RE: [GBlist] Regular vs. Fluorescent Lighting

[David Bergman <bergman@cyberg.com>]

McCord, Douglas wrote:
>I have been reading this thread with some interest as I have been weighing
>the benefits of installing fluorescent vs incandescent lights especially in
>a residential setting for some time.
>A few thoughts: I think any amount of mercury in an industrial process is a
>huge environmental negative, which I believe is a huge strike against
>fluorescent lighting.  Another thought is that the ability to dim
>incandescents is very favorable.  I don't remember the article/research in
>particular; however, I seem to recall that dimming incandescents can extend
>their life by 2-6 times as well as reduce energy use.  Since electricity CAN
>come from renewable sources, I think saving energy (fluorescents) needs to
>be considered along with the production of hazardous waste (mercury).  As in
>all sustainable endeavors, if beauty and 'spirituality' are left out of the
>equation, I think we err towards a sub-optimal solution.  Pleasing lighting
>makes a huge difference in the ambience and pleasantness of a home in
>particular.  So, I am still on the fence regarding fluorescents although
>they have made quantum leaps in the past few years.  In residential
>applications I still lean towards daylighting whenever possible,
>incandescents on dimmers and always turning off the lights when you don't
>need them.
>
>thoughts?
>dmc

As much of a proponent of fluorescent lighting as I am, there are (still) 
some limitations and some places where incandescent/halogen are preferable.

First, yes mercury is an issue. The amount of mercury in new fluorescents 
has diminished significantly, e.g. the Phillips Alto series. The mercury 
content is low enough in these hew bulbs that they are no longer considered 
toxic waste. And you need to weigh the diminished amount of trash resulting 
when you use a 10,000 - 40,000 hour fluorescent bulb vs a 750 - 2000 hour 
incandescent. (Dimming an incandescent bulb does indeed significantly 
lengthen its life, but still nowhere near a fluorescent's.)

There are, though, places where fluorescent does not make sense. This is 
especially true in situations where lights are turned on for only short 
periods. This cuts down the life of a fluorescent bulb. In my coat/storage 
closet, I use an incandescent bulb since it is rarely on for more than a 
minute at a time. (I've not yet replaced the bulb after seven years here.) 
On the other hand,. I have decorative fluorescent lighting in my kitchen, 
which often remains on for hours at a time.

On the "beauty and spirituality" side, yes, fluorescents have been lacking 
until recently, and overcoming that negative image is a major roadblock. 
But there are more and more beautiful fluorescent fixtures coming on the 
market (as well as more compact fluorescents that can replace standard 
incandescents), and with the advent of fluorescent dimming, you also now 
have the consumer friendliness of incandescents.

Of course, as you mention, more daylighting is a better solution, but that 
works only in the, uh, daytime and when there's enough direct light, and 
when the tradeoff with heat loss and heat gain is not too large.

David Bergman
David Bergman Architect/Fire & Water Lighting + Furniture
bergman@cyberg.com    http://www.cyberg.com
t 212 475 3106    f 212 677 7291



______________________________________________________________________
This greenbuilding dialogue is sponsored by REPP/CREST, creator of
Solstice http://www.crest.org, and BuildingGreen, Inc., publisher of
Environmental Building News and GreenSpec http://www.BuildingGreen.com
______________________________________________________________________