OK, y'all. I just saw a WalMart ad that touts their "green-ness" and exhorts us all to try putting just one compact flourescent bulb in each house. As commendable as this is, IT JUST AIN'T GONNA' HAPPEN. Why not, you ask? Simply because there is a cheaper alternative in the 4-pack of incandescent bulbs for $1.00!
If we really want to make a difference, we need to have governments around the world push for a phase out (or cold turkey switch) of the incandescent bulb. Of course this will require that the compact flourescent (CF) bulbs be priced comparable to the current price fo incandescents. This could be done with sanctions and tax incentives to producers and retailers.
Not going to happen you say? I agree. Except in Australia, but probably not in the US or other larger markets. So why not let the market force the change then, instead of government? If a retailer, perhaps WalMart, were to drop incandescents completely from their product line and negotiate a lower price from manufacturers for the CF bulbs and carry them exclusively, consumers would buy them or be forced to drive elsewhere for the old incandescents. But since they use their muscle as the largest retailer to bargain for lower CF bulb prices, there would be no need to go elsewhere. Even those on budgets could afford them.
And that is when REAL change will happen.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 72
marty
That's the biggest reason I use them. So that my ladder can stay in the basement for long long long periods of time.
1 - they obviously have more in them in terms of complexity than an incandescent. Does anyone count how much energy it takes to build all the electronic parts and assemble them? Be sure to take into account the ones that go bad at the factory, or the ones that break during manufacture.
2 - Then, the CF's certainly have more toxics in them. The incandescent bulb is a marvel of simplicity, metal and glass, period. The CF's have all kinds of toxic chemicals in them. Starting with mercury and phosphorous, then they have plastics in the electronic components and silicon doped with arsenic, antimony, boron, phosphorous probably or some combination thereof.
3 - then take into account disposal and recycling. I am pretty sure it is very difficult to recycle a CF lightbulb. There are a lot of pieces and most of them are chemically mixed together or bonded.
My point is that during the operating lifetime of these bulbs, the things we pay for in the price are much more expensive. The benefit is supposed to be lower energy bills for us. What is the real impact though to the world, to the economy, and to the environment?
When I pay 10 times more for a CF bulb and it breaks, goes bad soon, or burns out, I have lost a lot of investment. How many times has anyone ever bought an incandescent bulb and had it break or go bad right away? It almost never happens.
I would like to hear what people think about this, and if anyone has any numbers on the real cost of CF bulbs?
As time has passed, the quality of these bulbs has improved. I like the fact that they do not get hot, as I read books on summer evenings. Their light is not quite as bright as incandscents, but I have started to think now of incandescents as too bright. It depends partly on what you are used to. I argue that it is not essential for your home to be as bright as daylight in the night time.
Personally, I hate CF bulbs. It is not just their noticeable dimness and paleness; although those are reasons I hate them. For years I dreaded working in any office that was lit with fluorescent tubes. I always developed eye-strain and headaches after a few hours under them; not because they were dimmer, but because they seem to have a constant, barely perceptive flicker. i assume, though don't know for sure, that this strobe like flickering is caused by the cycling of the AC power which charges the gases.
Bruce K. has brought some very important items up for consideration. I'd never thought about all the dangerous materials used in their complicated design. We probably should be thinking about and studying the effects these trace elements will bring to our water tables via our landfills.
Yes CFLs contain trace amounts of mercury. So does coal smoke, which is contaminating the Atlantic ocean and bioaccumulating in the food chain. Do not make many tuna sandwiches for your pregnant wife. Bottom line, if we do not make a few hard choices to get out energy use under control, our grandkids have no future. Global warming is the elephant in the room for this discussion thread. Anything that is a weapon against it should not be rejected less than compelling reasons. CFLs are such a weapon.
My personal issues are in the initial cost outlay, as I've said before, and with the dimness and odd color some of them have. My wife likes everything to be lit at 100 watt level, so I am trying to find those that have the whitest light. She, like I, am willing to move a little dimmer if the color is ok, if it will reduce the monthly electric bill. She is a bottom line person. I guess I am too.
Neither of us is particularly into conservation for conservation sake. I like the idea more than she does though, and I do recycle. I haven't fertilized my yard in 10 years and rarely water it. Anyway, what I'm saying is I respect your reservations if you have them. I also applaud those that have done their part, whether for the environment, for anti-imported oil reasons, or for their own pocketbook.
Sorry that you are having to supply the whole apartment complex with CF bulbs, but talk about going above and beyond for a cause! LOL :)
We had to give our CF bulbs away and they were very expensive
Nothing against the bulbs themselves, but I would doubt any idea that comes from Wally World.
Connie...I hate the "buzz" also.
My electric did go down after switching. And I've spent a lot less on bulbs the last four years than I've ever have.
I am going to be pompous and judgemental, just this once. Here it is: WE DO NOT HAVE A CHOICE about conserving energy and natural resources. We can not afford to stick with business as usual. Global warming is real, not imaginary. Stop pretending that we have a choice, people, and come live in the real world of 2007.
If you want a truly environmentaly friendly bulb you need to look into the new LED based light bulbs. They use 80% less electricity than a standard bulb and do not have the risks that the CFL's do.
The Osram white LED featured provides 65 lumens per watt. For comparison purposes, a standard General Electric 75 watt soft white incandescent bulb provides 1170 lumens, or 15.6 lumens per watt. The Osram LED is 4.16 times more efficient.
There is also great potential in Organic LEDs (OLED) which are flat light sources that are creating using ink jet printing techniques. The CFL is not the only successor to the incandescent bulb.
White LEDs are already in production for battery powered applications, such as flashlights.
That sounds like something I shall look forward to. And we have recycling incorporated into the city's regular trash collection, so . . . ?
Although costs have come down, and some of you say you are getting them for $1.00 apiece, 4 incandescents for a dollar plays better in Peoria when you are on a tight budget. Penny wise and pound foolish as it may be to postpone the switch, John, many folks are living paycheck to paycheck and this just isn't on their radar. My point is that the price needs to come down even more before incandescents get legislated out if people are going to switch voluntarily. If any government legislates the switch without subsidizing them for lower income people, they are creating an unfunded mandate that will literally leave people in the dark. Those that are forced to decide between medicine or food on the table are NOT going to "waste" their income on a luxury item like CFL bulbs.
As for the toxicity question, I think it deserves more research and R&D to make them less toxic if possible. Other options like LEDs, as suggested by Poliwonk, should be made a viable alternative in both price and availability to the CFLs. If we are moving away from incandescents, we need more than one alternative. Variety and choice are a necessity in a free society, not a luxury.
Maybe I'm preaching to the choir here, since Carolyn, John, Chris, and others have made the switch and see the savings personally. Let's hope that we can all catch up with their example and make a small dent in the global issues.
Yes, I realize it is not as easy as I made it sound for everyone. I was just trying to get it firmly "on the radar", for those who might really need the savings over time. Just replacing the most heavily used lights, as a frugal strategy, can do quite a bit, and be well worth the "pain" of a few dollars when available.
I agree with your point. Even a little can go a long way. I basically made the same argument in my article, though I have to admit, I was throwing the idea of legislating change out there mainly for discussion purposes. I personally prefer to let the market do the work and keep government intrusion to a minimum. However, in the arena of alternative energy, the market is loathe to change because there is so much money at stake. Once the market sees the dollar signs though, there is no faster way to change things! $$$$
> Yes CFLs contain trace amounts of mercury. So does
> coal smoke, which is contaminating the Atlantic ocean
> and bioaccumulating in the food chain.
I can't believe you wrote that Chris. It is kind of the whole
point. Of the many things in our environment that we need
to clean up - heavy metals - are probably one of the most
important. I just cannot believe this excuse of yours.
It will not matter how much energy we use if we do not
learn to live sustainablely on our resources without
poisoning our environment. If we are going to kill the
Earth and ourselves, hell, we might as well just party
on.
> I like the fact of not having to buy bulbs on a monthly
> basis - I still have four from the last six pack I got.
> My electric did go down after switching. And I've spent
> a lot less on bulbs the last four years than I've ever have.
The point is that we are told they are a lot cheaper, as we
are told that if we do lots of things like buy hybrids we save
gas, or if we use alchohol in our gasoline it will be cleaner.
Let me tell you, many of these statements are just wrong,
and some of them are not determined, though some are
true under certain conditions.
If you are lucky enough to buy the best CF bulbs that do not
make noise, and do not die prematurely, because they say
their lifetimes are supposed to be years, and if you do not
hit it drop it or break it, you will probably save money over the
life of the bulb on energy.
You have to assume the risk first though ... once you have spent
the money, if the bulb does not perform, you are pretty much
out of luck. Also, we are not thinking at all of the environmental
consequences here either. How many of the people who buy
these just throw them in the trash as opposed to recycling them?
How many of the recycling places actually recycle them, and when
they are in a big barrel with hundred of other CF bulbs how many
break and release their chemicals? Not to mention the cost of
the energy and materials used to make the housing and the
OC boards inside what is an electronic device.
Consumers are being led down the primrose path to green-ness
by people who have a product and are looking for and angle
to sell it. The latest thing is to make people believe something
is healthy and clean. It would be wonderful is these things
really were better.
We seem to think we can just keep kidding ourselves and
move on as always. People are just plain stupid.
I need a very strong light to be able to read and see right. If I wanted to stumble around stubbing my toe on everything I could use these bulbs. They are not practical yet, I hope someday they are.
My point is that we are still on marketing and business mode. This whole green thing is taken by the corporations are just another way to make us feel good to give them our money.
some people (even some poor people like me) will do what we think is best for the world even if it hurts the pocket and our eyes, or turns out not to be as great as first thought. Do you know this is just a "feel good" or do you have documentation?
I changed all of my bulbs years ago, and haven't had to replace one in three years, making the price more reasonable than it appears. I think this also means the bulbs have improved over time because they didn't last as long when I first started using them.
Well Sandy yeah - obviously. But most people do.
In fact this complex questions assumes that people
can evaluate the "value" of buying different options.
Most people do buy cheap, not because they are
inferior, or mean, or stupid or even poor, many buy
the cheapest thing because they have a problem
that needs solving, and a limited budget. The more
unnecssary money they spend on solving the problem
at hand leaves them less to spend on the next one.
Now ... you think you can evaluate what is best for
humanity, and seem quite smug about your good deeds.
And yet you ask for documentation after there have been
many good facts and experiences presented in this article
and the comments above.
The point is, we all have our own religion. We all have
our own faith. We are all different in some way, and the
same in others. We all can cooperate in some ways, or
we all can fight and be antagonistic.
The reason we do not know for sure what is the best
course of action on almost anything is that the majority
of people have no idea how to evaluate and argument.
Not too long ago there was a long discussion here about
people seeing ghosts. That is where we are. People
believing things like the supernatural. What kinds of
decisions are people who believe in ghosts going to make
when confronted by mass statistical data they do not
understand? Not very good ones I imagine. But then
they do not have to really care about it because
the spirit world will take care of them if they have
the right karma I guess.
I don't know why you have had such good
luck with the compact fluorescents. I have had
many fail very quickly. It could be because I
buy the big ones that put out a lot of light,
but many have failed. I just hope people
recycle them when they die.
Well, of course businesses try to profit as they reasonably can, at all times, and tout what is most admirable. What else is new? But they really do produce 4 to 6 times as much quality light per watt, as a good softwhite bulb.
What I think makes people skeptical of that claim is that the CFs do not "fire up" at full brightness, but rather begin at about half that, and brighten for a minute or two. This is hardly a problem, since one generally can make do with a significant instant increase in area light when they hit the switch. And in fact it can be kinda nice sometimes, in such things as a lamp where one must basically look at the bulb to switch on, and such.
In just the last couple years they have pretty much crossed the threshold of truly quiet and reliable. Earlier ones were iffy in various ways, but somebody has done some good R&D on these boogers. They are ready to go. Pollution issues do have to be balanced, and the various contaminants released if one generated all that wasted electricity over the life of such a unit, cannot be brushed off as unimportant. It's real crap too, and six or so incandescents don't just pop up out of the ground.
> light per watt, as a good softwhite bulb.
And LEDs do even better, that is not the point. The point is
that the bulbs, at least for me, are not bright enough unless
I put two in where one 100 watt or 150 watt would do.
It is a win, but I also recycle the bulbs and can afford them.
If I had to bet I would be they are not so efficient in terms
of energy when look at the total cost of the product.
Other problems are that they are too big to fit into
many fixtures, and they do not allow a lampshade to
be fitted over them, or a dimmer to be used. As you
mentioned they start up slow and dull at first, but they
do warm up. And many of them, no matter the brand
make noise and/or interfere with radio or TV reception.
As far as pollution we need to stop burning coal, and one
way to do that would be to have the total lifecycle of any
product have to be responsible for the recycling and cleaning
of the waste of its product.
................................................................................................................................
"Aye, aye! and I'll chase him round Good Hope, and round the Horn, and round the Norway Maelstrom, and round perdition's flames before I give him up. And this is what ye have shipped for, men! to chase that white whale on both sides of land, and over all sides of earth, till he spouts black blood and rolls fin out."
" Drink, ye harpooneers! Drink and swear, ye men that man the deathful whaleboat's bow – Death to Moby-Dick! God hunt us all if we do not hunt Moby-Dick to his death!"
~Herman Melville~
The hot debate here does not make me feel confident on our ability to deal with the greatest environmental challenge of our time, global warming. We need to completely re-do the energy basis of the world economy, a task that is going to cost trillions of dollars. Many of you are quibbling over spending fifty bucks, when all of us find a way to waste more than that much money each month- even poor people carry around gadgets that waste their money rather than saving it. Sure CFls contain mercury, that's why they need to be recycled, just like aluminum, glass, plastic, paper, and cardboard. It is not about personal convenience and choices, it is about survival. What is wrong with you people? We are talking about something that saves you money, and you are resisting it. We are talking about human survival, and you are looking for reasons to stick with the status quo that will doom our descendants to misery.
Get informed.
It's great that folks are trying to be more energy responsible in their own homes. But governments and private enterprise really need to step up and lead the change. Cities are the largest users of energy and greatest producer of greenhouse gas emissions. State and local governments need to start modifying codes to mandate efficient technologies. Cities own many public buildings, and establish codes for private ones. They run fleets of vehicles. Etc. Businesses should be offered incentives--tax or other--and perhaps even funding to retrofit buildings.
The price will come down in time, just as it has with flourescent bulbs.
Use a higher watt bulb.
Lynn M. "Global warming, sure, but we'll never stop it. It's a natural event as is global cooling."
If you have kids, you better hope, for their sakes, that we can do something about global warming - and that we are able to get started very soon.
Yes there are other things to look at with anything new - no matter how green it is, it's going to have a brown side also. Even recycling has it bad points. The biggest problem with all new Green products is cost - when they first come out, only the very wealthiest of us can afford them. (And for some reason the people who are the most concerned seem to be on the other end of the spectrum) .
Robert,
Your article implies that the answer is not personal responsibility, its Government Enforcement. Many others think the Government should give them light bulbs.
What the hell people? It is the right thing to do, can't you just do it?
I bought the bulbs cheap at Home Depot, and as more people buy them, the price will continue to drop. I have replaced 1 in the last 4 years. My electricity bill is down.
How many acts of Congress does it take to get a Liberal to change a light-bulb?
First, I have CF's in almost every socket in my house, even outside spots are CF. But I tell you they are not a very good technology. I would not use them except they are much cooler and in the summer my house is an oven. But I wanted to comment on this telling people what to do .. just do it. How many rich people do you think are doing this. Why is America always about bullying and shaming the regular people to do the right thing so the rich people can live in opulent splendor.
I am not one to attack Al Gore or any other politician on their green-ness, but I wonder how many of them have these bulbs in their houses or do not drive SUVs or fly in private jets.
The plain truth is if this world is going to work it is going to need more than fancy light bulbs, it is going to need everyone feeling like they are part of a group and pulling together. That should be the first most important goal. Global warming or any other problem is not going to be solved in one country, and the people who make the rackets about these measly little things we can do like putting a brick in your toilet and using a showerhead that is so miserly the thin beam of water about cuts through your skin have got it wrong in my opinion.
Yes, its the right thing to do, for varying reasons for different people. I agree that many of the rich and/or vocal spokespeople lack the conviction of their actions, driving SUVs, flying in private jets, and heating/cooling/lighting 30,000 sq ft mansions. So what? The world is full of hypocrites.
I have replaced about 8 of the most used bulbs in my house with CF and am evaluating their usefulness and lifespan before getting the next round.
Phileas,
True my article does imply that government enforcement (intrusion) is ONE solution to getting us to switch. One should not infer from the implication that I subscribe to that solution. On the contrary, I am against government intruding into our private lives on most levels. My point in using that argument was to show that as A solution to the problem that WalMart is hoping to solve with their advertising dollars. Namely, that all homes in the US should replace 1 incandescent with 1 CFL.
I question (1) their motives ($$$) for going green and (2) the scope of change they are espousing. One bulb per home equals roughly 100 million bulbs switched. If the average home has 25 bulbs (conservative guess), that equates to 4 million homes going incandescent free. That's only a good start.
I was questioning what it would take to "go green" in every light socket in America. One option is legislation, another is a powerful retailer taking the lead and selling "green" bulbs of various kinds exclusively, removing incandescents from their shelves altogether. I personally dislike WalMart for a variety of reasons and shop there only on rare occasions; they just brought up the subject through their advertising.
And can you please tell us, I'm sure everyone else wants to know as badly as I do, How many acts of Congress does it take to get a Liberal to change a light-bulb?
:)
Since you don't like flourescent bulbs, use LED bulbs. They are expensive up front, but you will save money over the life of the bulb.
Using incandescent bulbs is about as inefficient as you can get.
If you decide to continue with flourescent bulbs, you should be able to use a higher watt bulb for brighter light. A 40w equivalent flourescent bulb doesn't use 40w's. Also, each flourescent pack has an 800# and website that you can access to find out where to recycle flourescent bulbs. I save them in a box in my garage and take them in to a recycle center when I have one or two dozen. It's not really that much trouble.
Is this comparable to VHS and DVD?
Plasma vs. LCD?
Faucet vs. shower?
Gas vs. Hybrid?
Electric vs. Hybrid?
Vacuum vs. silicon?
The point is, have we, as a society, ever come up with a new technology that we thought was going to power saving or labor saving only to find out later that it was a mistake?
> limit lamps though, anything higher is a fire hazard.
Lynn ... you need to look at the real watts, not the watt
equivalents on the package of the CFs. To get a 60 watt
equivalent light you need less power in a CF, so you can
up the number of bulbs in a fixture to a high degree to
get more light and still use less power. Hope that made
sense.
Looking at say one bulb. Once I bought a $15 CF bulb that was supposed to be the equivalent of a 150 watt incandescent. It broke in about a year, it started flickering and turning grey in part of it.
I took the risk that this bulb would last for thousands of hours and that I would make up the money on energy savings. It did not turn out that way. At the time I was unaware of any place I could recycle it either, so it went into the trash.
These are not that great. Some people will swear by them, but I think a detailed economic analyis of many of them over a long time including disposal and mercury in the environment will not show a huge savings if any at all.
I do not think personally that this is anyhthing like the effort we humans have to undertake to save ourselves and fix this planet, and people act like they are doing that when they buy these things, because they are marketed to make people FEEL GOOD, not really to do anything, so someone can make money.
Americans live for convenience sake. What ever makes life easier so they can spend more time doing inane things like talking about light bulbs.
And now you got me doing also..darn it.
I am off to work...turn your lights off!
1. Don't buy the cheap ones, you will get what you pay for.
2. fluorescent lighting is most value effective when used in areas where lighting is needed constant and regularly (not in the bathroom where they are on only 5 -15 minutes at a shot)
Like a lot of others, I have a problem with the quality of light produced by florescent bulbs. I had most of the overhead lights taken out of my office and use lamp light instead because of the discomfort the other lights create for me. It's worse because my office doesn't have a window. A little natural light would go a long way to offsetting the pain of the florescent.
I am willing to spend the money, but I've really been disappointed so far.
cheers,gayle
So here is some advice:
1. Do not use the with dimmers or an outdoor/porch light that has a light sensor, the sensor will burn out the CFL in short order.
2. You can get CFLs in different shades of white: soft white, bright white and daylight, you will need to experiment to get the color right, the lamp shade has a significant effect on the color.
3. Do NOT turn the lights on and off, they will not last very long if you do, so if you put them in a bathroom and switch the light on for 1-5 min. and then off, stick with a regular light bulb.
4. Home Depot and Lowes sell the different shades of white CFLs, and they do not flicker or buzz as did the older models.
5. The pollution saved is greater then the pollution associated with the manufacturing and disposal of CFLs.
6. The current LED lumen per watt (efficiency) is similar to CFLs and the cost is astronomical, in fact many LEDs are nothing more then miniature fluorescent lamps where the phosphor is exited by UV light generated by the semiconductor chip in the LED.
7. 60 w light bulb, equivalent is a 13-15 watt CFL.
75 w light bulb, equivalent is a 18-20w CFL
100 w light bulb, equivalent is a 23-26w CFL
and you can get 30w and 40 watt lamps as well.
8. Low income is not a reason to not buy CFLs, skip the coffee at 7-11 or some other non essential (beer, fast food, movie, ice cream, cableTV? Etc) JUST ONE TIME as I do, and I like my movie rental (no cable) with a beer , and you will have the cash to buy a CFL .
I've even heard of people coloring their CF bulbs with a yellow highlighter pen to make their light more closely resemble the light from an incandescent.
Also, the equivalency numbers are a bit low. Replace a 100 watt incandescent with a 125 watt equivalent CF.
The mercury argument is not valid if your electricity comes from coal, as most of it in the US still does. More mercury is released by burning the coal to make the extra electricity used by an incandescent over its life than is used in the CF bulb itself.
I have been using these bulbs all over my house and haven't had a problem. I especially like them in my front and back door lights as those are a pain to change and these bulbs seem to last forever.
On another green note, we just bought a hybrid and our family loves it. It's a large, powerful SUV that gets 27-32 miles to the gallon for real (many cars advertise mileage that you can never get in real driving) with a 70% reduction in emissions. No sacrifices are made here to help the environment. This Lexus 400h SUV is bigger and has more power than the vehicle it replaced, a gas-guzzling V6 Pathfinder.
When I talk about my own sensitivity (resulting in seizure activity regardless of the type of fluorescent), approximately 15% of the population respond with stories about symptoms from this type of lighting, most commonly headache, fatigue and confusion. I find that many people are not aware that their lights are causing their symptoms, until they start thinking about the circumstances the problems occur in.
Doctors are not talking about this either; they are using the troublesome lights. I had uncontrollable seizures for 20 years before I figured out the lights were triggering most of my problems. The doctor said he was not surprised, and told me about some of the many other problems people have! No one even suggested I consider it before that.
When standard lighting triggers severe health problems, one is excluded from many important activities. It seems to me that if cement were as valuable as energy, we would be telling people in wheelchairs that it is not reasonable to expect a ramp. I was very disappointed to learn that cities have started developing building codes encourage, or even specify, that this health hazard be implemented in much of the new construction.
Compact fluorescents for household use should come with a hazard warning! The ideal would be to exclude fluorescents from commercial use with accessibility standards. Certainly, with the recent increases in problems experienced by children, this issue should at least be addressed in schools.
Please consider taking action to reverse this trend. Write your city, state and national legislators to make them aware of this problem. They are starting to pass laws to make incandescent bulbs illegal, which would leave some of us completely in the dark. We need to look further for alternatives that do not harm any one, or leave them stuck outside, or in the dark.