Goodbye Incandescent Light Bulbs… Energy-Efficient CFL’s Are The Future
by David Fessler, Energy and Infrastructure Expert
Friday, April 9, 2010: Issue #1235
In 2012, one of the most common household items will go the way of the dodo.
Extinct.
Instead of lighting up living rooms across America, the trusty incandescent light bulb will have a new home in the Smithsonian. Right next to Alexander Graham Bell’s original telephone and Marconi’s radio.
After December 31, 2011, the federal ban on the 100-watt incandescent light bulb will take effect. Two years after that, the 60-watt and 40-watt versions will disappear from stores, too.
And the remarkable thing?
A massive 82% of Americans are totally unaware that this will happen.
So what’s the deal here? In short, it’s all about energy efficiency…
Thanks, For The Light Bulbs Edison… But We Need to Do Better
When it comes to the energy sector – specifically, increasing our energy independence and efficiency – you may know that I’m not afraid to bash our elected officials in Washington for their collective snooze-fest.
But Congress does get a gold star for passing the Energy Independence and Security Act in December 2007. And it’s this that mandates the phasing out of the traditional light bulb.
You see, while incandescent bulbs do the job, they’re actually a bigger problem than most people think.
Thomas Edison deserves plenty of credit and respect for inventing the light bulb. But they’re incredibly wasteful. Around 90% of the energy created is heat and ultra-violet light, with only about 10% going towards the bulb’s intended use – creating visible light.
The Incandescent Light Bulb… A Complete Waste of Energy
In this day and age, the United States and the rest of the world desperately need to cut down on wasted energy.
Consider this…
- About 57% of the energy we start with in various products is wasted.
- For the electric industry, it’s even worse: 69% of the energy used in coal, natural gas and nuclear power generation never does useful work as electricity.
So what happens to it? It’s lost through heat at the generating plants. It’s lost in the wires on the way to your house. And when the power finally does reach you, the inefficiency of the appliances it’s powering also causes wasted energy.
Reducing wasted energy is one of the easiest ways to mitigate our insatiable demand for energy. And given that one of biggest power users in the home is lighting, one of the easiest ways to address the problem is to make it more efficient.
What’s more… it’s one of the simplest things to fix…
Changing the World… One Incandescent Light Bulb At a Time
There’s no doubt about some of the most profound and urgent issues that America faces…
- Energy consumption
- Rising gasoline costs
- Rising utility bills
- Greenhouse gas emissions
- Dependence on coal
- Dependence on foreign oil
- Global warming
Now imagine if by just doing one thing, we could solve some of these.
And what if that one thing was as simple as changing an incandescent light bulb? Is it really viable? I think it is. Here’s why…
- There are 110 million households in the United States.
- The average home has between 50 and 100 light sockets.
My own home isn’t particularly large, but we have a few other buildings, in addition to the main house. I asked my son to do an inventory and he determined we have 206 sockets. Yikes.
Obviously, we don’t use all 206 outlets. But regardless, it’s a terrible waste of energy to use ordinary incandescent light bulbs. So about a year ago, I started to replace my used bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs – or CFLs for short.
CFLs (also known as “swirl bulbs”) emit the same amount of light as incandescents, but use 75% to 80% less energy.
If each American home changed just one 60-watt incandescent bulb to a CFL, the resulting energy savings would be enough to power a city of 1.5 million people. Or all the homes in Delaware and Rhode Island.
To put it another way, changing one 60-watt bulb is the equivalent of taking 1.3 million cars off the roads. It’s the law of large numbers in action.
And America’s largest retailer is playing an active role…
Screw in a Compact Fluorescent Bulb… And Get a 2,567% Return on Your Investment
Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT) operates 3,200 stores, each one boasting a huge array of ceiling fan displays. The company has ditched the incandescent bulbs in all of them in favor of CFLs. Annual energy savings? $6 million.
Now before I get e-mails about the hazards of all the mercury inside the CFL bulbs, it’s actually a miniscule amount. And it’s expected to decline by about 80% over the next year or two. Properly disposing of them is a small price to pay for the energy savings gained.
The truth is, CFLs are…
- More Efficient: In a CFL, you get 60 lumens (a measure of light output) per watt of power. In an incandescent, you only get 15. Therefore, CFLs are four times more efficient than Edison’s baby.
- More Cost-Effective: Most CFLs burn for around 8,000 to 12,000 hours. So although you’ll spend around $1.43 per 60-watt equivalent CFL bulb (based on an eight-pack of GE 13-watt Energy Smart bulbs), you save as much as $38 in electricity costs over the life of the bulb.
That’s an approximate 2,657% return on your investment. At my house, I stand to save over $7,533.42.
What’s your number?
There aren’t many energy investments that pay you back in as little as five months. But CFLs do – in the form of energy savings. The time has come for CFLs – and switching to them is a great idea.
Good investing,
David Fessler
Related Investment U Articles:
- Goodbye Incandescent Light Bulbs… Energy-Efficient CFLs Are the Future
- Three Ways to Play the Ultimate in Energy-Efficient Lighting
- eBay’s Next Hot Item: Incandescent Light Bulbs
- An Easy Way to Boost America’s Energy Independence
- Natural Gas Transportation Gets a Boost… From Garbage
95 Responses to “Goodbye Incandescent Light Bulbs… Energy-Efficient CFL’s Are The Future”
Comments
**By submitting your comment you agree to adhere to our Comment Policy and Privacy Policy. |
 |
David Fessler is the energy and infrastructure expert for Investment U.
Except that you cannot use a dimmer (rheostat)
contol on this type of bulb.
Reply
There are dimmable cfl now. I installed a few in my house.
Reply
When dentists are phasing out amalgam (Silver/mercury restorations) because of the supposed question of mercury toxicity the electric light companies are introducing a mercury hazard!! in the gas discharge tubes now readily vailable.
Secondly the light given out by the relativley new fluorescent light bulbs are cold and unpleasant as opposed to the tungsten lamp which give out a ‘warm light’ Why dont you let the public decide on the type of lighting.
I thought that is what competition in the free market is about..
Edison was not the only inventor to create the Incandescner light bulb. Also a Scotsman called Swann.
Reply
I am glad you mentioned Swan.
Interesting, you are correct Sir Joseph Swan of Sunderland England (an English man owned some patents) ( Edison had to give up part of his company to Swan I believe (infringeing Patent rights).Swan was on the scene a long time before Edison.
Swan also had a lot to do with photography, he sold his patents to Eastman.
infringement see http
http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventors/swan.htm
excerpt from above http
AT A GLANCE:
In 1860, Joseph Swan was able to demonstrate a working device, and obtained a UK patent covering a partial vacuum, carbon filament incandescent lamp. However, the lack of good vacuum and an adequate electric source resulted in a short lifetime for the bulb and an inefficient light. In 1882, Swan took Edison to court in Britain for patent infringement. Edison lost and as part of the settlement, Edison was forced to take Swan in as a partner in his British electric works
http://www.nndb.com/people/336/000098042/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Swan
Reply
Sam,
Not exactly accurate in all aspects. In areas with coal fired power stations, the use of CFL’s saves on mercury emissions when compared to the use of incandescent bulbs. This is due to the reduced electrical power demand, reducing in turn the amount of mercury released by coal as it is burned. This has been verified by the EPA in 2008. Also coal emits other heavy metals like sulfur, and carbon dioxide into the air.So given the choice, I’ll take CFL’s.
Reply
I think the CFL may be replaced by the more Energy Saving “LED” soon in North America , as the LED already started to replace the CFL in China right now, and the Manufacturers in China are switching their production to LED.
Reply
Brilliant Article!
You can find the best of both worlds at http://www.lampshoponline.com where there are stocks of old conventional lightbulbs (whilst stocks last!) as well as stocks of the new compact fluorescents. If you cant find what you are looking for, give them a ring and they’ll be more than happy to help you!
Reply
This is more well intentioned but misguided NannyState regulation. Compact Fluorescent Lights emit a visible spectrum many people’s eyes do not like. Those with fast reflexes see annoying flicker. The bulbs contain mercury so correct disposal is a big issue. Lifetime of CFLs if often much less than advertised due to cheap Chinese manufacturing. And bulb “efficiency” is only part of an honest calculation – you need a balast too. Try LEDs !!!
Reply
You can find different ones with different spectrum that fit your taste. Don’t blame Chinese manufacturing. They have manufactured much better ones and smaller ones than what were used to produced in this country, now with a much feasible price too.
Reply
Don’t blame Chinese manufacturing? You are right about that somewhat, blame our companies running over there for slave wage workers, and a bottom dollar is all that matters, mentality. There have been numerous incidents where foreign people visiting factories there have seen careless, reckless, working conditions where mercury was spilled regularly during the manufacturing of such bulbs and the workers have no safety clothing or equipment, just nose to the grind stone keep on working. People here in the states can have a “Who cares, it’s over there attitude”, but, if they care so little about their own people and land, does anyone really think they’re the least bit concerned with anything sent out of their country for export? And again, there are plenty of incidences that we’ve already experienced where it’s clear they don’t, tainted pet food, children’s toys, dry wall, etc., etc. Not to mention the fact that due to budget cuts, the number of inspectors of imported goods is ridiculously low and nowhere near capable of checking even half of all our imports. CFL’s are certainly more energy efficient than incandescent bulbs, and even though they only have small amounts of mercury in each one, the problem comes when they start being thrown away by the thousands and millions in landfills. And then again, Chinese testing facilities, if they even bother to test them, are likely to claim anything as far as bulb life is concerned, whether it’s true of not is to be seen. I’ve had a few CFL’s that didn’t last anywhere near their claimed lifespan. All those Chinese low prices come with cost’s, numerous ones, and they’re not good ones.
Reply
Mr Fessler may have a good point about the economic advantage of CFLs at this moment, however these pesky little bulbs are an environmental nightmare on a par with MTBE. Just as we found out after the fact that MTBE was destroying California’s water table, the mercury inside each CFL (and even if you don’t break it in your house it gets broken when you toss it out) will be recognized as an ecological disaster at some future date and BILLIONS will be spent cleaning up the mess, as is going on – and will be for many years to come – with MTBE
Reply
Hi Dave,
Thanks for a great, cost-saving article!
The one asterisk to the change to CFL lights is that your expected life-span on the CFL bulbs can be reduced to only days if you put them in an enclosed light fixtures that can’t easily dissipate heat.
This happens because, if CFL bulbs overheat, they will burn out very, very quickly.
So, to maximize savings, you may also have to change out those old enclosed glass globes in your ceiling fixtures for fluted ones that expose the CFL to the room temperature air.
We manage a couple apartment buildings and had unexpectedly high CFL replacement costs until we figured this out.
Regards,
Steve Corrick, Realtor
http://www.MagnificentMOntana.com
Reply
I started using CFLs as early as 97 when one CFL was about $5-10/piece. The worse brand I had was Sylvania (many only lasted a few months) and the best one was Panasonic. I bought 5 and each lasted at least 5 years and the last one worked over 10 years. Now Panasonic ones are not easily available (I don’t know why). Currently, I tried many brand, such as GE, Philips, Light of America, and many less well known brands, they all perform decent enough for me, much better than Sylvania’s used to be(I have not touched Sylvania’s for a long time, so I don’t know their current quality). Small number of bulbs burned out first year. But overall the life expectancy is significantly higher than incandescent ones. Since several years ago, I have gradually phased out all incandescent ones in my rental real estates and my own house (except bathrooms), way before everyone started talking about the matter. The saving was obvious. One issue that very few people have mentioned about is the safety and over heat problem with incandescent ones. For incandescent bulbs, if they happen to be covered by blankets, even a 60 watt bulb can start a fire. A lot of light fixtures demand bulbs not over 60W or 75W, particularly a double bulb fixtures. But many tenants never pay attention to that limit. They easily put 100W bulbs there. I even saw 150W. The overheat fixtures may or may not cause fires, but they can certainly roast surfaces, wires, and fixtures too. If some lamps get covered by clothing, then incandescent one are much more likely to cause fires. Environmental issues can be improved in the future with new technology.
Reply
It very hard to take a guy like Fessler seriously when he thinks that Carbon Dioxide (the 1 gas that is necessary for all life on earth even though it makes up a miute .04% of the atmosphere)is a pollutant or that it, or any other man-made activity is causing the earth to warm. While I am all for creating higher efficiancy and eliminating waste in our usage of all resources; his comments indicate to me that he does not adequately research his material….or he is dishonest.
Reply
Fessler may not be 100% right, but I have no doubt he is honest in this issue. I think he sees CFLs from an investor’s point of view. With CFLs nowadays only a bit over $1, the saving in the electricity will pay a CFL in less than 1 month, which can be interpreted into 100%/month return or 1200% or more per year. It is not easy to find a better investment, IMHO.
Reply
What do we do with the 20 dimmer switches that we have through out the house? They will not work with CFL bulbs, besides,they are used to create lighting effects by lowering the intensity of the lighting levels.
David
Reply
There are dimmable CFLs. One reason for dimmer is to save energy, but a CFL uses much less energy. Therefore, dimming is not that necessary energy-wise. If you like higher light output, just buy bigger wattage CFLs, they still save a lot. For example, 23 CFLs are comparable to 100W IB, 13W CFL to 60W IB, 15-17W CFL to 75W. If you need 75 IB lumen comparable or larger, just buy 23W CFL which is comparable to 100W lumen, but only uses 23 W, way lower than 75W IB.
Reply
Gee Dave,
Here’s an even better idea. When it gets dark, just go to bed. Presto..!! No energy usage for light at all. That’s got to be a better return that the 2700% you stated. Surprised you didn’t think of it. Wait, maybe we can have the goobermnt MANDATE that we all go to bed at dark. Quick, send them a suggestion……
Regards
Reply
My sons experience using the new bulb does not
match the life expectancy in Mr. Fesslers article.
He has not experience a longer life than the old
incondesent. He has stopped buying them as they
cost more but do not last longer.
Reply
Which kind of CFLs are you buying? Most of mine are burning out faster than the old incandescents! As you can imagine, their cost effectiveness in my house (compared to the old way) is not favorable.
Reply
Baloney! It is not the job of the NOW Fascist/Communist FED/GOV to dictate to me what I should buy or not buy. I am much more impressed by a reasonable, informative article such as this, than by would-be tyrants in the FED/GOV!
The South was right! Yankee go home! I’m in Massachusetts, and I say: Yankee go home!
Reply
A couple of years ago, there was a lot of buzz around LED lighting for office and residential use, which would effect even greater energy savings (over fluorescent). What happened?
It seems many good energy saving ideas just get lost. What ever happened to the clothesline? Extremely low initial cost, no operating cost.
Reply
Hi Victoria;
The clothesline is actually not cheap if you have to put in a pole and want to do it right. Sometimes it can cost as much as a dryer for a professional job. If you are lucky you can cheat and hang it on a tree. A lot of municipalities don’t allow them.
Reply
LEDs may be the future, but now CFLs are more practical and economical.
Reply
Anytime the government gets involved in something it is sure to be a fiasco. CFL’s do not put out the same light, they are far more harmful to the environment when disposed of, cause more eyestrain and headaches in the workplace and lots of interference in the radiowave spectrum. But what the heck it makes you environmentalists happy.
Reply
Don’t flourescent lights fail to work at low temperatures? If so, incandescent lights are probably needed for outdoor lighting in cold weather.
Reply
Aren’t CFLs worse for the environment than incandescents when they’re thrown away?
Reply
The compact fluorescent is a wonderful advancement in energy savings, but the real revolution will be in LED lights. At preset they are still costly to purchase and have some issue to sort out, but in the long term, they will probably be the winners.
Reply
Interesting discussion on the light bulb question. Your arguments make sense if you live in warm areas such as FL, TX etc. You’ll use more air conditioning to remove the waste heat of incandescant bulbs (IBs). If you live in Canada or Alaska, your arguments appear to be flawed. In winter, we get the waste heat from the IBs for free, and they are only on when it is dark and cold (most of the day). In summer, daylight is much longer and the IBs contribute to the heat we need at night. A second issue is that IBs emit a warm light (yellow/white) and CFLs are cold (blue/white). The ambience with IBs is much nicer.
It would be interesting to look at LEDs – they answers might be interestin.
Reply
The heat from light bulbs are electric resistance heat which is 3-4 times more expensive than the heat from a heat pump or gas furnace or boiler. So the idea of using light bulbs for heating is too costly. One might as well save the electricity from lighting and let the heat pump do the heating job.
Reply
Except if you already have electric resistance heating (and not a heat pump, furnace or gas boiler – millions don’t), the cost is exactly the same.
Reply
Stupid move … put a large CFL bulb in a room and watch how long it takes to “get to full output” level….some are as long as 3 minutes.
Solution…? Leave the CFL bulb on all the time!
Better solution … buy LEDs … see stock chart for CREE …
Dick O
Reply
That is true for some CFLs. But there are some that almost light up instantly. The future technology should improve this problem too.
Reply
CFL’s don’t get recycled correctly by most people. They throw them in the trash, where they eventually end up in our ground water. It only takes 40 bulbs worth of mecury to contaminate a forty acre lake. Their in the land fills by the tens of thousands. (or more). Besides that they take too long to get bright when they are cold.
Glen P.
Reply
David’s article on the new light bulbs left out one very important component- the toxic mercury in these bulbs. In fact it is so bad if/when you break one in your home you should clear out your home and have HazMat in there for the mercury removal. No amount of Mercury is safe and it is highly carcinogenic. Breaking out the broom and vacuum is just a way to stir up lots more health problems in your living area. The cost for the Hazmat cleanup 1500-2000. Now these bulbs don’t look so efficient once you know the true trade off. I recommend you stock up on pleny of the incandescent bulbs – lots cheaper and a heck of a site better for the health of yourself and family. The government as usual cares only for corporate profits (say fascism- government and big business in bed with each other)not your and my health. I not only will not buy them but I do not allow them to be used in any of my rental properties unless the tenant wants to put up a $2000 security deposit when one gets broken. Check your facts please and don’t fall for this environmental nonsense. Yes something out there is better, cheaper, and safer but these bulbs are not that!
L Pruitt
Reply
This whole thing about mercury being terrible hazardous is a red herring. When I was in high school 65 years ago we played with mercury many times in the chem lab. We would rub it on silver coins, play with a puddle of it in our hands. Of course, we commonly would drop some on the floor and then scoop up what we could and not worry about the tiny drops remaining. Don’t forget, it was the standard to fill our cavities with silver/mercury amalgam, I still have most of those fillings. By now, according to your scary statement, I should have cancer pervasive throughout my body if not have already died many years ago.
There are a lot of reasons to keep some incandescent bulbs around, but the mercury content is not one. The hazmat people love them though, they can get by with charging a lot of money and you don’t have any other recourse. It’s a ripe off.
Reply
OK. I’ve been using CFL’s long before the looney lefties started pushing them – and – I’ve found that many of the magic swirling light tubes simply DON’T FIT half my fixtures because they are too long or too fat or the base (containing the ballast is too wide for my hi-hat fixtures. But, even worse, THEY DON’T LAST the claimed multi-years! I’ve replaced cfl’s in some cases within the year – and, although the warranty claims different, I simply don’t have the space to store the original packages and receipts. So, although I originally started with these ugly things to save both $$$ and the heat from incandescents, I find that the cfl’s are decidedly a non-optimal solution. When LED’s reach my price point ($5.00 for a 100 watt equivalent), I’ll start with those – although I wonder about the unforseen consequences of those…
Reply
I know exactly what you are talking about, because I did have the same problems. But things have changed. Shop again and try again. Nowadays, most CFLs don’t have ballast any more. There are compact ones available though some are still big.
Reply
the 100w cfl does not match the 100x fluorecent in lumens.
in the winter it is o.k.if the fluorecnet generates more heat than light.
the CFL contain Hg. most will end up in the local land fill.
you think lime a bureaucrat.
Reply
“Most CFLs burn for around 8,000 to 12,000 hours.”
is hogwash. I decided to be green-conscious and replaced my IB’s with CFL’s. In less than 2 years 3 of them have burned out. And it takes gas for a 20-mile round-trip to take to a proper disposal site.
Thanks for the deadline heads-up so I can stock up on IB’S.
Reply
Why don’t you talk about the mercury in these light bulbs. Mercury as a vapor is very toxic.
Reply
Glen Pilgreen is on the right track.
How much mercury is in one bulb? Just drop and break in a store and the EPA, I’ve read, requires a hazardous clean up team to decontaminate the area.
It’s not smart to use Amalgem (contains mercury) to fill teeth cavities so now the Gov wants to fill our house with mercury.
I must be in Alice’s land.
Reply
Shame, shame.
When did you guys abandon the Free Market that has helped make this beloved country of mine so great?
Government mandates that I can’t buy incandescents? That probably will be just as effective as the low-flush toilet I’m forced to live with. (About eight out of ten times I have solids to flush it takes four to five flushes plus some energetic plunging to clear out the toilet…especially after listening to some of our blow-hard politicians.)
Goverment mandates? Hogwash!
Bob Raymond
ps. About a year ago I purchased a bunch of CFLs, not because of any gummint mandate, but because I thought they would save money, which they have.
I just want the Nanny Staters to leave me alone.
Reply
can America invent his way back? surely not based on bail out or real estate boom or a socialist governement who want to tax the succesful and rich unfairly,their purpose is to redistribute the wealth. a recovery will only be on technology-driven productivity a combination of innovation and entrepreneurship remove the politically corecteness out of the university and encourage students to improvise,build a comprehensive culture of innovation be risk takers and back in november 2008 America voted for change but the wrong change.Benjamin Natanyahu was chided by our President as he came to the White House as Obama and Biden wants Jerusalem to be devided how would it be if it was demanded that a part of New York state was returned to the Indians consequently it would be wise for this governement to quit blaming President Bush for the problems we face to day or the Irael for failures in the peace process.Thank you MICHAEL
Reply
I have been trying to use only CFL’s for the past two years at home. Why am I not rich by now and why haven’t my electric bills been reduced? Because, I spend all my money replacing CFL bulbs and I don’t think they save anything. I need to see some savings before I waste money on another CFL.
I have four old style 48″ fluorescent bulbs in two fixtures that seem to last forever. I’m ready to convert all my interior lighting to the old style fixture. CFIs must not be built to the same standard. Tx, Bob
Reply
I won’t get into issues such as light quality, bulb life or costs, but I’m having a hard time with your impact assessments.
If one 60-watt CFL is the equal of removing 1.3 million cars, then 200 of them (equal to the number of outlets in your house) would remove the entire vehicle fleet of the United States. I’m not sure I buy that unless is for a few minutes.
Reply
One point which is never made is the reactance of these lights on the incoming power line. What it means in simple layman terms is that it takes more power to push the power to the CFLs and because this has been such a small component of our power, so far, that the power companies have ignored it, but they may move to require what is known as “power factor correction” in these CFLs similar to what we all have in our PC power supplies. When this gets added to the cost of a CFL then see how long it takes to recoup. Hint: Never.
Here’s a url on this subject. It is technical but anyone can get the gist of what the problems are and how these CFLs aren’t exactly what they seem.
http://www.edn.com/blog/1470000147/post/450043045.html?nid=2431&rid=646580
Reply
I think the article quoted here is wrong in two aspects. Firstly, nowadays, most CFLs don’t use ballast or any significant inductance in CFLs (though the old ones do) that causes poor power factor. So this problem was practically gone. Secondly, for the old type CFLs that do use ballast, the poor power factor affects mostly the loss over distribution line. This loss is much less than the electricity consumption of the CFLs, still much smaller than a comparable IB. For example, compare a 100W IB vs. 25W CFL for equal output lumen, assuming the resistance from the light fixture to the breaker is 1 Ohm. 100W IB will draw about 0.833 Amp. The distribution loss is RxI^2 by the formula, where R is the line resistance and I is the current through the line. Then the line loss is about 1 Ohm X (0.833)^2, or about 0.7 Watt. Assuming an old CFL is used which has a very poor power factor of 0.5, the consumption current at the CFL is about 0.208 Amp (i.e. consuming 25W power), while due to the poor power factor, the current over the line is increased, even doubled to 0.417 Amp (actually only increased 41.4%, not 100%). The distribution loss is 1 Ohm X 0.417^2 = 0.174 Watt. So, no matter the bulb consumption or line loss, even an old CFL is much less than 100W IB case. Over the main grid, if so many inductance based fluorescent bulbs are used, there would be not a big problem for the power company to install more capacitance to correct the power factor. Currently this is not a problem at all, not even a small one. It is close to non-issue.
Reply
In addition to the other comments, many lights are used only occasionally or are timed off by motion detectors(garages, sheds, attics, cellars). CFL’s provide no savings if the light is off. Incandescents are much better and more reliable in these applications. I have had many CFL’s die of old age where they were not used much. I have been using CFL’s for twenty years and can decide for myself which lamp to use where.
The supposed energy savings are greatly exaggerated in residential applications. My environmental activist neighbors waste huge amounts of energy leaving their windows open in the winter when they are not home and driving half an hour so their dog can poop on a nature trail but they feel good about using CFL’s. This is just about feeling self righteous and forcing others to do what you want. Why don’t you observe, study and think before writing such a silly article.
Reply
“There aren’t many energy investments that pay you back in as little as five months. But CFLs do – in the form of energy savings. The time has come for CFLs – and switching to them is a great idea.”
A bit flawed. May I suggest that the payback time may be a function of how many hours the bulb is used?
Reply
None of you people are privy to what’s really going on here!!
The incandescant light manufacturers are working 32 hours a day manufacturing the cheap lights.
That supply of bulbs won’t run out until 2030!!!!
You may not be able to be able to manufacture them in the US but you’ll be able to buy them on the Canadian Black Market or from the friendly people why now sell you bootleg cigarettes from such superpowers as the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Belieze or the like!!!
You need to be inside the lighting business to really know whats going on!!!!
If our federal government thinks they can shut off the faucet on something the consumer wants-try whiskey in the 1920′s!!!!!
Captain Jack
Reply
I agree that incandescent light bulbs are very inefficient; however, forcing new alternatives before the market is ready is boarding on socialism, and a mistake. Let the free market dictate the replacement of incandescent bulbs.
This replacement will occur when the alternatives are viable and make sense to the general public. In a few years LED’s will do just that, however forcing the change now will create conditions that will sprout alternatives that will be dangerous and inevitably prove to be more wasteful, and limit people’s choices and freedoms and foster government control in the name of energy conservation, hence fluorescent bulbs.
I believe there is an ulterior agenda being represented in this article and I’m disjointed it would be on your website.
Reply
It’s a balmy spring day and a light breeze is blowing out of the west. The scene is an elementary school and it is recess time so all of the kids are out on the playground. Just west of the school is the city dump containing some 40,000 cfls, mostly broken and crushed and the breeze is picking up the powered mecury and wafting it along to the east. Now, the scary part: It is your child’s school and he/she is on the playground breathing the “fresh” air. Still scarier; your brother works at the dump.
Still think cfls are a ‘good’ investment?
The only thing the gov is good at is taking a bad situation and making it worse.
Reply
I guess I’m luckier than most people. I know how to make efficient lights with LED’s Gradually I’m changing all the lights in my house to led’s. With 25 watts in to led’s I can replace 1500 watts of incandecent. All of the “stuff” in the stores is mostly Chinese junk. LED’s will be the light of the future. They can last 10 years if done correctly. They can be tailored to give any color of light you want or need. They can be dimmed. You can alos buy CFL’s that are dimmable.
Reply
Just another Nany state law to force me to buy what I don’t want. If these CFL’s were so great let the market work. I bought a few from my electrical co-op where they were being sold for less than regular light bulbs. (they were subsidized by me) I’m not going to buy any at the local Home Depot until the prices come down.
If I get much more of this Nanny state advocacy I will cancel this news letter.
Reply
Turning a CFL off and on decreases the life of the bulb. I put them in my bathroom and have changed all 6 in less than 1 year. I put the old bulbs back in . Cfl’s will only outlast regular bulbs if left on continously. This is like fuel economy ratings on automobiles, under perfect conditions you will get 34 MPH, but you probably end up with 27.
Reply
cfl bulbs are not recommended for ceiling fans because the vibrations damage the elements. Wall Mart may be making a big mistake.
Reply
I have no problem w/savings energy, as long as the situation makes common sense. CFL is not the answer. It is hazardous, and provides very poor lighting for seniors, who have a hard enough time seeing. Yes we have practiced (out with the old and in with the new), but in this case we’re supposed to move back to the old. Nonsense!! Instead we should come up with a new and better replacement. That’s is what business and scientist are supposed to be doing instead of collecting gigantic salaries for their own pockets. Thats why we give billions and billions to researchers, but NOOOOOOOOO….. they have to take giant salaries and stretch it out for years. Instead of throwing our money away for HOPE for success (which generally never comes, and is done shoddily), we should identify needs and goals and offer REWARDS for SUCCESS. That’s was the leadership of our government is supposed to be doing. They don’t, which makes me think they and others who encourage this attitude are STUPID, LAZY, AND GREEDY!! What do government officials think they are getting paid for??? We are supposed to move forward as a Country, not back to the dark ages!!
Reply
The problem with CFL’s is they are old technology. They will soon be replaced by LED’s. (Light emitting diodes). LED’s require far less power, last longer and can be operated on low voltage DC power. A whole house can be lighted with lithium ion batteries recharged daily by solar cells thus removing all home lighting from the grid. Notice how recently expensive LED flashlights are now being given away free by companies such as Harbor Freight Tools. Also they don’t require a circuit board with 20 plus components as do CFL’s. We converted to CFL’s ten years ago. Many do NOT last as long as they claim.
Reply
I’d like to add emphasis to remarks by a couple of others, re the socialist B.S. (writ LARGE) about “greenhouse gas” and “global warming”. No argument about trying to improve efficiency and conserve resources, but the author’s Kool-Aid statement
“There’s no doubt about some of the most profound and urgent issues that America faces…” including
“* Greenhouse gas emissions”
and
“* Global warming”
just make me want to vomit.
/DaveO/
Reply
David,
Thanks for the alert. I will go out tomorrow and buy a 10 year supply of incandescent light bulbs. I can’t think of anything more depressing than lighting my home with those ugly stark expensive non-dimmable, cold, CFL lights. One more example of the global warming fraud being shoved down our throats by an over reaching, oppressive Federal government.
Reply
I have already bought several hundred light bulbs of various wattages.
Besides the obvious, energy saving bulbs do not last as long as claimed and the manufacturers have recently been proved to have been lying with their light ouput equivalency claims, I just do not like them. Except for the one in the corner which is on 24 hours a day to prevent anyone tripping up in the middle of the night, and which fails quite often but I do not care because I have been sent loads of “free” ones by UK nergy companies.
Here in the UK, 100Watt or 150Watt bulbs can still be sold freely if marked “For industrial use” but all of the major retailers are in cahoots with the nanny “fascist” state and do not avail themselves of this opportunity.
Just a thought, but regarding the Hazmat requirements concerning a broken bulb which contains mercury, what would happen if every day in every store which sold such bulbs, some clumsy person dropped one of these bulbs. What would happen? Has it happened already and have appropriate cleanup procedures been followed.
Reply
Detractors of CFLs are correct and Fessler needs to re-check his figures. I work-ed (note I wrote ‘ed’ – as in past tense) on a manufacturing line producing CFLs (for a MAJOR lighting company most people would recognize immediately IF I could give their name).
Not only is the ‘miniscule’ pellet of mercury (a ‘heavy metal’) contained in this ‘bulb’ a known health hazard – don’t forget the white coating inside the glass. That’s low-level radioactive ‘phospher’ which continues to emit radiation long after the bulb is dead. The tubs of raw paste used to resupply the injection machinery are prominantly marked with the old 1050′s black and yellow ‘Radioactivity’ icons.
Even more; the plasma created inside the bulb (high-voltage excitation of mercury vapour) emits not only UV radiation (predominant ‘spike’ @ 180nm) which is what causes the phosphor to glow white – it also produces X-Rays as well (much as do all CRTs used in TVs and POS or computer terminals).
Also correct is the warm-up time (try waiting for a CFL outdoors in winter) and Glen Pilgreen offers a good stock tip in ‘Cree’ ($79.08 at close as of 4/9/2010) which offers many LED lighting options and has developed sizable demand amongst large customers (LEDs for lighting streets, parking lots, ‘big-box’ stores, etc).
Having ALSO worked in semiconductor manufacturing I know from experience the chemicals used in ‘semiconductor fabs’ (where LEDs are made) are easier to use, contain and dispose of (environmentally safely) than mercury so the overall cost of using LED lighting is less than using CFLs.
CFLs (due to the plasma’s voltage requirements) cannot be used in ‘dimmer’ applications whereas LEDs can. See http://www.national.com/analog/led/triac_dimming
As in the debate over solar-electric power versus fossil fuel – it will only require providing the purchasing public the overall final costs to convince them to switch to LED lighting.
If anyone is interested in whether solar CAN be more economical than fossil or nuclear – check THIS link.
http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/i-b-m-and-saudi-researchers-collaborate-on-solar-powered-desalination-technology/
Reply
Those CFL’s are a nightmare if you happen to break one. Once the mercury gets into your carpet, or any fabric, it’s virtually impossible to get out. If you use a vacuum cleaner, it merely spreads the mercury through the air, and then you’re looking at hiring a decontamination company at perhaps thousands of dollars. Some savings…
It’s time for gov’t to quit meddling and trying to control every aspect of our lives. They are already trying to shove electric cars, solar and wind energy, and cap and trade down our throats, which will siphon more of our hard-earned dollars into politicians pockets. Fossil fuels and internal combustion engines are far more efficient and less expensive than these pollyanna ideas of do-gooders. Let the free market decide what gets manufactured and purchased, not politicians.
And as others have mentioned, CFL’s cannot be used on a dimmer circuit. Yes, LED’s would be a much better alternative, but again, let the free market decide.
Reply
You speak of preventing “global warming” as though it were a fact. Since only whores and liars preach man made global warming, that makes the rest of your argument invalid.
Reply
An interesting article, but ommitted how one disposes of old CFLs.
A hazard?
Reply
Unfortunately, the lifespan figures quoted (courtesy of YOUR Federal Nanny State propagandists) are not borne out by real world experience. The CFL circuitry is not compatible with either analog (rheostat) or digital (transistorized circuitry) lighting control devices. Based on over 4 years of real world testing of these highly hyped lighting devices I can state that the service life is as little as ONE TENTH of the ballyhooed lifetime when installed in an infrared automatic control circuit. (BTW these controls are also mandated by law for certain commercial applications)
The CFL is incompatible with ceiling fan mounted lighting fixtures (remember the big push for ceiling fans as an alternative to air conditioning a few years back???). This is due to the small amount of vibration inherent in ceiling fans due to the inability to attain a perfect balance of the blades.
There is an increased FIRE HAZARD with CFLs. I had one lamp start an electrical fire when the circuitry in the base blew out!!! (Fortunately I was able to de-energize the circuit before there was any major damage)
Most smaller municipalities are not equipped to provide safe disposal of these devices when they do fail, and won’t have proper facilities in place for many years. The promised reductions in mercury levels are not backed up with timetables, only promises of “real soon now”.
Mr. Fessler, you tout yourself as an “Energy and Infrastructure Expert”. Please learn the FACTS about the products you are pitching. You only reduce your own credibility by pushing the CFL manufacturing industries self serving figures that those of us who have done the research know to be false. While there might be a poorly publicized mandate from the FEDS,the increasing public awareness of the real costs associated with the implementation of this half evolved technology are going to lead to a backlash of tsunami proportions and the eventual (sooner than later) repeal of these well intentioned but poorly thought out regulations.
What will happen then to the money invested by people who believe your advice when this industry blows up?
Hi Desert ED
Reply
Steve, how can somebody take you seriously when you demonstrate ignorance? You should know more to be trusted as an adviser.
Reply
Great goal to replace incandescent light bulbs. However, special cases should be considered. For instance, I live in a cold climate. When I changed all my inside and outside incandescent bulbs to CFls the outside bulbs didn’t emit light. Even the inside CFLs performed poorly at 60 degrees F. I would life to see improvement at colcer temperatures before being forced to use them.
Reply
CLFs do not put out the same amount of light as an “equivelant” incandescent, and when they are cold (as it gets in Colorado), they don’t “turn on” when you flip the switch. If you can tolerate the flicker and the fact that you could fall down stairs before the light comes on, then you might get some value out of this. Even LEDs have some issues since they are more of a direct light and not a general light. CFLs need a lot more inovation before they become a staple, but the Government will have their NANNY STATE say and it will become something that we will have to live with (maybe we will go back to using candles.
Reply
8000 to 12000 hours…..b as in b and s as in s. nothing like that.
Reply
Re: CFL’s
Our Home also has about 200-220 lamp outlets including 42 outdoor and yardlights. Over the past several years we have replaced various incandescent lamps with flourescents. The 65 Watt Bulb for recess light replacements is a 18 watt G.E. flourescent flood bulb and has the exact same LUMEN output then the 65 watt incandescent lamp. It works well in up to 10 foot cielings and areas with lights “ON” for longer periods of time, as the warm up time could be up to several minutes. We have not found a srew in type CFL that looks decent in a recess fixture, and, the flood lamps warm up time is to long to be used in hallways,closets,etc., or, areas that we are in and out of.
Change is coming, we visited Germany last year (2009) and sale of incandescents have been outlawed as of June 2009.
Also, the savings are not exactly correct in that it is based on Mfg. rated lamp life, and usage for this time. Neither can be counted on. This means that even if a lamp lasts 40 years (as I have had my customers tell me of the 2′ flourescent sink lite lamps, installed in the 1960′s & 70′s), the lamp would have to burn 3.5 hours a day every day 365 days a year. As a rule lamps do not last that long, and if they do, the payback saving time is very extended and light emisson considerably reduced.
All in all, change is long overdue, for avery drop of oil less from the EAST, could save a drop of Amercian blood. And that, my friends, must be the true value of the change.
John M. Long, Retired Electrical Contractor
Reply
This article doesn’t talk about the down side of every day use in the home.1)The CFLs need minutes to warm up to their full light potential .2)They are best used where they can be left on for long periods of time.In the average home this eliminates half of the locations.
Reply
CFL’s are outdated compared to LED’s. The stock to buy to take advantage of this coming change is CREE
Reply
Hi all of you, i am happy to join with. i am estimated that an average household, lights use about 20% of total electricity. So if you are able to do something that will ensure that reducing electricity consumption, to use, it automatically lowers the electricity bill. Large scale is a long way to reduce pollution. It ‘easy energy saving lighting only the installation of energy saving bulbs where possible.
At Monterey, you’ll find a full line of name brand, top quality products at prices that others charge for the economy brands. For replacement bulbs, ballasts or new energy efficient fixtures, experience the Monterey diffference.
http://shop.montereycorp.com/
Reply
CREE is leading the LED lighting revolution
http://www.cree.com/
Reply
Remember how well the switch to the metric system took hold? Don’t worry, they can only push a rope for so long before giving up and looking for a different rope to push.
Reply
We have 8″globe light fixures in our residential kitchen. One of them is fitted with a 150 W bulb, the other with a 100 W bulb. I have bought replacement fluorescent bulbs and found they were up to 2″ too long to fit inside the fixture!
The long windings of the tube in the fluorescent bulb could have been engineered into a larger bulb diameter rather than the present diameter with more turns, the bulb would be short enough to fit.
Problems is the bulbs are made in China were the are used with just a socket hanging from the supply wire – they have few places with fixtures.
I also found that some of the bulbs had warnings on their packaging that they are a fire hazard if installed in a fixture that is enclosed, or are installed in a horizontal position, or upside – down (?) whatever that means.
Needless to say I took the bulbs back to the store! I am not about to set my house on fire with some experimental chinese bulbs.
I am looking to buy about 36 – 150 Watt NOMA incandescent bulbs – to last me until I am gone.
They have to be “Noma” because these are the only ones with a smooth rounded solder top, whereas GE bulbs have a very poor solder job at the top of the bulb which causes them to use extra power and short out in no time.
Reply
Why is LED lighting better than incandescent bulbs? LED lighting can save up to 85% of electricity used by incandescent bulbs since the energy from incandescent bulbs is converted mostly into heat instead of light. LEDs are also designed to last almost 50 times longer, which means less waste.
How are LEDs better than fluorescent bulbs?
◦LEDs don’t contain any hazardous materials, such as mercury.
◦LED lighting uses solid-state technology allowing effective dimming and eliminating flicker.
◦High quality LEDs produce better light that shows color more effectively than fluorescents.
Reply
How long these bulbs last depends on how they are used. The claim is for a 10 year life. If you do not switch them on and off – ie run them continuously then yes they are likely to achieve that life span. However that is NOT the way in which most light fittings are used. Turning them on and off reduces their useful life substantially. In my case most burned out after 2 – 3 years much less than the anticipated life. I have reverted to incandescent lights and use CFL only for outside lighting that operate all night. They were the worst “investment” ever. I will never buy another one.
My strategy for making money is to buy up all the available incandescent bulbs I can and I will resell them when the rest of the world realizes their mistake. I buy them for about 25c a piece and will resell them for a dollar when the time comes. That is a 4000% profit.
Malcolm
Reply
Forgot to mention the very best energy saving tip of all time.
TURN YOUR LIGHTS OFF WHEN NOT IN ROOM.
Investment = ZERO
Return a bazillion percent.
And global warming…..anyone who believes that nonsense is out to lunch. Biggest fraud in “scientific” history.
Malcolm
Reply
Promoting the biggest fraud in history (“global warming”), advocating highly poisonous mercury in the home (ever check the cleanup cost to bring the levels in your home back to acceptable standards if you break one?), and cheerleading government intervention into my ability to buy a perfectly safe and legal product. I’m cancelling my subscription.
Reply
LED lighting has better color rendering, wearmer white color temperatures, and longer lamp life with no mercury
A Philips Ambient LED R20 track light consumes just 7 watts of electricity and has an average life of 40,000 hours compared to the life of a conventional incandescent bulb at 750 to 1000 hours, 2000 hours for so-called long life incandescents and 6000 hours for most CLFs
Reply
These bulbs could be 100% better and I still would not buy them due to the government forcing them down our throats. Does Fessler know anything about freedom and freedom of choice? This is just like Obama care and making me wretch.
Reply
I forgot to address one other CFL shortcoming in my previous post, the cold temperature issue. This is a problem with all types of fluorescent lamps, especially when you get far below freezing. However, there are fluorescents that work in lower temperatures, though not as low as filament lamps. For outside applications many businesses use CFL wall packs – they’re not the screw in type but a separate fixture. 32W T8 4′ lamps work well in freezers. But if it’s a really cold application, look at LEDs. They are unaffected by low temps.
Reply
Somehow my first post didn’t go through. This post should come before #65.
To all the anti-Obama “nanny staters” out there, two things:
First, get informed. Incandescent lamps are being phased out as the result of the 2007 EPACT, which was passed by President Bush.
Second, the law doesn’t ban incandescent lamps. What does it is to raise the efficiency standards for many types of lighting, standards which incandescent lamps can’t meet because they’re a 19th century technology. I don’t hear you complaining about efficiency standards being raised for other household appliances such as refrigerators and air conditioners.
Experience has shown that standards are necessary because market forces lag without them. Even soft standards such as Energy Star, which using a voluntary labeling scheme, make a huge difference in spurring competition and innovation among manufacturers to achieve better efficiency and market penetration.
As to the problems people have experienced with CFLs: shorter than expected lifespan, flicker, buzz, cold color temperature, etc., here’s the deal. CFLs have come a long way since they first hit the market. There are, literally, thousands of types on the market. Some are better than others. CFLs from five years ago are not the same as the ones made today. Commercial grade CFLs, while more expensive, offer better lumens per watt output, better reliability, and better longevity. You need to shop around and do a little research to find the CFL that works best for you.
You can get CFLs that last 6-10,000 hours. You can get a variety of color temperatures, including warmer, incandescent-like light. You can get dimmable CFLs as well, though they will not dim as well as incandescents (they don’t go down as far).
One thing you can’t get with CFLs is a point source light. Incandescents produce light from a filament, which is highly directional. CFLs produce a more diffuse light and, while there are some CFL spots with reflectors (Par 38, Par 30) available, they just can’t do as good a job at directing light as Incs can. LEDs, on the other, make great spots.
Finally, as to the mercury issue, this is a concern, and one that must be addressed, perhaps by including a separate CFL container for garbage pickup. But I find it interesting, and not a little disingenuous, to hear people going on and on about the dangers of CFL mercury when we’ve lived with the much greater danger of mercury in 4′ fluorescent tubes for decades – and not just in our homes but in schools, offices, stores, pretty much everywhere. Those lamps are not only easier to break but also contain a lot more mercury. So to claim that CFLs somehow constitute a new and graver danger is just silly. Does the mercury need to be addressed? Absolutely. Is it as bad as everyone is making out? No.
Cheers to all.
Reply
I have over 500 incandescent light bulbs I was going to sell for about 30-50 cents each. After reading this blog, I might just have to keep them! If anyone is interested and lives near Chicago, let me know
Reply
In any northern climate, incandescent bulbs are preferable to fluorescent bulbs. It’s so simple! “Waste” heat from incandecent bulbs is heating your premises! That heat is directly deducted from your heating bill from the other source of home heating! So! If you replace all your lighting to flourecent your other heating bill will increase to compensate for the loss of your inneficient incandecent lights! This is SO simple!!!!
Reply
I think this is great that incadesent light bulbs are higher but they pay off themself in less than a month’s energy bill. Sometimes it better to save money instead of lettign energy and eletricity go down the drain. Sometimes in our homes we need to turn off our light’s instead of letting them burn and stay on all day.
Reply
This proves they are unsafe. There is a voluntary standard in which the base is supposed to be made of flame-retardent materials. This is on wikipedia. Look for the words “Fire hazard”.
Here is the quote from wikipedia. This quote is backed with a recall source.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp
“Fire hazard — When the base of the bulb is not made to be flame-retardant, as required in the voluntary standard for CFLs, then the electrical components in the bulb can overheat which poses a fire hazard.”
Also, here is the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission web link too that describes a bulb from China that was NOT made with a flame-retardant base, and thus caused fires.
http://www.cpsc.gov/CPSCPUB/PREREL/prhtml05/05005.html
Reply
Sorry, just to point out one word from my previous comment, the word I want to point out is
VOLUNTARY
as in “voluntary standard for CFLs”. China already doesn’t follow required safety guidelines, so why should we believe they would bother with a voluntary one?
Reply
I do not approve of these energy saving bulbs and think it is a HUGE mistake!First of all I had a few of them in a house I moved into so I left them in.Well when they die out they start smoking!!Not good with kids in the house!!Sylvania was one of the types in the house,the worst!!I contacted them and they did nothing but send me more coupons for more crappy bulbs!Incidentally they died out before a year was even up!!Yeh Does that sound like I saved money??
Reply
I agree aboout getting away from incandecent, However so far no one makes a 3-way CFL or LED bulb, I have looked. I do not use ceiling lights in my home I use my antique lamps, which take 3-way bulbs.
Reply
I have some 3-way CFLs. They definitely exist.
Reply
If you have 206 light sockets, you’re rich. No, the average American house does *not* have 50-100. No chance. Maybe 25-50.
Reply