Skip to comments.
Green Follies Escalate in the Face of Failure (CFLs are a dud in the real world)
American Thinker ^
| 01/20/2011
| Ed Lasky
Posted on 01/20/2011 6:53:34 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Those widely heralded compact fluorescent bulbs (CFLs) turn out to be a bit of dud in the real world.
For years, we have seen traditional light bulbs vanishing from shelves of hardware stores and Home Depots across America. They have been replaced by those screw-shaped things that bespeak the future -- a future of dull lights, money flowing overseas, Americans jobs being terminated, and promised energy savings going up in smoke.
California's utilities are spending $548 million over seven years to subsidize consumer purchases of compact fluorescent lamps. But the benefits are turning out to be less than expected.
One reason is that bulbs have gotten so cheap that Californians buy more than they need and sock them away for future use. Another reason is that the bulbs are burning out faster than expected.
California led the way, as it often does with damaging fads, especially those beloved by environmentalists and green energy schemers. The Golden State has been wonderful for job creation -- in Arizona and New Mexico, as businesses flee from high energy costs and move to states with sensible energy -- and tax, and regulatory -- policies.
No state has done more to promote compact fluorescent lamps than California. On Jan. 1, the state began phasing out sales of incandescent bulbs, one year ahead of the rest of the nation. A federal law that takes effect in January 2012 requires a 28% improvement in lighting efficiency for conventional bulbs in standard wattages. Compact fluorescent lamps are the logical substitute for traditional incandescent light bulbs, which won't be available in stores after 2014.
California utilities have used ratepayer funds to subsidize sales of more than 100 million of the bulbs since 2006. Most of them are made in China. It is part of a comprehensive state effort to use energy-efficiency techniques as a substitute for power production. Subsidized bulbs cost an average of $1.30 in California versus $4 for bulbs not carrying utility subsidies.
Anxious to see what ratepayers got for their money, state utility regulators have devoted millions of dollars in the past three years for evaluation reports and field studies. What California has learned, in a nutshell, is that it is hard to accurately predict and tricky to measure energy savings. It is also difficult to design incentive plans that reward-but don't overly reward-utilities for their promotional efforts.There are additional problems since it seems the state may have over-rewarded utilities with taxpayer money to promote a program that has failed to live up to the green dreams of its proponents.
There are additional problems, since it seems the state may have over-rewarded utilities with taxpayer money to promote a program that has failed to live up to the green dreams of its proponents.
In the real world, these buggers burn out at a fast rate. If I may indulge the reader with my own personal tale: I bought into the dream, mostly because I thought I would save money and energy. Also, I am lazy, and I got tired of getting up on the ladder or slippery surfaces to reach bulbs that needed to be replaced. I thought screwing these wonder-bulbs in as substitutes would save me time and some nagging from everyone in the house. Well...the nagging never stopped, since everyone complains about the quality of the light and how long it takes for these things to power up to their full brightness (a brightness that is a bit unnatural). The studies in California show that these bulbs do not work well in recessed lighting and in bathrooms. This is bad news for me, since most of our lights are recessed.
So once again, we see how government elites and green dreamers have pushed through programs -- imposing them on us -- that have proven to be boondoggles and failures. The landscapes of Europe (and the balance sheets of its governments) are pockmarked with solar and wind power plants that are woefully inefficient at anything other than sucking taxpayers' monies down the drain. Spain is wobbly in no small measure because of the billions spent on solar power ventures. Germany's chancellor, Angela Merkel, is considering prolonging the operation of Germany's
nuclear power plants because that is the only affordable way to keep Germans supplied with power (the plants were slated to be closed, with their replacements being ultra-expensive solar and wind power plants).
But back to the bulbs and the dimwitted ones who saddled us with these screwy things. As Investors Business Daily (and all my family members) noted, the
quality of light from CFLs is poor:
Despite governments' effort to market them, CFLs are not necessarily better. Tests conducted by the London Telegraph found that using a single lamp to illuminate a room, an 11-watt CFL produced only 58% of the illumination of an equivalent 60-watt incandescent -- even after a 10-minute warm-up that consumers have found necessary for CFLs to reach their full brightness.
Lack of light isn't the only drawback. CFLs apparently are so dangerous, the European Commission has to warn consumers of the environmental hazards they pose. If one breaks, consumers are advised to air out rooms and avoid using vacuum cleaners to prevent exposure to the mercury in the bulbs.
Compounding the problem is that these bulbs are usually made in China. The old-fashioned kind that we grew up with are being phased out, and the very last American company making them turned off its lights and closed last year -- a victim of environmentalism run amok. Hundreds of Americans, many in their 50s, were laid off with no place to go (I wrote a
requiem on the closing). The saga of the old-fashioned light bulbs is not just a nostalgic tale of buggy whips and horse-drawn carriages being rendered extinct by progress. They were killed by government policy.
The new House may change that policy; one of the Republican proponents of CFLs, Congressman Fred Upton, has -- pardon the pun -- seen the light, and from his new post as chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, he may do what few politicians ever do:
undo the damage they have helped to cause.
China is going gangbusters business selling us all sort of gimcracks and doodads that are supposed to save us megawatts of energy. In the real world -- outside Washington, D.C., outside the centers of crony capitalism (since General Electric and other politically connected corporations feed off green energy programs) -- billions of taxpayer dollars are being exported to China in return for cool and futuristic-looking curlicues that are giant, toxic wastes of money.
I think windmills are nice-looking -- at least in Holland, they are. But they don't suit everyone's tastes. The Kennedys and other mega-wealthy residents of Cape Cod have been in high dungeon for years over the Cape Wind project to place windmills in a windy area offshore. The actual eyeprint would be quite small, but why should they endure anything but perfection as they (including Senator John Kerry) take their yachts out for a spin?
The bluebloods have been successful in killing the project.
Mere commoners have also complained about the environmental and health effects of having windmills near their homes or workplaces. But they did not have their hands on the tillers of power and could not stop these projects from being built near them. The Not in My Backyard (NIMBY) dynamic failed in the face of utilities, venture capitalists, and government officials plopping these projects around. These are often in rural areas, and we know that elites, led by Barack Obama, don't have much respect or concern for hayseeds who live outside Washington, New York, Los Angeles, and other bastions of sophisticated civilization. There are not many voters and very few donors to care about in those neighborhoods.
Government mandates regarding percentages of utility power that must come from renewables worsen the problem since this is just one more means of subsidizing grossly inefficient ways to generate power. They would never be built without governments finagling the rules and balance sheets to rig the game to keep them alive. Without these incentives, they would die. Those vast solar power plantations and windmill farms will be the 21st century's industrial ghost towns.
The federal and state governments have been giving away hundreds of millions of dollars to get American companies to invest in green energy plants here in America. In reality, all too often, these companies take the money and run...
to China. The products are then made there. Again, American money (much of it deriving from the "stimulus" program) is flowing to China to save and create jobs over there.
The Chinese are laughing all the way to their banks. So are the venture capitalists and green promoters who have benefited from their
campaign donations to Democrats and the Democratic Party.
Will Barack Obama do his labor allies another solid favor during his meeting with Chinese President Hu Jintao? Will Obama bring up complaints that China is violating World Trade Organization rules by unfairly subsidizing manufacturers of green energy products at the expense of union laborers here in America?
Why ruin a good party and upset the environmental theologians Barack Obama considers experts and geniuses?
Ed Lasky is news editor of American Thinker.
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cfl; environmentalist; green; lightbulb
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-86 next last
To: jdsteel
That said, I always prefer having a CHOICE!!Choice is good; informed choice is better. :)
21
posted on
01/20/2011 7:20:20 AM PST
by
SeeSac
To: SeekAndFind
I bought a bunch of these CFBs a few years ago and replaced every light in the house with them. Not only are they ugly, but the light they put off sucks and we didn't save on cent on our electric bills.
To: SeeSac
I just bought a house, and the former owners used CFLs, almost exclusively.
One burned out in the bathroom. Typically, no big deal.
I took it out and went to replace it when I noticed that the base was all scorched. The bulb had obviously been overheating.
I said "uh-oh, maybe we've got a problem with the fixture". Sure enough, all of the bulbs in the fixture had that same scorching on them.
Being an engineer, and an inquistive type, I checked all of the bulbs in ALL of our bathrooms. Different rates of usage, different circuits, different moisture levels, different types of bulbs, etc. ALL of them had that same scorching on them. And, I can see why, in messing around some, they run really really hot.
We're now on incandescents. No problems at all, and I've been keeping a very close eye on them.
I don't know the manufacturer - there were a few with a visible stamp, but it was unreadable, due to the scorch marks. Maybe they were cheap bulbs, I dunno. But I'm not taking another chance. Period.
23
posted on
01/20/2011 7:22:47 AM PST
by
wbill
To: SeeSac
I’m glad you are a believer in these lights. More power to ya.
I certainly am not a fan. My experiences are more in line with the article’s author. I have replced these cfl’s more often that I ever have had to do with incandescent. In simple setting like overhead bedroom lights. I suspect they cannot do the on and off too well.
I certainly cannot see anything approaching “savings” off my power bill and I am old enough to simply bristle at mandates by a bunch of people who are usually amd mostly profoundly WRONG, ie government bureaucrats.
I will definitely be laying in a bigger stock of various incandescents. Given their longer lives, I shouldn’t need much to last the rest of my life.
24
posted on
01/20/2011 7:24:33 AM PST
by
Adder
(Part 1 Accomplished)
To: SeekAndFind
The Kennedys and other mega-wealthy residents of Cape Cod have been in high dungeon for years...While I agree that the Kennedys should probably be in a low dungeon, somewhere, I think the word the author is looking for here is "dudgeon".
Freudian slip, perhaps?
25
posted on
01/20/2011 7:25:24 AM PST
by
OldSmaj
(I am an avowed enemy of islam and obama is a damned fool and traitor. Questions?)
To: SeeSac
It’s that upfront extra $500 for the LEDs ~ that’s the part that has to come down.
26
posted on
01/20/2011 7:28:10 AM PST
by
muawiyah
To: Yo-Yo
You can buy two kinds of lights for a fan. A CFL designed for fans. An incandescent beefed up for fans.
There are promises of a reliable LED for fans but you have this problem with current stability near a fan motor.
27
posted on
01/20/2011 7:30:17 AM PST
by
muawiyah
To: US_MilitaryRules
28
posted on
01/20/2011 7:33:03 AM PST
by
libertarian27
(Ingsoc: Department of Life, Department of Liberty, Department of Happiness)
To: SeeSac
I put one in my shower, I purposely bought a GE bulb that comes on as fast as an incandescent and doesn’t have much variance between when you turn it on and a few minutes later.
These things do have a useful niche to fill, I put one in my workout room where I didn’t want any heat coming from my light, it works fine.
Their niche is providing light with no heat and potentially saving a few bucks from less electricity usage, they can last longer than incandescents, but it’s a random crap shoot on how long they last, depending on the circuitry underneath.
Selling them as a “green” technology is misleading though. They’re different, but not green.
29
posted on
01/20/2011 7:33:36 AM PST
by
Brett66
(Where government advances, and it advances relentlessly , freedom is imperiled -Janice Rogers Brown)
To: SeekAndFind
The CFLs are fine if your never turn them off. I’ve had a couple of always on bulbs in my basement for about 10 years. The same bulbs in normal usage (ON/OFF several times a day) only last 6 or 8 months.
30
posted on
01/20/2011 7:37:38 AM PST
by
BuffaloJack
(What rights will the Obama's regime take from us today?)
To: steelyourfaith
The new bulbs don’t work very well outside in the cold. They also don’t last long, and the produce low light levels. Ain’t progress wonderful?
To: SeeSac
Not sure where you are from; I am from the north east. My CFL’s take way more than just a few seconds to warm up; hence, I do not use them in low traveled area’s of the house.
To: SeeSac
The ones in my garage have been there a long time, I think I have replaced one. Don’t think you should be forced to buy them. But nothing wrong with them, leave it up to the consumer.
To: SeekAndFind
Depending on Solar is going to be interesting when a large volcano goes off like Krakatoa did & blots out the sun for about 2 years.......
Just sayin’.
To: Diana in Wisconsin
"The argument isnt that CFLs are totally bad, its that GOVERNMENT should NOT be FORCING them upon us!" Indeed. Show me where in the Constitution the FedGov has this authority.
"My reading lamp by the bed and by the couch are regular bulbs. I cant read well by CFL light. But, if others can, more power to em."
Try some with a different color spectrum. I've got CFL's in my reading lamp, and they work just fine. Look for those that most closely duplicate the spectrum of an incandescent. You can find both bulbs and info online. The "standard" CFL has a bluish tint, which "is" difficult to read by, but (I think the term is) "warm white" is much better.
To: SeekAndFind
First and foremost, I want to have lifestyle choices and not dictates from the government. Having said that, my experiences with CFLs seem to be better than what some are reporting here. I have been using CFLs thoughout the house for two years now without the loss of a single bulb. I mostly use the 23 watt bulbs to match in brightness the 100 watt incandescents they replaced. The “warm” color bulbs have the highest Lumen efficiency. Since the CFLs run cooler, I may save more from reduced A/C use than directly from the bulbs themselves. I have only two complaints: 1) the warm up time, and 2) the ghastly colors when I take digital photos inside my house without a flash.
36
posted on
01/20/2011 7:55:03 AM PST
by
TexasRepublic
(Socialism is the gospel of envy and the religion of thieves)
To: SeekAndFind
I have places in my home where CFL’s work just fine and other places where I’d rather not have them. Typically basement, garage, places that tend to be cool where the long CFL warmup time is a problem. Should be my choice and not Washington’s.
I think before long improving LED technology may make the CFL’s obsolete anyhow.
To: US_MilitaryRules
Went to Lowes yesterday and was going to see if they had any 100 watt bulbsThe local KMart has had 8-pks of 100W bulbs on sale recently.
Typically, I don't use 100W bulbs. I still bought a couple of packs to put aside.....you never know, I MIGHT want some, later. They won't go bad.
I've not seen the 95W bulbs yet. I've seen 34W (replace 40s) and 52W (replace 60s), though. Where there's a will, there's a way.
38
posted on
01/20/2011 7:57:32 AM PST
by
wbill
To: Yo-Yo
When I bought this house, I opted to put in ceiling fans & not install the A/C.
I have 6 fans, each with 3 bulbs. In the summer, 4 of these fans runs 24/7. In 6 years, I don’t think I have replaced more than 6 bulbs total- & 1/2 of those in my office. I have Hunter fans I bought at Lowe’s for about $70 each & have never noticed any problems with vibration. The biggest electric bill I have had in 6 years was one month in a hot summer when I was filling horse water tanks almost every day. That bill was $125. In the winter, the bill runs about $90.
To: muawiyah
I've used rough service bulbs for ceiling fans, and they never lasted very long, either. So far, simple 60 watt equivalent CFLs have lasted over two years without replacement.
LEDs would not have any current problems. They have internal voltage regulators.
40
posted on
01/20/2011 8:00:28 AM PST
by
Yo-Yo
(Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-86 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson