.

[GeorgeLeRoyTirebiter]

I don't have a problem with government incentives to encourage CFL use, but an outright ban is a bad idea.

CFLs are not a "drop-in" replacement for all incandescents. They cannot be used in enclosed light fixtures or unvented recessed "can" fixtures. They cannot be used in areas of extreme heat (i.e., ovens), and perform poorly in cold (i.e., refrigerators, the outdoors). They should never be used with any incandescent dimmer and many timers/motion detectors, due to the risk of fire from the increased current draw. Many cannot be exposed to water/condensation (outdoors, again).

In a quick survey of my house, about a dozen incandescent bulbs could be converted to CFLs without problem. A slightly greater number are in locations either totally unsuitable or problematic for CFLs.

For a discussion of some of the technical problems with CFLs, see this page. (http://sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm)

[Trebuchet]

I know what i'll do when I retire. Smuggle incandescent light bulbs into Canada.

In exchange for high-flow toilets, that actually flush?

The latest CFL's I've purchased do not seem to have the warning against using them in enclosed fixture that they used to carry. I'm not sure what the definition of "enclosed" is. Does that include typical ceiling fixtures with a glass dome or bowl over the lamps? I've been using CFL's in those for a couple of years without problems. I didn't really understand the restriction anyhow since the CFL's produce so much less heat.

I deliberately use incandescents in my attached, but unheated, garage and leave them on at night in the winter just to make sure the pipes stay above freezing.

[Van Rijn]

They should never be used with any incandescent dimmer

Unless it is a dimming CFL that was designed for that purpose.

[Pinemarten]

Unless it is a dimming CFL. I have one, but it was relatively expensive and I don't see this model or other dimming models in any of the local stores these days. It works reasonably well, but doesn't dim like an incandescent. The color doesn't change at all, it just gets dimmer, and the dimming range could be better, though it isn't horrible.

But it's an important issue, if you want dimming lights.

I stand corrected. I heard years ago they were working on them, I guess they are near perfection now. LOL.
What was the cost if you don't mind my asking? Was it worth it?

[Van Rijn]

I stand corrected. I heard years ago they were working on them, I guess they are near perfection now. LOL.
What was the cost if you don't mind my asking? Was it worth it?

I've had it awhile, so this is from memory, and prices were a bit higher then, but I think it was about $20 (US) for a 90 watt incandescent equivalent bulb, which was substantially more than the regular CFL even then. I've had it for a few years now, and I don't see this model in the stores, so I don't know if they had problems or if they just didn't sell due to cost and lack of interest (which is quite possible). I've heard that GE has one, but I haven't seen it here.

This CFL has worked okay when I've used it (very often), and it's lasted long enough that it has paid for itself.

[Pinemarten]

I don't have a problem with government incentives to encourage CFL use, but an outright ban is a bad idea.

CFLs are not a "drop-in" replacement for all incandescents. They cannot be used in enclosed light fixtures or unvented recessed "can" fixtures. They cannot be used in areas of extreme heat (i.e., ovens), and perform poorly in cold (i.e., refrigerators, the outdoors). They should never be used with any incandescent dimmer and many timers/motion detectors, due to the risk of fire from the increased current draw. Many cannot be exposed to water/condensation (outdoors, again).

In a quick survey of my house, about a dozen incandescent bulbs could be converted to CFLs without problem. A slightly greater number are in locations either totally unsuitable or problematic for CFLs.

For a discussion of some of the technical problems with CFLs, see this page. (http://sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm)

I know what a fridge is. Is the oven that thing beside it that gets hot when you play with the buttons?

Our government has 'zero' details on 'the plan'; as usual. They may have to make some adjustments for 'appliance' lamps.

I never thought of motion detectors. Nothing else will 'fire' fast enough to deter an intruder very much. LEDs may be adapted for this.
Outdoor lamps will be replaced with gas discharge (mercury vapour) ones I assume. I have seen them down to 100 watts, they can make smaller.

Ceiling recessed fixtures will be modified or replaced, as well as others with similar problems.

[TrAI]

I feel it is long overdue. I am an electrician and the less I have to get the apprentices to change them the better.
I wired a 32 unit apartment back in the early '90s. The owners had 'compacts' installed in all the hallways and exit lights. Their kickback money from the power company for doing so was $17,000!

A few points to consider:

-dimmers are out, they only work on incandescents

-most new compacts are 'full spectrum', not heavy in the orange or green/blue like incandescents and fluorescents respectively

-it takes about 2 hours worth of energy to turn on fluorescents, and pressurized gas lamps (mercury, sodium, halide- these are all 'mercury vapour' they just add stuff and change the name)- if you are going to use it again in 2 hours, leave it on

- halogens are incandescents

-the most efficient lamps are low pressure sodium, the 'orange' street light type

I do belive it is more of a myth that you use that much energy turning fluorecents on, it would blow the fuses. Do you have any idea what current you would need to draw to get that amount of energy? to equal the energy used by a 10W unit in 2 hours you would need to draw 313 amps for one sec if it is a 230v system. I belive the Mythbusters tested this at one time, and IIRC came to the conclusion that a fluorecent tube uses under 30 secs worth of energy to power up.

That said, turning them on and off often tends to reduce the lifetime(some say about 15 mins everytime you turn them on).

[springa]

Not to me, but I guess I have a different view of how much this is controlling anyone's life.

How far would a government have to go before you would consider it controlling?

This sounds silly to me. My guess is that this will have zero effect on any environmental condition, but it will cause considerable expense and inconvenience.

[Pinemarten]

I do belive it is more of a myth that you use that much energy turning fluorecents on, it would blow the fuses. Do you have any idea what current you would need to draw to get that amount of energy? to equal the energy used by a 10W unit in 2 hours you would need to draw 313 amps for one sec if it is a 230v system. I belive the Mythbusters tested this at one time, and IIRC came to the conclusion that a fluorecent tube uses under 30 secs worth of energy to power up.

That said, turning them on and off often tends to reduce the lifetime(some say about 15 mins everytime you turn them on).

I think I have a book here somewhere that explains it. It has to do with the initial inrush to the ballast, which is a big inductor. Once the field is built up the efficiency is increased dramatically.
Motors are inductors as well, that is why the lights dim when a big one starts up. Lights are much lower in current so the dimming isn't noticed.
Time delay fuses for inductive loads will handle an inrush up to 20,000 times running current and breakers over 100,000.
If the Mythbusters used a sensitive inrush ammeter, a dual trace oscilloscope, and calculated for the lagging power factor (90%+) of inductors, I think I would still have trouble believing them over Westinghouse or General Electric.

CRT monitors and TVs are worse, they uses 4-7 hours to start; which is why they have standby mode.

[snarkophilus]

CRT monitors and TVs are worse, they uses 4-7 hours to start; which is why they have standby mode.

I did not know this. I will probably stop turning my monitor off every time I leave the house, and just let it go to standby.

On second thought, that number does seem really high. Where can I find data to back that up?

[Gillianren]

If the Mythbusters used a sensitive inrush ammeter, a dual trace oscilloscope, and calculated for the lagging power factor (90%+) of inductors, I think I would still have trouble believing them over Westinghouse or General Electric.

Is it possible your books are out of date? I mean, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't take that much equipment to test whether it takes two hours' worth of electricity to turn on a fluorescent tube; it seems that would take very little equipment at all.

[Pinemarten]

I did not know this. I will probably stop turning my monitor off every time I leave the house, and just let it go to standby.

On second thought, that number does seem really high. Where can I find data to back that up?

I can't verify the CRT estimates, and I suppose I should verify the others.

[Gillianren]

How far would a government have to go before you would consider it controlling?

Well, technically, having any government at all is controlling. However, trying to improve the environment seems to be to be one of the reasons we currently have government. We allow government to keep lead out of paint, too, and license aircraft that it considers unsafe. (The FAA shows up on MythBusters every now and again, too.)

Besides, reading the page makes it look like it's not actually a ban so much as an attempt to reduce incandescent bulbs wherever possible, which is most places. Among other things, it's not stating that people are required to use fluorescent lighting instead; it includes other low-energy light sources. And I'd imagine that they're well aware that there are some places where fluorescent won't do the job. But I'm okay with my government working to limit pollution--heck, I lived in California, which has some pretty snarly emissions standards for cars, and I'm very happy that they do, given what air quality there was like when I was a child.

[Pinemarten]

Is it possible your books are out of date? I mean, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't take that much equipment to test whether it takes two hours' worth of electricity to turn on a fluorescent tube; it seems that would take very little equipment at all.

The books are old, but newer than the ballast and lamp technology.
It hasn't changed much in a few decades. There are electronic ballasts, but they cost more so not many are out there.

When it comes to measuring true power(watts), VA (volt/amps), and VAR (volt/amps reactive) it does take more meters.
Volts and amps don't travel well together so readings have to be taken at different times then calculated using Henrys to arrive at the impedance of the circuit.

Then the math gets tricky.

You have to take the triangle created by the current and then multiply it by the triangle created by the voltage to calculate a triangle that will indicate the 'true power'.
It can be done with Pythagoras, but I was lucky enough to figure out those R-P and P-R buttons on my calculator.

[cjl]

I can't verify the CRT estimates, and I suppose I should verify the others.
Well, the only way that they could possibly use that much power is to have a HUGE amp draw. From what I can find, a typical CRT uses about 75W continuous in normal use. To use 7 hours worth of power at startup, assuming startup is considered to be 5 seconds long, it would have to draw an average of 378 kilowatts during this startup period, drawing over 3000 amps. This really isn't possible.


Yes, it is more difficult to measure the true power in all ways accurately than you might think, but it is pretty easy to know whether a scenario is even possible or not. This scenario is quite solidly in the impossible category.

[Musashi]

Those startup energy costs are a myth.

[GeorgeLeRoyTirebiter]

The latest CFL's I've purchased do not seem to have the warning against using them in enclosed fixture that they used to carry. I'm not sure what the definition of "enclosed" is. Does that include typical ceiling fixtures with a glass dome or bowl over the lamps? I've been using CFL's in those for a couple of years without problems. I didn't really understand the restriction anyhow since the CFL's produce so much less heat.

If there's no airflow through the fixture, it's enclosed. The newest CFLs may be improved in regards to this, as I looked at GE's website and it says that their CFLs may be used in enclosed fixtures (other than covered recessed fixtures).

The problem is still heat: while the actual fluorescent tube produces much less heat than an incandescent bulb, the ballast contains active electronics which do produce some heat. The lifespan of most electronic components (especially aluminum electrolytic capacitors) is shortened when used above the nominal ambient temperature (usually 25°C). Most CFL manufacturers only warranty their products to 50°C. A test shown on the site I linked to earlier showed that this temperature can be exceeded by a CFL in an enclosed fixture.

The CFL manufacturers may have eased the restrictions because the CFLs are improved (integral heatsinks, better components, improved ballast design), but in all likelihood, the CFL manufacturers are not using the highest-quality temperature-tolerant components in the ballast.

[Pinemarten]

Those startup energy costs are a myth.


Looks like I may have to cut/paste a few paragraphs of difficult math.

Hopefully I can just paste a link to a few pages of clinical studies.

[cjl]

Well, it isn't exactly difficult math to show why it is physically impossible for them to draw that much power. A 75 watt CRT will draw 525 watt hours in 7 hours of use. 525 watt hours in 5 seconds requires an average draw of almost 400 kilowatts. There's really no way around it that obeys the laws of physics.

[GeorgeLeRoyTirebiter]

I know what a fridge is. Is the oven that thing beside it that gets hot when you play with the buttons?

It may be hard to believe, but some people still cook things through a process called "baking." I've never tried it myself, but I have seen other people doing it. ;)


I never thought of motion detectors. Nothing else will 'fire' fast enough to deter an intruder very much. LEDs may be adapted for this.
Outdoor lamps will be replaced with gas discharge (mercury vapour) ones I assume. I have seen them down to 100 watts, they can make smaller.

It's not all timers/motion detectors that can't be used. Relay switching is OK, TRIAC (thyristor) switching is not. Although, in the case of motion detectors if the light takes too long to reach a sufficient brightness, it's a moot point.


Ceiling recessed fixtures will be modified or replaced, as well as others with similar problems.

In the event of a total ban on incandescents, who will pay for those modified fixtures? How long will it take for the energy saved by switching to CFLs to equal the energy wasted in manufacturing replacement lighting fixtures to accommodate CFLs? (don't answer, those are rhetorical questions)

I'm not opposed to CFLs, but they're not a panacea. The problem is that many governments think that "ban incandescent lights" is a reasonable response to the question, "How do we encourage CFL use?"

[ad hominem]

The ban is expected to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more than six million tonnes a year and save homeowners abuot $60 annually in electricity costs."

is this amount of savings in electricity costs for each person or for all of canada

[Pinemarten]

Here is a cute one. Ten 17" monitors taking out a 9 story building:

Quote:

Inrush: the current drawn by a device when switched on

...and there are no exceptions. Everything does it to some degree or another. Inrush usually happens in small doses as individual devices are turned on and results in little more than a flicker on lights. When this happens collectively things are a whole lot different.

In one case an electrical engineer of a 9-floor office tower was surprised when the main incoming 250A fuses 'operated' when the system was re-powered after maintenance. The building housed a significant amount of hi-tech equipment with the average load of the complex at about 100Arms per phase.

Upon examination, however, taking the rating of the fuses and dividing this by the average load of 100A shows an inrush availability (supply inrush factor) of 2.5 maximum. This means that when power was restored the average inrush allowed on all pieces of equipment, and this includes passive devices such as fridges, freezers, lamps, etc., may not exceed 2.5 times the running current before straining the fuses.

A tad unrealistic, I think.

This comment is substantiated when taking the inrush of something like a 17" monitor and relating this to the fuses. Each fuse was rated for 250A which means a peak current of 250 x 1.414 = 353A. Only 10 monitors could exceed this and the fuse is now strained, and this is purely the monitors without any consideration given to the other appliances mentioned above.

Edit: http://www.marcspages.co.uk/pq/5220.htm

[Musashi]

Looks like I may have to cut/paste a few paragraphs of difficult math.

Hopefully I can just paste a link to a few pages of clinical studies.

To be clear, I am not saying that there are no startup costs, just that they aren't as high as you are saying.

[Pinemarten]

Almost 500,000 hits on this site alone, time to filter.

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/search/freesearchresult.jsp?hidden=yes&queryText=inrush&Go.x=12&Go.y=11

[crosscountry]

CRT monitors and TVs are worse, they uses 4-7 hours to start; which is why they have standby mode.


That's a lot to believe. Of course you can hear them turn on.




In comparison to my laptop: I can leave it running for about 2 hours with full power before the batter runs out. If I put on screensaver or turn down the moniter it lasts much longer.

Of course the screen uses less power than the big ones.

[Gillianren]

Yes, it is more difficult to measure the true power in all ways accurately than you might think, but it is pretty easy to know whether a scenario is even possible or not. This scenario is quite solidly in the impossible category.

Thank you. It didn't sound right to me.

[Pinemarten]

I remember the true 'laptops' having CRTs.
The modern ones use different technologies.

Cathode ray tubes are just that. Tubes. By the time the 'ray gun' fires up and gets all that stuff inside warmed up to operating mode it can take a lot of energy.
Some may remember 'tube' technology. I used to have an old console radio (circa 1950 from Germany) that wouldn't make a sound for 1-2 minutes.

[Glom]

This is poor. First of all, Canada's electricity is 50% hydroelectric and 30% nuclear, so they really don't have a greenhouse gas problem. Second of all, there are some circumstances where incandescent light bulbs are more economical, such as in a less frequently used downstairs toilet. Sometimes there are circumstances where a bulb is required to generate both light and heat in which case incandescents are the obvious choice.

This vane government meddling is unnecessary as well. We are already seeing a progression from incandescent light bulbs to flourescents, halogens and hopefully before long LEDs. Government intervention simply screws things up. They're only doing it so they can appear to be doing something, not because it's a good idea.

[Ronald Brak]

So are incandescent lightbulbs actually being banned or are they doing something like slapping a tax on them to discourage their use? I know the article says ban, but I want to check. Personally I think a tax is a much better idea than a ban because it allows people who really want incandescent bulbs or need them for a special purpose to get their hands on them.

[Rorechof]

Here’s a little data I dug up on General Electric’s site about using these CFL’s with dimmers. Apparently, the voice of the people is heeded:
“To use a compact fluorescent bulb on a dimmer switch, you must buy a bulb that's specifically made to work with dimmers (check the package).

GE makes a dimming compact fluorescent light bulb (called the Energy Smart Dimming Spirals®) that is specially designed for use with dimming switches.

We don't recommend using regular compact fluorescent bulbs with dimming switches, since this can shorten bulb life. (Using a regular compact fluorescent bulb with a dimmer will also nullify the bulb's warranty.) “
Apprx. Cost of bulb: $5.00 US btw…3-way CFL bulbs are now available. 50-150 watts incandescent replacements. I need to get a couple of those... ~rore

[snarkophilus]

I think it's higher than 50% hydro, and a lot less than 30% nuclear, but combined that's the right ballpark. We do buy a lot of thermal from the USA, particularly at night (so we can store water in dams during low demand times, then sell it back at an inflated price during the day).

That said, environmentalists don't like dams. So we don't build any more, and we're reaching the limits of generating capacity. That means we are starting to build coal plants again.

Also, we have the Kyoto treaty to deal with. The current government is business-friendly, to put it mildly. The three opposition parties, which are more environmentally concerned, passed a law that says the government must meet its Kyoto obligations. So instead of strict industry restraints (and there are some, but not all that many), they plan on reducing consumption by doing this lightbulb thing. It's something that voters will notice, and thus everyone will think they're being environmentally friendly and vote for them in the next election.

Then again, they didn't pass this as a law. It's just a policy at the moment. There's a fair to moderate chance the government will fall in the next six months, before we ever get to that point.

[Glom]

I think it's higher than 50% hydro, and a lot less than 30% nuclear, but combined that's the right ballpark.

It seems you're right. It's only 15% nuclear, which is surprising. They key is regional variation. Ontario is 50% nuclear for example.

The answer is then obvious. More nuclear power stations. Lots more. Lots lots more.

[NEOWatcher]

Gee, a lot of interesting issues. It's getting me a little worried if the ban reaches across the lake.
Without my garage and basement, I've got:
9 spots.
7 Where the bulb is integrated to the look of the fixture.
8 Of those little teardrop/tapered/whatever type of bulbs.
2 lamps with the clip-on shade
2 halogen
2 flourescent
5 Where the bulb will not matter (or I think will not matter)
1 refrigerator (I can imagine the light going on as I close the door)

Out of all that, I have 12 on dimmers.

I have one reading lamp where I replaced a 150w bulb with a 150w equivalent flourescent. I rarely use it now. I don't know if it is my view of the spectrum, or maybe the shade blocks more in that spectrum. But; if I didn't know what was in there, I would swear it was a 45w bulb.

[springa]

It seems you're right. It's only 15% nuclear, which is surprising. They key is regional variation. Ontario is 50% nuclear for example.

The answer is then obvious. More nuclear power stations. Lots more. Lots lots more.

The problem is that most people don't like nuclear power - even people who are theoretically in favor of it would usually hate the idea of a plant being built anywhere near where THEY live!

The basic problem is that any method of generating electrical power has major drawbacks that many people do not like. Coal and oil are non-renewable and produce several different types of pollution. Nuclear power suffers from grossly exaggerated fears of accidents, and has more solidly based worries about storing waste that will be dangerously radioactive for thousands of years. Hydroelectric involves damming rivers, which means flooding considerable amounts of land and disrupting ecosystems. Wind only works well in some areas, and lots of people find modern windmills ugly and don't want any where they can see them. Solar power is often considered ideal, but it only generates enough electricity in very sunny areas and is still more expensive than many other types of power in spite of many years of effort to make it cheaper.

So the conundrum is that everybody wants electrical power, but most people object to the things that need to be done to create electrical power. :wall:

[TrAI]

I think I have a book here somewhere that explains it. It has to do with the initial inrush to the ballast, which is a big inductor. Once the field is built up the efficiency is increased dramatically.
Motors are inductors as well, that is why the lights dim when a big one starts up. Lights are much lower in current so the dimming isn't noticed.
Time delay fuses for inductive loads will handle an inrush up to 20,000 times running current and breakers over 100,000.
If the Mythbusters used a sensitive inrush ammeter, a dual trace oscilloscope, and calculated for the lagging power factor (90%+) of inductors, I think I would still have trouble believing them over Westinghouse or General Electric.

CRT monitors and TVs are worse, they uses 4-7 hours to start; which is why they have standby mode.

Inrush currents have the potential to be quite large, but since they are generaly of a very transient nature, the total effect isn't very high. The resistance of the wireing would also limit the current you can draw in a real life electrical system.

[cbacba]

Here is a cute one. Ten 17" monitors taking out a 9 story building:

Quote:

Inrush: the current drawn by a device when switched on

...and there are no exceptions. Everything does it to some degree or another. Inrush usually happens in small doses as individual devices are turned on and results in little more than a flicker on lights. When this happens collectively things are a whole lot different.

In one case an electrical engineer of a 9-floor office tower was surprised when the main incoming 250A fuses 'operated' when the system was re-powered after maintenance. The building housed a significant amount of hi-tech equipment with the average load of the complex at about 100Arms per phase.

Upon examination, however, taking the rating of the fuses and dividing this by the average load of 100A shows an inrush availability (supply inrush factor) of 2.5 maximum. This means that when power was restored the average inrush allowed on all pieces of equipment, and this includes passive devices such as fridges, freezers, lamps, etc., may not exceed 2.5 times the running current before straining the fuses.

A tad unrealistic, I think.

This comment is substantiated when taking the inrush of something like a 17" monitor and relating this to the fuses. Each fuse was rated for 250A which means a peak current of 250 x 1.414 = 353A. Only 10 monitors could exceed this and the fuse is now strained, and this is purely the monitors without any consideration given to the other appliances mentioned above.

Edit: http://www.marcspages.co.uk/pq/5220.htm

250 Amps for a 9 story building? Is this in the 3rd world? or is this for something seriously beyond 220 VAC? I've got 200A 220VAC service at my little house that has averaged about 1000khw per month long term.

A 250Amp fuse (or circuit breaker) is going to function at 250A and will blow slowly as higher currents are achieved until it blows fast with really high currents.

Surges are serious. For example, a 60 watt light bulb will have a surge of maybe about 9 times that of normal operating current (and power). In operation, the light bulb will run a current of 0.5 Amps and have a filament resistance (for 120vac) of 240 ohms. The heated material will have a positive coefficient of resistance so that it will try to self regulate. Also a cold filiament will be much lower resistance than at operating temperature, perhaps 1/9 or so - making the current flow inrush about 9 or 10 times that of operating. Florescents also have a serious start up load in excess of normal operating loads and this can last for quite a few seconds, not just an insignificant fraction of a second.

For objects like refrigerators, these are motors and they have serious start up loads. What's more, compressors as used in airconditioners freezers and refrigerators can have even more serious start up loads if they were shut down then turned back on before pressures equalized in the system adding this mechanical load to the rest of the normal loads.

In electronics, usually the surge loading is due to inrush charging capacitors. These are usually in linear power supplies where higher currents are required. Switching supplies as are common in modern pc computers are far smaller offenders than the linear stuff but they still have some as the 60 cycle AC must be a solid DC level for the switcher to work from and that takes some serious capacitance - and hence a surge to charge them. The pcs are running a few hundred watts, or near 100 watts for most laptops nowadays so there is going to be a surge.

What's more, the instantaneous surges vary depending on where in the cycle of the 60hz power the turn on occurs. Fuses and breakers don't operate off peak currents but require some finite time. Some are even slo-blow to protect from longer surge times. Transistors and diodes are by far the fastest 'fuses' available - sometimes able to act in picoseconds rather than milliseconds as is common for fuses and breakers.

Ultimately, sequencing of power can be important, more so when surge values are significant.

[cbacba]

The problem is that most people don't like nuclear power - even people who are theoretically in favor of it would usually hate the idea of a plant being built anywhere near where THEY live!

The basic problem is that any method of generating electrical power has major drawbacks that **** off a lot of people. Coal and oil are non-renewable and produce several different types of pollution. Nuclear power suffers from grossly exaggerated fears of accidents, and has more solidly based worries about storing waste that will be dangerously radioactive for thousands of years. Hydroelectric involves damming rivers, which means flooding considerable amounts of land and disrupting ecosystems. Wind only works well in some areas, and lots of people find modern windmills ugly and don't want any where they can see them. Solar power is often considered ideal, but it only generates enough electricity in very sunny areas and is still more expensive than many other types of power in spite of many years of effort to make it cheaper.

So the conundrum is that everybody wants electrical power, but most people object to the things that need to be done to create electrical power. :wall:

Ultimately, any power generation requires energy and energy going awry creates a big mess. My favorite notion is that of the properly working coal fired plant causes more radiation releases into the atmosphere than the properly operating nuclear power plant.

Power plants don't necessarily have to be located in populous area as electricity is rather transportable via infrastructure. However, it's the improper operation that people should be concerned over.

[cbacba]

This really, really aggravates me. CFLs make my head hurt. They also take a few seconds to warm up, which means that the lights don't come on right when you hit the switch. I just hope LEDs are cheap by that time, or I'll have to stock up on several years' worth of incandescents.

Snark

Having your head hurt due to the cfl is one thing. Having it come on slower than an incandescent is yet another, one easy to live with. Having gov. being able to dictate how much toilet paper you get to use when visiting the head is yet another thing, and it's related to the braindead mentality of banning and tyranical oppression being witnessed now with the incandescents.

[ad hominem]

This is poor.

i agree with this


First of all, Canada's electricity is 50% hydroelectric and 30% nuclear, so they really don't have a greenhouse gas problem.

but not for this reason if canada can reduce its energy consumption production of energy through fossil fuels can be reduced while hydroelectric and nuclear power generation is held fixed so a reduction in energy consumption in canada can result in the same reduction in production of greenhouse gasses as in any other place


They're only doing it so they can appear to be doing something, not because it's a good idea.

this is true it is not to reduce greenhouse gasses but to reduce guilt so people in canada can continue to live an advanced industrial lifestyle with high energy consumption and when you ask them about greenhouse gasses they can say look i have flourescent lightbulbs so do not criticize me

[snarkophilus]

Surges are serious. For example, a 60 watt light bulb will have a surge of maybe about 9 times that of normal operating current (and power).

This number sparked something in my head (har har). Perhaps what Pinemarten's original source said was that the CRT requires 4-7 times the peak power to start, rather than 4-7 hours' worth (which is a measure of energy). So a 100 W CRT uses perhaps 700 W in the first few seconds, before dropping back to 100 W. Big difference, and far more realistic.

[SockMonkey]

By the time everyone switches to CFL's won't LED's be produced cheaper and be more effective and durable anyhow?

[Pinemarten]

250 Amps for a 9 story building? Is this in the 3rd world? or is this for something seriously beyond 220 VAC? I've got 200A 220VAC service at my little house that has averaged about 1000khw per month long term.

A 250Amp fuse (or circuit breaker) is going to function at 250A and will blow slowly as higher currents are achieved until it blows fast with really high currents.

Surges are serious. For example, a 60 watt light bulb will have a surge of maybe about 9 times that of normal operating current (and power). In operation, the light bulb will run a current of 0.5 Amps and have a filament resistance (for 120vac) of 240 ohms. The heated material will have a positive coefficient of resistance so that it will try to self regulate. Also a cold filament will be much lower resistance than at operating temperature, perhaps 1/9 or so - making the current flow inrush about 9 or 10 times that of operating. Fluorescents also have a serious start up load in excess of normal operating loads and this can last for quite a few seconds, not just an insignificant fraction of a second.

For objects like refrigerators, these are motors and they have serious start up loads. What's more, compressors as used in air conditioners freezers and refrigerators can have even more serious start up loads if they were shut down then turned back on before pressures equalized in the system adding this mechanical load to the rest of the normal loads.

In electronics, usually the surge loading is due to inrush charging capacitors. These are usually in linear power supplies where higher currents are required. Switching supplies as are common in modern pc computers are far smaller offenders than the linear stuff but they still have some as the 60 cycle AC must be a solid DC level for the switcher to work from and that takes some serious capacitance - and hence a surge to charge them. The pcs are running a few hundred watts, or near 100 watts for most laptops nowadays so there is going to be a surge.

What's more, the instantaneous surges vary depending on where in the cycle of the 60hz power the turn on occurs. Fuses and breakers don't operate off peak currents but require some finite time. Some are even slo-blow to protect from longer surge times. Transistors and diodes are by far the fastest 'fuses' available - sometimes able to act in picoseconds rather than milliseconds as is common for fuses and breakers.

Ultimately, sequencing of power can be important, more so when surge values are significant.


250 amps 3 phase is not unrealistic for a building with light loading. It would actually be 3 fuses, times the square root of 3 (confusing 3 phase math) at 240 volts yielding over 103,000 watts for that building. 240 x 250 x 1.73.

When the wire and fuse sizes are calculated it is done by the blueprint. If there is no air conditioning, large motors, electric heat, cooking units, clothes dryers etc, the math would only be done for lights and plugs. If nothing is shown installed then each plug would be 1 amp only. The lights can be calculated as low as 10 watts per square foot.

You are correct about the inrush on light bulbs. We used to have to calculate the amperage draw on lamps using the 'temperature coefficient' of tungsten. As the temperature increases the resistance goes down. I think carbon was the only one with a negative temperature coefficient. Most light switches are 'tungsten rated' ( a little T is stamped on them) for this reason.

Fluorescent switches need to be 'inductor rated' as the stresses are higher but when the switch is turned off. Inductors such as ballasts, motors, and anything else that has large coils of wire create a 'spike' caused by 'inductor crash' when they are turned off. The spark plugs in a car work that way. The coil is charged up with 12vdc, when the 'points' open the coil 'crashes' and spikes up to 75,000 volts and is 'distributed' to the next cylinder in the 'firing order'. The points then close again and start charging the coil for an amount of time called the 'dwell angle'. It was about 18 - 26 degrees on my old 283. By rotating the distributor it would either advance or retard the 'timing' of all the sparks going to the cylinders. Most of this is done electronically now.

This all has to do with surge protection.

I used to work in a plant that had many large motors. We had a regional power failure and the spike we sent to the grid took out many electronics in a town 4 miles away. It went right through most of the cheap surge bars. Luckily everyone blamed the power failure and we never got sued.

Back to start-up energy.
It seems all the sites I can find want membership fees. This one looks quite useful for much information, but they want $150USD a year. It seems to be a good site for studies and reports on all technologies.

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/search/freesearchresult.jsp?hidden=yes&queryText=inrush&Go.x=12&Go.y=11

Until I do find the evidence to support my claims, I will suspend my arguments.

On the power production/CFL 'law' in Canada, I do believe it has more to do with energy consumption than any 'go green' plan.
Canadian utility companies have a strong lobby here. Any power we don't use we sell to other countries. (Are Mexico and South America on our grid?) The power companies make much more on exported power than domestic, and therefore the government makes more in taxes.

I would say it has more to do with money than anything else.

[mugaliens]

It seems you're right. It's only 15% nuclear, which is surprising. They key is regional variation. Ontario is 50% nuclear for example.

The answer is then obvious. More nuclear power stations. Lots more. Lots lots more.

Agreed - to date, the safest and cleanest form of power production on the planet, by a large margin, across all fronts, for more than forty years.