Posted on 01/14/2012 8:08:34 PM PST by Robert A Cook PE
By Kirk Myers, Seminole County Environmental News Examiner
This article, the second in a series, focuses on the misleading performance claims surrounding the “more energy efficient” compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs now replacing traditional incandescent bulbs. These potentially harmful mercury-filled lamps (see my previous column describing the dangers) are being forced on consumers by the U.S. congress with support from the Green Lobby and light-bulb manufacturers like GE, Sylvania and Phillips. These and other manufacturers stand to make huge profits selling the more expensive CFLs (more on that issue in my next column).
There is a growing body of evidence undermining claims of the EPA, environmental lobby and light bulb manufacturers touting the performance advantages of mercury-laced CFL bulbs.
Exaggerated lifespan
Real-world reports from the home front show that the claimed extended lifespan of CFLs is often greatly exaggerated. There is ample data indicating that the frequent switching on and off of CFLs greatly shortens their life. A study by H. Sterling Burnett, senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, and co-author Amanda Berg concludes
“Unfortunately, except under a fairly narrow range of circumstances, CFLs are less efficient than advertised. Manufacturers claim the average life span of a CFL bulb is 10,000 hours. However, in many applications the life and energy savings of a CFL are significantly lower. Applications in which lighting is used only briefly (such as closets, bathrooms, motion detectors and so forth) will cause CFL bulbs to burn out as quickly as regular incandescent bulbs . . . When initially switched on, CFLs may provide as little as 50 percent to 80 percent of their rated light output and can take up to three minutes to reach full brightness.”
According to a story in the Wall Street Journal, Pacific Gas & Electric originally estimated the useful life of CFL bulbs at 9.4 years. But based on real-world results, the company was forced to lower its estimate to 6.3 years, meaning that it had overstated bulb life by 49 percent. “The early burn-out rate, along with several other factors, meant that the actual energy savings were 73 percent less than the 1.7 billion kilowatt hours projected by PG&E,” the Journal reported.
Less bright, more dim with age
As many consumers have noticed, CFL bulbs grow dimmer as they age. In a 2003-2004 study, the U.S. Department of Energy reported that one-fourth of CFLs, after only 40 percent of their rated service life, no longer produced at their rated output.
And according to Wikipedia: “CFLs produce less light later in their lives than when they are new. The light output decay is exponential, with the fastest losses being soon after the lamp is first used. By the end of their lives, CFLs can be expected to produce 70-80% of their original light output.”
After conducting its own tests on bulbs from several manufacturers, The Sunday Telegraph in London “found that under normal conditions, using a single lamp to light a room, an 11W low-energy CFL produced only 58 percent of the illumination of an ‘equivalent’ 60W bulb - even after a 10-minute ‘warm-up.’”
The European Commission, which led the effort to ban incandescent bulbs in Europe, said that claims by manufacturers that CFL’s shine as brightly as old-fashioned bulbs are “not true.”
Posted on its website for consumers was the warning that “exaggerated claims are often made on the packaging about the light output of compact fluorescent lamps.”
Higher heating bills
Go-Green advocates like to complain about the fact that 90 percent of the energy from incandescent lights is given off as heat, with only 10 percent providing illumination. But they ignore one important fact: The extra heat given off during the winter months can actually lower energy bills.
According to a study by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, “The heat of incandescent lights - more than 341 Btu per bulb per hour - can help to warm a room. Therefore, if the cost of electricity is low relative to the cost of home heating fuel, there may be an economic case for changing to incandescent bulbs in colder seasons.”
In other words, on a cold day when you’re running your electric heater, it makes sense to flip on all those incandescent heat sources. Of course, the contribution of incandescent bulbs to lower heating bills is conveniently missing from pro-CFL literature.
Unsuitable for outdoor lighting
What about the use of CFLs for outdoor lighting? Forget it. Most do not operate well in low temperatures, a performance shortfall that makes them virtually useless for home-security lighting, including as lights in motion detectors. By signing the incandescent bulb’s death warrant, congress has effectively rendered useless outdoor lighting systems that keep away intruders and discourage home break-ins.
Myth of mercury reduction
One of the most misleading arguments advanced in defense of CFLs is the assertion that they reduce harmful mercury levels (a dubious proposition given that the bulbs themselves are laced with mercury).
Case in point: In a letter to the Wall Street Journal in December, CFL advocate Nicole Lederer claimed that “coal-fired power plants produce about half of all mercury.”
In his Jan. 5 response, Charles Battig of Scientists and Engineers for Energy and Environment-Virginia called the statement “scientifically vacuous and misleading.”
Battig cited data from an op-ed ("The Myth of Killer Mercury” by Willie Soon and Paul Driessen) that broke down mercury contributions as follows: �U.S. coal-fired plants, about 41-48 tons per year; forest fires, about 44 tons per year; Chinese power plants, 400 tons per year, while recurring geological events such as volcanoes and geysers emit 9,000-10,000 tons per year.�
“With these missing pieces of information, wrote Battig, the U.S. power plant contribution of mercury is closer to a 0.5% value than the “half of all mercury” claim by Ms. Lederer.”
Battig then offered this advice:
“Would that Ms. Lederer and the Environmental Entrepreneurs expend an equal amount of environmental anguish over placing compact fluorescent lamp bulbs indoors in homes, schools and factories. These mercury-containing, stealth-pollution bulbs bring the mercury threat right into your living room and nursery.”
No good reason for switchover
The fact is there is no good reason for consumers - even energy-conscious go-green enthusiasts - to replace their old incandescent bulbs with the much-overhyped and potentially dangerous CFL lamps. The sole beneficiaries of the forced switchover are light bulb manufacturers who stand to make huge profits selling CFL bulbs whose shelf price has been artificially lowered (but still is higher than incandescent bulbs) through hefty subsidies paid to them by taxpayers.
In light of the facts, the switchover to CFL bulbs has become a real consumer turn-off.
I use the “100 watt equivalent” (Usually 26 watt) in place of 60 watt incandescent bulbs where maximum light output is desired. Love it. They are much brighter than the 60 watters they replace. That might be good for your mother-in-law. And with all those lights on, she really will save money on her energy bill.
Meanwhile, I just wanna make sure there are bulbs for me when the ones in my lava lamp collection burn out.
—This idiotic statement tells you that the whole article is BS, so don’t waste your time.—
Actually, it’s not idiotic. What it is saying is that there are mitigating factors. It is one that kept me from bothering to replace some hard to get at bulbs until spring.
it isn’t a flat rate, I used 12.5 to normalize the bills from June to July but the tiers are below and above this.
I just took June and divided the total kw charges by the hours and rounded up.
one of the packages I opened had one of the bulbs already busted in it, glass powder came out of it all over the kitchen floor.
They can be dangerous right out of the packaging.
My rate is 21.4c per kW. Still want to question my calculations?
http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/e_profiles_sum.html
You live in Hawaii?
Or did you just mess with the calculator till you can make the numbers work?
Why do you have to be a party to this fraud?
NO, I live in CT. Why do you have to call me a liar? Is it because I WON'T see things your way? Is that how you have a discussion. When someone doesn't agree with you you call them a liar?
The link you posted is a "retail average". It does NOT accurately reflect the price I pay.
Why do you have to be a party to this fraud?
What fraud? I've asked you before how my saving money on my electric bill using CFL's is a "fraud".
And as one who understands both the fundamentals of electricity and refrigeration I'm telling you that you can about DOUBLE the so called estimated cost per year. Hust like you can cut the EPA mileage rating on a car by nearly half on some cars. It's put there too sell you something.
Look IF it was so blame cheap as they say then you could cool you home for the fraction of cost because A/C principle of removing heat is one and same as refrigeration principle of removing heat. My parents heat pump is abput two years ole now. It replaced one about 10 years old. One cost as much as the other to operate despite all the promises, Energy Star hype etc.
There are many factors at work but all have the same end result. Type of refrigerant matters as does type of compressor {hermetic or rotary} as too how fast the pull down on the temps actually A rotary compressor {not a new technology but used more now} does draw a little less amperage But It Runs Longer. But an older units with R-12 is more efficent than R-134A it's replacement thanks too the EPA found in all later models. My freezer uses 134A and draws a whopping 2 amps less. I wish it used R-12 because It also rns longer even though it isn't open and it isn't that old.
Same basic principle apply on A/C. I shorted my home a half ton capacity on purpose. Yes a larger unit would cool it down faster. It would also have more frequent start ups thus shortening the life. My A/C runa a little longer but all air in the house gets turned over. Longer off time. Electric bill savings or increase likely nothing.
A refrigerator despite the energy saving hype can only be made to do so much and must consume power to do it. I doubt there is a 18 Cubic ft or higher fridge on the market drawing less than 4 amps and I would say closer to 5 - 6 low ending it meaning 575 to almost 700 amps. IF you find one lower I can guarantee you it will be running much longer and net savings despite what that ticker says is ZILCH.
There are lots of claims of energy and cost savings which may be partially true. My parents converted from electric resistance heat to a Heat Pump about 12 years ago. Yea good savings on the electric bill. But the last heat pump unit cost nearly 10 grand. I've had my electric central heat over 21 years. Same unit and for that matter same cooling unit. Who saved more money in the long run? Me. Most heat pumps never actually pay for themselves in energy savings like the government and companies making them claim. If you get 15 years out of one it is the exception not the rule. Expect 10 but prepare for as low as 7 years of life from it.
Yes, you can, but that still does not come NEAR 8000KWH, sorry. I understand the rest of your post, and yes, I can agree with most of it, but I was clearing up an error that was off by an order of magnitude, sorry. I understand everything you are telling me, I too was trained in such things at some point in my life as well. Good on you.
For new installations, LED can be cheaper because one can use smaller wire and a smaller power supply on a low-voltage circuit that has easier installation and code requirements. Just the savings on the wire pays for the difference in the price of the bulbs. That makes the lower operating cost and longer life pure profit.
It is because, you happen to come up with a near perfect number to make your prior statement true with my size of house.
Too big a coincidence. Sorry......it is too obvious.
LOL! The -58s were awesome, weren't they!
Your self-righteousness is astounding. You are an insulting poster. Enjoy the rest of your day...
Thanks, I will .... you could have stuck to a true case that in some instances CFLs save you money, but instead you went off the deep end to make claims that even the manufacturers wouldn’t dare to make.
Good day
And they turn around and raise rates because there is not enough revenue to support the infrastructure....
...that is at least how they justified an 87% increase in water rates here!
We all conserved too much...so they had to raise rates to keep the infrastructure up!
60% of the cost is generation, 40% is distribution
http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=electricity_factors_affecting_prices
On the Generation side, costs are going up because they are forcing the premature closure of facilities:
http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2010/04/pge_files_to_close_boardman_co.html
Then on the Distribution side, you have people trying to use less:
http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2010/04/pge_files_to_close_boardman_co.html
Distribution is a fixed cost, it gets distributed across all rate payers via an add on to the price per kwh you pay.
This results in heavy users subsidizing the lower users.
Unsure at what point this system would become unstable, but it seems pretty stout compared to water cost factors. In my area, the cost of water is almost entirely driven by distribution costs. It is as if you are getting the water for free but you are paying for it to be delivered to your home or business.
Where are you getting 8000 KWH at?
Maybe this will help you:
http://www.cwlp.com/energy_services/eso_services_programs/appliance_energy_use_chart.htm
168 kWh / month would seem to be more what you would expect.
8000 kwh is out of sight, must be Al Gore’s fridge
“Are you talking about light bulbs or the new Chevy Volt? LOL!”
As reprehensibly green our local fishwrap is, there probably has been zero Volts bought in Wino country. Since,
there has been zero pictures and ad hominum bs about the greenies buying one.
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.