CFL bulbs: Shedding Light on Misleading Performance Claims (EPA's claims about CFL's are bogus)

Seminole County Environmental News Examiner ^ | Jan 12, 2012 | Kirk Myers

[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.

[Grampa Dave]

For decades the enviro whackos have told us how dangerous mercury is.

Then, mercury is a product used in the manufacturing of the so called green bulbs.

[dila813]

What scares you more?, when you accidentally drop one of these things and a white cloud erupts right under your ladder or when you open the package and your breath causes a plume from the broken dust and debris in the package.

I was a sucker, I bought into this and now I see what a scam this is.

*Yes, I love huffing on mercury in my spare time/sarc

[cva66snipe]

168 kWh / month would seem to be more what you would expect. 8000 kwh is out of sight, must be Al Gore’s fridge

Likely so. IF they got away from R-134A with a refrigerant that has a much lower head pressure I might see 50% reduction. The R-134A is about 100 psi higher on the condenser side of the unit than the older R-12. Compressing a gas too 250 psi takes considerable energy.

I did wire in a very low energy chest freezer designed for solar powered homes for a friend. Considering utility power was not available for him the freezer was better than nothing but not by much. Took it forever to pull down. First one he got ran a week before failing.

[dila813]

I was surprised on the chart that the fridges without auto-defrost save so much energy.

[chooseascreennamepat]

Personally, I prefer the ‘cool-white’ light found in CFL and other fluorescent bulbs. I have about 15 situated throughout my house and as other incandescent lights die, I will replace them, when appropriate. They don't work in all applications for sure! Oh, btw, I haven't had one fail yet.

[cva66snipe]

I was surprised on the chart that the fridges without auto-defrost save so much energy.

I read another article where they state cost of having an ice maker made a difference. The only way it would be is simply because they require a lower operational temp and many persons unknowligly keep their temps too high especially in the fresh foods. Mine is about 33-34 degrees when the fridge cuts off. Yep it cost more to run it down that low but food isn't cheap either.

The savings figures between defrost and non defrost etc seem out of kilter. Basically you are driving a shaded pole fan motor, shaded pole defrost timer motor, and then once a day a drain trough and small defrost heater for maybe 30-45 minutes. Far less than a compresor. You could also unhook the door and exterior heaters etc and save yet more but the darn thing wouldn't work too well though.

[rlmorel]

I post this on some of these threads when I see them. This was my own analysis of the "energy savings", using government supplied data.

I don't have an issue with the lights themselves. If people want to use them, that is their business if they want to pay the money and a manufacturer thinks they can make money by producing them. What I take issue with is government bureaucrats taking my money via confiscatory taxes, TELLING me how to spend the money they leave me, then passing legislation to DRIVE up the cost of energy so we are FORCED to spend more money to drive our cars, heat our homes and turn on our lights, whether they be incandescent or CFL. These bastards think they are doing us a big favor because they think they know best, and are trying to twist our arms to accept their utopian crap. They think if energy costs go up high enough, their plans to harness unicorn flatulence or whatever will become economically viable.

Well I don't care to take part in their damned experiments. If my town wants to purchase LED based traffic and street lights because it saves the town money and is a guaranteed return on investment, then power to them. If people want these CFL lights in the marketplace as an alternative to make their homes more energy efficient, then I think is is fine and would never say boo to anyone so inclined. Actually, my issue is not even residential lighting. Making citizens purchase stuff we don't want and don't need is NOT going to solve any kind of energy shortage. It is the equivalent of selling carbon credits or putting a magnetic sticker on the back of a car. It is Jimmy Carter wearing sweaters and telling us to turn our thermostats down.

So to make my point that forcing all of us to use these things, have to pay MORE money to buy them (even though most of us have found they don't last nearly as long as the government says they do) Here an the original unaltered graph from Livermore Labs/DOE which I think is a very, very good graphical representation (reflecting the situation in 2009):

As shown below, I cut out a part of that graph and marked it up. Of the four major sectors, residential is the second smallest using just 4.65% of generated electrical power as shown by the graph. Government statistics say lighting consumes 12% of 4.65% of electricity flowing into a house. In the inset (enlarged) part shows the 4.65% pipeline with the red stripe on it showing the lighting share, and the green stripe showing what it would be if we assume 10% efficiency compared to CFL for incandescent bulbs. (The orange pipe leading into the box signifies the RESIDENTAL SECTOR of the energy grid and is representative of energy generated from all sources)

I didn't get this image from some anti-enviroweenie website. I made it myself after analyzing the data on the graph and government data such as estimates of how much lighting uses. And it illustrates the point I make, backed up with the government's own data, that forcing us to do this via statist legislation is basically ANOTHER camel nose in the figurative tent...BECAUSE THEY CAN.

If the market really wanted these lightbulbs, they would have made it on their own without government legislation. But, in my opinion, buying into this without a fight just exacerbates this statist mess we are in covering everything from legislation against transfats and salt in the diet to the amount of water we can flush down our toilet. Liberals think this is great because it is their pet thing that they have bought hook, line and sinker, running around screaming that we are running out of energy. Surrendering to this just invites the government to intrude into EVERY facet of our life.

I don't disparage people for choosing CFL's as a stand to take. I believe I have the data (shown graphically here) to indicate that using CFL's in houses isn't going to save us from anything. It is just a piece of do-gooder legislation that only does just that...makes guilty people feel good. I readily admit that one can make an argument for commercial/industrial building codes and so on, and I might buy into it and agree, the same as I agree with towns purchasing led-based traffic lights. However, building codes are so top heavy with bureaucracy now that I would fight against mandating these in commercial use on those grounds alone.

By my home is my home. And we have gone far too long allowing the government to dictate what we can and cannot do on our own quarter acre of land, small as it is. I am sick to death of it.

[rlmorel]

See my response at #167 below...

[dila813]

and if you go one step further and actually had data by light fixture, I believe 99% of the savings represented here involves <5 light fixtures in the house.

Yes, if you changed only 5 light fixtures, you would realize 99% of the savings.

Not only that, these are the ones that you don’t tend to turn off, so you would also eliminate the negatives of using CFLs.

If only you weren’t mandated by the government to do it.

[cva66snipe]

By my home is my home. And we have gone far too long allowing the government to dictate what we can and cannot do on our own quarter acre of land, small as it is. I am sick to death of it.

Yea so am I. It's over reach at the extreme to dictate a persons lighting. I have a pretty good residential and commercial electrical back ground and understand the need for certain things like the National Electrical Code etc. It is 100% to do with your safety and the safety of others. The light bulb law is 100% simply because we are the government and we say so.

I do know this much. Besides cost savings and longevity fluorescent tubes are used in commercial buildings the other reason is vibrations. Multi story buildings can burn out a standard incandescent in a matter of a few hours. But you can buy commercial grade incadesents as well that will take such abuse. In a multi-story building due to associated machinery like A/C, foot traffic, etc they vibrate considerably.

Just for my own preference wheen I do use fluorescent lighting I always go with either 24 or 48 inch ubes on a transformer ballast. The energy savings is still there and the reliable coil ballast take abuse a lot better. I've changed out ballast over 40 years old plenty of times. The downside I see too CFL besides reduced lighting is the electronic ballast aspect. For the same reason when I buy a tube fixture I made certain it is not using an electronic ballast.

Too each his own :>}

[Grampa Dave]

I got an update from my wife re new hazardous to your health bulbs not working out of the box.

She bought a GE pack of 3 - 13 Watt Bulbs #97689, and one out of the three failed to work.

These GE bulbs are made in China. Maybe China has found a way to get rid of its toxic materials.

They put mercury and God knows what else into their spiral bulbs.

We are putting the dead spirals and DOA spirals into a double Ziplock bag. I will be dropping them off this week to get them out of our laundry room

[rmichaelj]

I agree the leds are still too expensive. If you can find them some of the leds are in the red zone of the light color chart. The light they give off is great in my opinion, but anything in the yellow or blue range is too brilliant for indoor use.

[redgolum]

Late to this thread.

Only comment is that using lights for heating is not efficent. Sucks in the winter.

[Melas]

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.

Damn, but I do hate bad science. The author of this article should be taken out back and shot for this alone. As far as heating goes, there is nothing more conceivably expensive than turning your house into a giant Easy Bake oven that's headed by lightbulbs.

No Virginia. There is no way that incandescent bulbs are going to lower your heating costs.

[TheOldLady]

Boop the Bottle! Don't Annoy the Baby!

All Babies Love Their Bottles

Donate monthly and end FReepathons!
Sponsors will donate $10
For each new monthly sign-up

[ridesthemiles]

Years ago, I watched over a sloop for a friend of mine. I checked it a coupld of times a week & made sure it was dry inside, with no other winter problems in the Marina.

I remember that the entire interior, when closed up properly, could be kept warm & dry with a single 100 watt light bulb burning 24 hours a day.

I am pretty darn sure the CFL bulbs won’t be nearly as helpful.

[Robert A Cook PE]

Depends on the relative price of electric power - needed absolutely for light and cooking and food prep (refrigerator, microwave) and “essentials” (TV, computers, and other heat sources - and heating oil or electric heat or (in places) the heat pump and heat pump surge power.

Also depends on time-of-day for the electric rates and heat pump use, resistance heater use and appliance use.

All electric appliances add heat into the house interior. Incandescent lights add that heat while they provide light.

[Melas]

All electric appliances add heat into the house interior. Incandescent lights add that heat while they provide light.

Absolutely. All electrical devices provide some amount of heat while they do something else. However, we're discussing incandescent light bulbs.

Since incandescent bulbs use approx 4 times as much energy as their more modern brethren, and power is money or vice versa, how is my dollar better spent?

It's a simple equation here when it comes to heat. Incandescent bulbs use 4X the energy, and produce a given amount of heat over and above that of the new mercury filled bulbs. During the cold months, when the furnace is on, which is going to be more economical? The incandescent light bulb, or the mercury bulb, with the remaining 3X diverted towards the furnace? Wouldn't even be close. BTU for BTU, even the oldest ill mainted furnace is going to be much cheaper than a light bulb.

Also, it's only an argument in the first place if you're switching between mercury bulbs in the warm months with incandescent bulbs in the cold months. Anyone who's using incandescents year round is going find that it's a zero sum game. It's going to require extra energy in the Summer months to offset the heat that is produced.

There is a reason to use incandescent bulbs in the house: You prefer the light, and in absolute dollars, we're talking about pennies. I just can't let the bad science that somehow the heat they produce offsets the increased cost stand.

[dila813]

The point of the author is that heat is normally classified as totally a waste but in the winter it isn’t.

The point wasn’t that you should heat your home with light bulbs.

Reading comprehension needed.....

[redgolum]

True. Which is why I don't cook very many roasts in August. But I also don't count that as a reason to cook a roast (don't need one, they are delicious!).

Listing the heat produced by regular bulbs as a benefit is a bit odd. It is a benefit tonight, but not in August.

I prefer the incandescents btw.