Compact Fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs)

[Opsa]

Here is some information about CFLs (compact fluorescent light bulbs): http://enlightenusa.org/

There seems to be a lot of talk about these. They are said to use less energy, save money in the long run, and last longer than regular light bulbs. In my state, they are seen as a statement against the big power compnay. I am looking into buying some myself.

[Aggie]

Like hybrid cars, I always wonder what the cradle-to-grave impact of these are relative to conventional light bulbs.  Overall, the energy savings are well worth it - especially if one is on coal-fired power!  But be aware that there's mercury in those puppies, so be careful with breakage or disposal.

I've used these in the past, and they are great especially for lights which remain on for a significant amount of time.  I seem to recall that fluorescent bulbs wear out faster if switched on and off a lot (can someone confirm this?), so they may not be worth it in bathrooms or similar.

[Swatopluk]

I think they can be done without mercury now.

[Griffin NoName]

Yes maximum power is used when switching on. They use a "starter".

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Most still have mercury and you should look for a place for proper disposal. The prices have been coming down and now it makes a lot of sense to use them instead of the traditional incandescent bulbs until LED tech comes to replace them (most flashlights now are LED based).

[Bluenose]

I am not convinced that there is a total energy budget saving in these devices.  There is a lot of energy involved in the manufacturing/mining processes involved in what are much more complex device compared to the old fashioned (and hence very mature) technology of the incandescent bulb.  Consider all the different components, electronics plus the rather nasty fluorescent coatings themselves, then the energy involved in safely disposing of the the old bulbs and I am not convinced.

Even the claimed energy savings are not quite what they claim to be.  Fluorescent bulbs place a reactive load on the mains.  Without getting too bogged down into the physics involved (which requires using the imaginary <square root of -1> to describe part of the behaviour) suffice it say that not all the power used by a reactive device can be metered.  The amount of the actual consumption used that can be metered is called the power factor.  IIRC the PF for CFL is about .85, which means that the true power consumption is actually something like 15% higher than stated although of course you only get billed for the metered consumption.

I have used these devices and frankly my experience has been that they do not last as long as claimed.  I doubt that they save enough billed energy to pay for themselves in many situations and I certainly doubt that they actually represent a real saving of energy overall.

It seems to me that we are being assailed with many products that rely on our good intentions to "do something" for the environment and which are able to make a superficial claim to that effect and so we spend our money on things which when looked at overall make things worse.  Many of the technologies currently being touted as being "green" and saving in energy do nothing of the sort, indeed some, like photovoltaic cells, actually never yield more energy that it takes to make them.  Yet we are constantly being told that these things are some sort of solution for the "energy crisis"

We need IMO to look at the overall picture when evaluating all these technologies and ask questions like "what is the total energy budget?" and so on before we decide what to do.

Sibling Bluenose

[Aggie]

There is a lot of energy involved in the manufacturing/mining processes involved in what are much more complex device compared to the old fashioned (and hence very mature) technology of the incandescent bulb.  Consider all the different components, electronics plus the rather nasty fluorescent coatings themselves, then the energy involved in safely disposing of the the old bulbs and I am not convinced.

Hard to beat the good ol' tungsten/glass bulbs for simplicity, that's for sure - and in theory they could be easily recycled for glass and scrap metals with the everyday materials.

Hold up, Bluenose... you're saying that reactive devices actually steal 'free' power?  Can we exploit this?

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

I am not convinced that there is a total energy budget saving in these devices.  There is a lot of energy involved in the manufacturing/mining processes involved in what are much more complex device compared to the old fashioned (and hence very mature) technology of the incandescent bulb.  Consider all the different components, electronics plus the rather nasty fluorescent coatings themselves, then the energy involved in safely disposing of the the old bulbs and I am not convinced.

....

I have used these devices and frankly my experience has been that they do not last as long as claimed.  I doubt that they save enough billed energy to pay for themselves in many situations and I certainly doubt that they actually represent a real saving of energy overall.

...

I don't think you're comparing it fairly, actually.  They both use glass, so we may ignore that.  Both technologies use some sort of metal for the actual socket-part, again--ignore.

That basically leaves wire, tungsten-alloy, white "frosting" and some inert gas for the incandescent bulbs.

For the CF's you have wire (again, but different alloy), circuit-board material, electronic circuit bits (resistors, transistors, solder, etc), plastic housing, phosphorous coating (inside glass), a VERY VERY TINY bit of mercury vapor--and--tungsten-alloy wire (used to get reaction started).

So. Tungsten is used in both, but not as much in the CF's.  As for the rest, the electronics consume the greatest resources, but they are diverted from other electronic manufacturing processes--so if they weren't making CF boards, they'd be making radios or other cheap electronics anyway.

The mercury is an issue--it must be mined (just like the tungsten).  But, on a per-bulb basis, there's much, much less than a common mercury thermometer or A/C thermostat.  The phosphorous is dangerous, but it IS very reactive, and very quickly combines with other chemicals to make--- plant fertilizers. (no, really-- many plants use phosphorous compounds as fertilizer.) 

Now as for the energy used during use.

Modern CF's use electronic triggers to start-up, and will be fully bright within .5 to 2 seconds (if functioning correctly).  The light output from a CF is mostly within the VISUAL spectrum.  For incandescent lights, about 1/2 of the light is infra-red (not visible).  This adds to your total heat-load for your A/C a significant amount.

The net energy used for CF's during use is about 1/10 of what the same light output an incandescent light requires.  And, you get a significant reduction of "trash heat" into your home. (Although in the Winter, this "trash heat" may be a good thing.  )

CF's last roughly 10-to-1 longer than their incandescent cousins, and modern ones are much more robust on the "switch-on-off" cycle than in the past. (I've got one in my bathroom that is going on 10 years, now.  Still gives BRIGHT light, but is cool enough to touch even after a long 45-minute-shower-and-get-ready cycle).

Even if the energy somehow "can not be measured" as Bluenose suggests (which I find very hard to believe--the rapscallions that run my electric co would find a way to charge me) even 1/2 of the energy saved is well worth the price.

Think about it:  if 1/2 of the population started using 1/2 of the lighting energy consumed today .... (and I think it's much better than only 1/2).

Bolt-on: if more people used these things, they could be recycled very effectively.  ALL the mercury and ALL the phosphorous could be recovered, for example.   And NO ONE recycles those incandescent ones-- cost too much energy to get the ONLY thing of value in it: the tungsten wire.  And, offtimes by the time it "blows" that wire is lost anyway (vaporized on the inside of the glass envelope).  The CF bulbs, if the glass envelope is undamaged, could likely be fully recycled by simply replacing the electronics package (likely the cheapest parts anyway).

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

As for the LED lights--yes virtually all my flashlights are LED, now. But, I'm not convinced that we could gear-up manufacturing enough to make these for general lighting.  Cheap electronics in CF bulbs can be made anywhere--"standard" electronics materials, nothing fancy or exotic.  But, for LED's, it's ALL exotic materials to make the LED part itself. 

And, they are much more subseptable to voltage spikes--they tend to go easily (I have a couple of flashlights that have "blown" elements in them, from simply putting in new batteries ... fortunately, there are multiple elements, so I still use them anyway).  I can only imagine how one powered by the mains would fair.  And, they are currently very pricy-- a general 60w equivalent flood light cost roughly $100US currently (but consumes only 9w). A classic 60w flood runs about $3, and a CF runs about $20 as a comparison.

Anyone care to do the math to figure how long it would take to pay for the $100 at 9w vs 60w?    (it sounds like a shining example of calculus to me... ) 

[Swatopluk]

Are LEDs actually available with a spectrum one would actually want to light one's house with? The ones in my flashlight give off light more like an old mercury vapor lamp or the things used in tanning studios (distinctly too much on the pale blue side).

Concerning CFLs I can remember only one that actually stopped working until now (while I remember lots of traditional light bulbs failing).

I'd also say that the production and recycling costs are the true tripwire issue here. About that I do not have enough knowledge to give a judgement.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

There are two things in our dearest Bluenose post.

Regarding the first (CFLs) while the total energy budget is at this point unknown, there is a good chance that CFLs perform better.

If CFLs are 4 times more efficent and last 8 times longer then we can say:

E_ip : Energy to produce an Incandescent Bulb (IB)
E_fp : Energy to produce a CFL
E_io : Energy of operation of an IB
E_fo : Energy of operation of a CFL = E_io/4

E_ip + E_io <= (E_fp + E_io/4 ) / 8

or

E_fp >= 8 E_ip +  7 E_io / 4

In words for CFLs to be more expensive energy wise than IBs the energy required to make them would have to be higher than 8 times the energy required to produce an IB plus 7.75 of the energy of operation of an IB, or approximating, about 7.5+ more energy than the full energy budget of an incandescent bulb*.

Given that the prices of CFSs have been coming down to a good degree it is possible that less energy is used to produce them.

On a last note while some CFLs don't last as advertised in my experience the average is close to that number.

*I haven't included disposal costs which -using the same numbers- imply that disposing a CFL have to be more than 8 times higher than IBs, which is likely.
----
The second issue is regarding Photovoltaic Solar Panels. Although there are skeptics on the topic, it is estimated that -depending on conditions- solar cells can reproduce themselves (energy wise) from 1 to 30 times.

[goat starer]

I have my whole house kitted out wityh CFLs (and have done for about ten years). With my other energy saving measures my energy costs are about one fifth of those for most comparable sized houses in the UK. On the cradle to grave issue the CFL is clearly more energy intensive to produce but it uses only around 12% of the energy of a TF bulb and lasts in my experience at least 3 times longer so it is a massive energy saving. If you think that the energy costs involved in producing these bulbs are included in the shelf price you will see that they are clearly a better life span alternative. They may be more polluting in terms of meterials but right now I rather think Climate Change is the bigger threat.

I had a pub in London replace all their lighting with CFLs and oit saved them £660 per year. If you buy them in the likes of IKEA the initial outlay is minimal.

Goats Energy and water saving tips.....

1) install 250mm of loft insulation
2) turn your thermostat down 1 degree (saves about 8% of your total heating cost)
3) install CFLs
4) turn off equipment on standby
5) dont leave chargers plugged in when not in use
6) stick a brick in your toilet cystern
7) turn the tap off when btushing your teeth
8 ) take a shower instead of a bath
9) for goodness sake check that in your home and office you do not have seperate air con and heating with different thermostat settings that make them compete to cool / heat the property. You would be amazed how often I have seen this in offices!

Follow these and the warm glow in your heart and pocket will more than compensate for the 1 degree temperature drop  

PS. on the lifespan issue I would love somebody to tell me how the landfill impact of single use nappies (daipers) stacks up against the energy cost of cleaning reusable ones. It provokes some serious debate in Bradford.

[Griffin NoName]

PS. on the lifespan issue I would love somebody to tell me how the landfill impact of single use nappies (daipers) stacks up against the energy cost of cleaning reusable ones. It provokes some serious debate in Bradford.

I was nappy-swamped just as disposables were beginning to grab a serious market share. I chose Real ones.

Outlay (kid 1): 2 dozen cotton nappies, 2 dozen muslins, endless plastic knickers, 1 Jam Making Pan with handles, huge amount of gas (for boiling up the Jam Pan)(assumes cooker already purchased for other reasons), some hundreds tons of water, goodness knows how many packets soap powder, 2 lidded soaking buckets, goodness knows how many sterilization tablets, toil, energy, sweat, stinks, depression, handkerchiefs for use when howling with despair, two hundred bottles of gin.

Outlay (kid 2): Washing machine. Endless plastic knickers, some hundreds tons of water, goodness knows how many packets soap powder, goodness knows how many sterilization tablets, toil, energy, sweat, stinks, depression, two hundred bottles of gin.

I had a brief spell (4 months) using disposables as we were moving houe and in temporary accomodation. Bliss. Saving on gin, massive.

[Sibling Lambicus the Toluous]

Follow these and the warm glow in your heart and pocket will more than compensate for the 1 degree temperature drop  

During the day, my home thermostat is set to 17 degrees (edit: Celsius, not Foreignheit ).  I find that I need to supplement my warm glow with a sweater, but otherwise it's fine.

In the summer, we open the windows and let nature take its course (though we're lucky in that our floor and window layout encourages a bit of passive-solar stack effect, which gives the house a pleasant light breeze).

[Sibling Chatty]

The CF bulb in my Security Lamp (a lamp that's always on near the front door so that I can see the way out of the house--don't ask) has burned continually except during the move here from Houston, a matter of 2 hours, for over 7 years.

That's 24/7 x 7 years, minus 2 hours.

[Griffin NoName]

Chatty, they always keep a light burning in the Temple