Posted on 05/05/2007 11:18:00 AM PDT by John Jorsett
We've been looking in to compact fluorescent bulbs (CFLs) to reduce energy consumption for lighting. Here's what we've learned so far.
Manufacturers say that a 13-18 watt CFL produces light equivalent to a 60w incandescent bulb, an 18-22w CFL is the equivalent of a 75w bulb, and a 23-28w CFL is the equivalent of a 100w bulb. This is based on the "lumens" rating on the side of the box.
In real life, CFL equivalent replacements do not seem quite as bright as incandescents, so you might end up replacing a 60w equivalent with a 75w equivalent and so forth. (The "swirled" designs seem to give off brighter light than the CFLs with a traditional "bulb" design.) But overall, CFLs reduce energy use for lighting by 60%-70%.
Color temperature makes a big difference. The lower the color temperature, the more the light resembles the "warmth" of incandescent bulbs we are all used to (that may sound backwards, but that's how it works). Not all CFLs list the color temperature. The GE "Soft White" has a pleasing, almost incandescent look, while the similarly named Sylvania "Soft White" has a cooler, harsher "fluorescent" look (although some might prefer it for truer color rendering or easier reading).
We found some Sylvania "Warm White" 13w (60w replacement) CFLs at Lowes that have very pleasing light, and their small size allows them to fit most fixtures. The color temperature is listed as 2700K (as compared to their "Daylight" CFL which is listed at 6500K and seems much "harsher".) The 13w "Warm White" CFLs came in a contractor's box of 12 for $27, which is a pretty good deal. They are rated at 800 lumens with a lifetime of 10,000 hours, as compared to a standard GE "Soft White" 60w incandescent, which is rated at 840 lumens with a life of 1000 hours.
Because of their long life and lower energy consumption, CFLs can result in significant savings over the lifetime of the bulb relative to its cost. Manufacturers are quick to point this out, with claims on the packaging of $36+ in energy savings over the life of a 14w (60w equivalent) up to $61 for a 23w (100w equivalent). Your mileage will probably vary.
Most CFLs do not work with dimmers. Manufacturers say it will shorten the bulb life and it voids the warranty. There are special bulbs that work with dimmers, but they are not widely available. If the package does not say the bulb is compatible with dimmers, it probably isn't. (Look at the fine print on the base of the bulb.) We are still looking for a local source for "dimmable" CFLs, as most of our fixtures have dimmers. CFLs are also not intended for use with most photocells and timers.
One thing that is not talked about much is that CFLs emit more ultraviolet (UV) light than an incandescent bulb, which produces virtually none. Light in a CFL starts out as UV from excited gases, and is made visible by phosphors coating the inside of the tube/bulb. Incandescent light is mostly infrared emitted by heating the filament to super high temperatures (leading some to call them "heat bulbs" instead of "light bulbs"). Most of the UV from a CFL is filtered out in the conversion, but there is still some.
Manufacturers say, however, that there is no health risk and that eight hours of exposure to CFL UV is about the same as one minute in full sunlight. But, photographs, artwork, some fabrics, and some photoreactive chemicals used in furniture finishes are susceptible to degradation from any increased levels of UV over time. So this is something to consider.
The Mercury Problem
Finally, CFL critics are quick to point out that CFL bulbs contain mercury, a highly toxic pollutant. This is true. The typical CFL bulb contains approx. 5mg of mercury. (Manufacturers are working to reduce this. Phillips is said to have developed a bulb that only has 1.5mg of mercury.) If the bulb is broken, special care must be taken to properly clean up and dispose of the remnants to prevent health risks. Further, CFLs must be recycled or properly disposed of to prevent the mercury from entering the environment. Here are the federal government guidelines for CFL disposal and cleanup.
What the critics forget to mention, however, is that coal-fired power plants are a major source of mercury pollution. Further, most of this mercury is emitted into the air, and is thus not contained or containable. Mercury in a CFL is already contained unless it is broken, and if properly recycled is fully containable.
We did some rough calculations to determine the mercury pollution impact of CFL v. incandescent bulbs. We used TVA's Kingston plant as an example. It generated 10,161,530 gross megawatts in 2005, and released 643 pounds of mercury into the environment. If our math is correct, this works out to about 0.000028702 milligrams of mercury pollution per watt of electricity generated.
Based on this, a 100w incandescent bulb operated for 8 hours per day 365 days per year causes 8.4mg of mercury pollution. An equivalent 23w CFL bulb will cause 1.9mg of mercury pollution. Assuming a five year life of the bulb, and assuming the bulb is crushed and dumped in a landfill releasing its 5mg of mercury into the environment, the CFL will cause 14mg of mercury pollution over its lifetime as compared to 42mg of mercury pollution for an equivalent number of incandescent bulbs, a reduction of 28mg or 66%.
66% sounds like a lot. But according to DOE estimates, residential power usage is about 35% of the total, and lighting in the average home accounts for about 9.4% of the energy used. Considering that about 64% of TVA power is generated from coal v. hydro and nuclear, the net reduction of mercury emissions if every TVA customer switched to CFL bulbs would only be 4.6 pounds at the Kingston plant, a 0.7% reduction. System-wide, this would be a reduction of nearly 39 pounds annually.
39 pounds doesn't sound like much mercury (even though it's thousands of lethal doses) but it's something. And multiply that for every power system in the U.S. and it adds up.
Plus, we should take pollution controls wherever we can get them. If you figure a 0.7% reduction in coal-fired household energy use and related emissions across the board, system-wide TVA emissions of NOx (nitrogen oxides that cause ozone and smog) could be reduced by 1337 tons, SO2 (sulfur dioxide that causes acid rain and harms plants and stream ecology) by 3220 tons, and CO2 (a greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming) by 735,000 tons (2005 figures). Increased commercial usage of CFL would result in even more reductions.
So CFLs won't save the planet, but they might put off its demise for a month or two.
Back to the CFL mercury problem, a couple of things need to happen right away:
• Consumers need to be educated on proper disposal and cleanup. The packages we purchased do not mention this prominently or at all. One directs you to a website. There should be prominent warnings about health risks and instructions for proper disposal and cleanup on all CFL packaging.
• Local public works officials need to incorporate CFL collection, recycling and/or disposal into their waste management programs.
• Big-box retailers who sell more than 100 CFLs per year (or some other arbitrary figure) should be required to provide on-site recycling centers.
Exactly. I've replaced every 60 W incandescent in my house with a 100 W equivalent CFB. I use less total power and get brighter lighting. And the CFB's won't weld themselves into the socket because of their lower heat output. Also the high daylight CFB's mentioned earlier kept my plants very green all winter.
It would appear it is not correct.
And even this is over stated. In both examples the calculation is based on 100% coal power generation. Coal provides less than half the electrical power in the US. When using realistic numbers for American power generation, the CFL causes more mercury pollution.
That’s exciting. Have you tried any of them?
And yet you still clicked on, then posted on, the thread...
“Plus, we should take pollution controls wherever we can get them. ‘
Sadly, that’s the enviro mantra. What the reporter should have said was we should take pollution REDUCTION wherever we can get it -— if it is economically feasible.
C’mon, 8,000 hours is like 333 days running constantly. It lasts six or seven months of using them 4-8 hours per day. That’s way, way short of the mark. If they say 8,000 hours, they should deliver 8,000 hours. At the very least they should deliver 6,500 hours. So, like assuming 7 months at 30 day/month and 8 hours of use per day I got about 1700 hours. How is that even close? It’s something like 22% of the promised life.
Plus after reading about the clean up at Junk Science I don’t know that the hassle of an accident is something I want to put up with. So the false advertising and the potential for poisoning myself tells me that this isn’t the right technology.
I have more then that one bulb but I don’t think I’ll be buying anymore. Sometimes I drop things, I don’t want to spend $2,000 or have to put on a hazmat suit to clean it up.
They were promoted here long before ‘green’ became the fashion...but just to cut power consumption and delay the construction of new power plants.
Canada Joins Australia in Banning Incandescent Bulbs: Will California Be Next?
NY lawmaker wants to ban filament lightbulbs
To answer the earlier question concerning conservatives response, I believe the above actions explain why...
It’s a very expensive bulb.
Do you like being cheated? Do I have to be cheated like this to want to save a little money?
Plus, like I say in the other post, I don’t want to wear a hazmat suit or spend $2,000 on clean up.
It’s bad enough I have a very dangerous bulb to get rid of now. I don’t really appreciate that hassle. They should pay me.
So, your undeniable logic is it’s okay to cheat people?
Good post!
Do you feel their stated lumens are accurate?
Thanks for the tip. I’m going to try one or two.
I dropped my garage and basement workroom flourescents into the garbage container in the garage then just hit them with a hammer..............I think I'm scheduled to die next week.
Time: 14 years ago
Place: Military housing on base
Situation: Husband got new assignment. I'm cleaning the house and packing up stuff. Haul all the junk down to the curb -- albeit neatly -- to be picked up garbage man. One of the items was a gallon just with about maybe 2-3" of paint in it.
So, I'm in the house washing down the kitchen cabinets when suddenly someone's pounding at the door:
Wondering what the heck is going on I go to the door. Standing there is a middle-aged, bantam rooster of a bureaucrat. The conversation goes like this:
Him (pointing): That your trash out there?
Me (looking, wondering what the heck is going on. Is it on fire or something?): Yes.
Him (stern): Come with me. I wanna show you something.
Me: Ah...okay.
We go to the neatly stacked pile of garbage by the curb. With a stabbing motion he points to the can of paint.
Him: Do you know disposing of paint in the trash is a felony?
Me: It's only a little bit of paint. I got it from (base) housing (supply). It..."
Him: It's a felony.
Folks, I came this close to being a smart mouth and replying "Oh, you mean like shooting a judge??" But, in a sudden, unexpected burst of common sense, I didn't.
The story ends with him lecturing me how I had to dispose of it, where I had to take it, what forms I needed, &c. &c. I took the can of paint -- upon which, apparently, the fate of all mankind hinged -- kept it in the hall closet for a couple of days.
Then I drove to the back of chow hall, and tossed the ^%$#@ can of paint in one of their huge dumpsters.
--The End--
You can buy them in different spectra. Mine have one similar to the sunlight (Megaman Nature Color). They give an amazing light.
LED's make an excellent light source. You see them now in many car brake lights and flashlights. I've read notebook computers as well as LCD TV's will be switching from fluorescent backlights to LED's. LED's seem to have all the advantages of low energy consumption, long life, and no heat production. The only downside is cost, but that will come down as usage ramps up.
I think they are pretty accurate. What was most of concern to me was color temperature. For general use I like about 3500k but for reading I like about 4500k. If you are picky about that sort of thing you’ll want to check that. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.