[Timetrvlr]

It’s as easy as changing light bulbs. Instead of replacing your burned-out 60-watt incandescent bulb with a new one, replace it with a 13 watt Compact Florescent Lamp (CFL). Light output is measured in lumens. A standard 60-watt bulb puts out about 800 lumens; so does a 13-watt CFL. So instead of paying for 60 watts of electricity, you only pay for 13 watts to get the same amount of light, a savings of 78%.

Compact Florescent Lamps do cost more initially, a lot more, but the energy savings mount up pretty quickly and cover the higher initial cost. They last a lot longer too; a standard bulb has an average lifetime of about 1000 hours while CFL’s last about 7,000 hours. I’ve found that I can buy CFL’s; for an average cost of about $2.49 each if I buy them in 6 packs or 8 packs. Or you can pay as much as $7.49 each in individual packages.

So where can you use these CFL bulbs? Just about everywhere except in circuits with a dimmer switch. If you use them as porch lights, as I do, you will notice they are initially very dim in cold weather, gradually brightening as they warm up. The first CFL’s on the market were quite bulky and wouldn’t fit in most lamp applications but the new very compact CFL’s will fit everywhere.

Let’s deal with the other objections too. Many people are concerned about the florescent flicker that we have all observed in standard florescent lighting. That is not a problem with CFL’s. I have 42 of them and none of them ever flicker. Another common objection is light color. Standard florescent fixtures had a bad reputation for putting out a harsh blue-white light that distorted complexion colors. Changing the coatings of the tubes so that they put out more yellow-white light, a natural color solved that problem. The new CFL’s also produce a more natural yellow-white lighting so you can use them in the bathroom over the vanity mirror.

Using CFL’s in bathroom fixtures where the bulb is exposed is problematic for many who object to the spiral look of the exposed bulbs. The industry foresaw that objection and now offer a 7-watt CFL with an opaque glass cover that mimics the look of standard vanity bulbs. Unfortunately, you will have to pay dearly for these. I’ve yet to find them under $7. each.

So how much can you save, really? That is a very difficult question to answer because you might have more lights on, as I do, if they cost less to run. I suffer from light deprivation in our long dark winters, so I want lots of lights on without guilt. Also, as I grow older, I find that I need more light to read and to do intricate work. For example, I replaced the two single-bulb fixtures in my shop with three light fixtures boasting 10 CFL bulbs. I may get sunburn in there, but now I can see! Those 10 bulbs only draw 155 watts total, which won’t bankrupt my power bill. All in all, I reckon I save about $30 a month on my power bill just by switching to CFL’s.

Replacing all of your light bulbs at once would be very expensive! Begin by replacing six of the lamps you use the most. Then you will see immediate returns (in your power bill) on your investment. Over time, you can afford to replace more lamps as the old lamps burn out.

Some lamp manufacturers warn not to install their lamps in an enclosed fixture such as a ceiling fixture might be. The reason is that CFL's do produce some heat, not nearly as much as the standard incandescents, but enough heat to warm up an enclosed fixture. The higher temperature causes the lamps to burn brighter and might shorten lamp life. I have a number of CFL's in enclosed fixtures and have never had a premature failure.

_____________________________________________________________

[KrellEnergySource]

Timetrvlr, you are absolutely right, but what I wonder is.....

Are there a lot of people who still don't use compact flourescents?

Are there a lot of people who still haven't lowered their thermostat significantly from what they would have felt as normal 15 years ago?

Are there a lot of people that haven't added insulation to their existing dwelling?


I believe this low-hanging fruit has been eaten by most people that are willing to do it voluntarily to reduce their expenses and/or their footprint. I'm beginning to find it laughable and somewhat annoying to see these energy-saving tips trotted out year after year by the Powers That Be or the utility companies. Yes, they should continue to make the suggestions, but I wish there'd be more acknowledgment that people have done many of these things and the bills are beginning to hurt more, again.

What I don't know is how we can structure things in order to get people that can afford to spend whatever they want to on energy, or who have no concern about the future generations, to use less. That is probably the same wonder that people in less developed countries are having more and more about now about energy and all resources.

Brian

[frankthetank]

Here is what i say. Turn the lights off all together. I've never understood why people keep their houses lite up like a football stadium when no one is around. Heat? 10 years people will be sitting in their living rooms in sleeping bags and chipping ice off the remote control. Insulation is one area that a lot of people could add, but the cost can be high and its a pain in the ass to do to an older dwelling (like mine! especially in the walls).

We all might as well move to the Yucatan peninsula and sit on the beach all day...no need for heat/lights/ac!

[snax]

Here's a real world example of savings, despite the high initial cost of frosted globe CFLs:

In the last two years, we have had 3 out of 9 burn out. At $7 each, that's an extra $21 down. I would estimate that at most, they average 4 hours of use per day, x 730 days = just under 3000 hours. So some ofthe bulbs have not met expectations there, however for those three burnt out bulbs @3000 hours and 13W (x 3 bulbs), we have consumed 117 kWH @ $.09 = $10.53.

Had we continued with the 60W incandescants, we would have spent $48.60 in that same time period, a savings of $38 in energy. Less the $21 bulb expense, it's still an extra $17 in our pockets.

Granted, that is not a huge savings, but consider that we have replaced 9 incandescants with these CFLs, and our savings are now closer to $51 in that same two years - assuming the remaining CFLs burned out today. That's not bad for just the bathroom lighting.

One downside however to multiple CFLs in bathroom fixtures like ours where the bulbs are right next to each other is flicker. Out of four sockets, we must always have one incandescant to avoid severe flicker. So in our case, it's three CFLs + 1-25W incandescant per bathroom. All it really means is that the bulbs don't match perfectly in spectrum and appearance, but that's about it.

A further example of savings would be our front porch lighting. Replacing 4-60W incandescants with 4-14W CFLs, our energy use is not quite 25% of what it was before. Over the last 3 years at an average of 8 hours use per day and $.09/kWH, that's $11.03 vs. $47.30, less 3 replacement bulbs at about $1 each, that's a savings of just over $11/yr.

Obviously we could save even more energy and money by reducing the number of sockets in use and installing a motion sensor for the porch lighting, but the line has to be drawn somewhere in terms of practicality.

And to answer your question Krellenergysource, so long as there are some people out there who have not taken this simple step, it doesn't hurt to remind them what they are paying for it. (They still sell huge quantities of incandescants at the home centers don't they?)

[IanC]

Personally, I hate the light quality of CFLs. They highlight every skin blemish and make the food you're cooking look disgusting. I was reading recently about a team at MIT that is working on LED technology to take care of the light quality issue and I remain hopeful.

I agree that saving energy is great. We should all learn to do with less...of everything and that is the real point. Think of the massive oil-based infrastructure needed to produce and deliver all these CFLs. All the factories, delivery trucks, stores - everything. Does the energy saved by using CFLs mitigate the oil used to produce and deliver them? How do we find this out? Do you drive accross town to buy one from Target, thus supporting Target and all of its business practices.

Maybe the best way to approach an energy scarce future is to do without. Use less. Consume less. Live closer to home. I don't think we can buy our way out of energy scarcity. Taking conservation to this level is VERY difficult and uncomfortable, so start slow.

(full disclosure: I installed a $6000 system of beautiful halogen recessed lighting into my old, dark house last year. It's like owning a new home. I love it and you can't buy fluorescent halogens! Just so you know I'm not a saint!)

-Ian

[Andy]

Ianc,

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hink of the massive oil-based infrastructure needed to produce and deliver all these CFLs. All the factories, delivery trucks, stores - everything. Does the energy saved by using CFLs mitigate the oil used to produce and deliver them? How do we find this out? Do you drive accross town to buy one from Target, thus supporting Target and all of its business practices.

[snax]

One thing that this thread has so far ignored is the heating effect of lights. In the winter, the incandescents help with the heating load. Does the efficiency of the heating effect vs. the extra power used balance out with what a good heat pump can generate? No clue here.

In the summertime however or anytime it's appropriate to open a window or two, CFLs are a clear winner. Incandescents can actually increase your cooling cost.

[WisJim]

We have been using compact flourescents for over 15 years. Started with just one, in the kitchen where a light was on for 10 hours a day sometimes. The first one lasted over 7 years, the second almost as long, and then we did some remodeling and now have more of the CFLS. We are now using the spiral ones, and notice differences in light quality, but we change them until we get the light we want, if we don't like the light in places where we spend a lot of time. I haven't paid over $5 for one in the last five years, and usually they are $3 or $4 less a $2 rebate from Focus on Energy, sponsered by the electric companies. So, the cost of a CFL is about twice the cost of an incandescent, they last lots longer (I have had maybe 1 in 10 fail within the first year, and probably nowhere near that many).

[128shot]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('IanC', 'P')ersonally, I hate the light quality of CFLs. They highlight every skin blemish and make the food you're cooking look disgusting. I was reading recently about a team at MIT that is working on LED technology to take care of the light quality issue and I remain hopeful.

I agree that saving energy is great. We should all learn to do with less...of everything and that is the real point. Think of the massive oil-based infrastructure needed to produce and deliver all these CFLs. All the factories, delivery trucks, stores - everything. Does the energy saved by using CFLs mitigate the oil used to produce and deliver them? How do we find this out? Do you drive accross town to buy one from Target, thus supporting Target and all of its business practices.

Maybe the best way to approach an energy scarce future is to do without. Use less. Consume less. Live closer to home. I don't think we can buy our way out of energy scarcity. Taking conservation to this level is VERY difficult and uncomfortable, so start slow.

(full disclosure: I installed a $6000 system of beautiful halogen recessed lighting into my old, dark house last year. It's like owning a new home. I love it and you can't buy fluorescent halogens! Just so you know I'm not a saint!)

-Ian

[ChumpusRex2]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('snax', 'O')ne thing that this thread has so far ignored is the heating effect of lights. In the winter, the incandescents help with the heating load. Does the efficiency of the heating effect vs. the extra power used balance out with what a good heat pump can generate? No clue here.

In the summertime however or anytime it's appropriate to open a window or two, CFLs are a clear winner. Incandescents can actually increase your cooling cost.

[BlisteredWhippet]

Problem with CFL is that its too seductive to think of them as efficient. Their manufacture is heavily subsidized. In their manufacture, much pollution is released into the third world. They are much more entropic than vacuum-filament incandescence. They contain several environmental toxins including arsenic, dioxin, and mercury. So the full-circle picture is not very encouraging. Incandescents release infared and provide their own heat source. I don't think the subjective feeling of people for whom the light is produced is something that should be minimized, it should be a basic factor. Conventional light bulbs are less entropic.

The light quality is perceptually on par with incandescent, but the subtle effects of wave frequency are not well understood. All I can say is that CFL light is shitty. Its light is cold as opposed to comfortable. I prefer it filtered and indirect. Get several kinds of CFLs runnning in a room at once and you're creating a whole ton of electromagentic fields and unsynchronized vibrational energy.

LEDs seem to be unquestionably a better option. CFLs, I think, will ultimately be seen as a dirty, nasty middle-step evolution from incandescence to LED technology. Today's adopters of CFLs are only stoking an industry doomed to obsolescence and in the process creating more toxic waste.

Ultimately, the idea of stationary lights and large-area passive lighting might just be a red herring. After all, we only need light to see what we are looking at. How about a head-mounted device or pair of glasses with an IR filter and IR emitting diodes built in. That way you only light what you want to see.

Benjamin Franklin invented Daylight savings time, which amounted to harnessing free energy on a scale that today's problem-solvers have yet to match, even remotely.

The cynical fact is that for every consumer who installs a CFL, someone installs recessed halogen, erasing efficiency gains of the former. The real efficiency gains need to be in other areas, like heating and cooling. The best are simple ideas. CFLs are a top-down wonker idea promulgated by government and industry in classical short-term interest with an industrial kicker.

Going back to B. Franklin... he also created more efficient stoves and fireplaces. Today, every day, superinefficient wood and wood pellet fireplaces are installed everyday all over the US, wasting huge amounts of energy. The biggest energy savers remain lifestlye choices and infrastructure changes.

CFLs are a red herring. Kind of like trading in your 20 mpg for a 30 mpg car.

[snax]

I can't argue with the environmental impact you mention. That's something that I have been wondering about, however there are utilities that offer recycling programs for flourescents to recapture the hazardous materials contained. I'm not sure what the net cost benefit ratio is on that though.

I do take issue with the analogy of the cars however. While as an individual it makes sense to maintain and drive the same car for as long as possible, the reality is that at this point in history, the number of drivers continues to increase - thus providing the demand and therefore the means by which the vehicles that are cast aside will continue to be maintained and used.

Ultimately if nobody ever bought another new car, we obviously would reduce emissions via attrition, but that's just not a scenario based in reality.

Consider this real world example:

We currently own and drive only one vehicle, a 2005 F150 Supercrew pickup. Around town it gets a paltry 13 mpg, and up to 20 or so on the highway if we are easy on it. We use it for towing and hauling on occassion, but being our only vehicle it is probably underutilized for those purposes. We also require it to be as near 100% reliable as possible.

Unfortunately if we were to trade the pickup for something else that was not new, we would possibly be sacrificing the reliability which we so highly value, as you can never be guaranteed as to what previous owners did or did not do to a vehicle.

Now obviously we realize that perhaps having this nearly new pickup is not the most efficient use of it's capabilities. So assuming by trading it in, the next buyer (yes, there will assuredly be a next buyer) will have the opportunity perhaps to better utilize it, does it really make sense for us to continue to drive it? We on the other hand would not be out of line to use a more efficient vehicle that better suits our needs - whether that is new or not.

The other factor is life cycle. At some point, the oldest of vehicles and the heaviest polluters should and will for the most part be removed from service - and often appropriately recycled, as few people have the impetus to convert older low value vehicles to more efficient less polluting means, and eventually corrosion and collision damage makes that impractical. Just because a person is trading in an older vehicle for a new vehicle, that does not mean that the movement of older vehicles toward the scrap heap is any more accelerated except perhaps where it simply makes sense to take them off the road anyway.

I.e., we may have replaced a bunch of our light bulbs with CFLs, but the incandescents have not been thrown away! They will likely get used again where appropriate - just like the used vehicle. And the CFLs will be recycled.

Mass transit will never effectively replace the car in many parts of the world, and keeping a bunch of old polluting cars on the road when cleaner more efficient replacements are available does not make sense. The real question is: How much of a difference in pollution, age, and efficiency makes sense for replacing an older vehicle?

At some point, it does, and so long as there is a supply and demand for vehicles, it always will.

Ask yourself this: If you could trade your current gasoline powered vehicle in today for a new vehicle that used 100% clean fuel (as if) technolgy, would you do it - knowing that your trade-in would be scrapped?

Granted, that's the extreme, but assuming similar life cycle, isn't it arguable that the net result on the environment to produce the new vehicle would be far offset by the elimination of pollutants produced while operating it?

Regardless, the argument that for every CFL installed, somebody else installs halogens is fallacious. The decision of some to install more wasteful illumination is in no way based upon whether others are using CFLs. More likely, people with halogens may likely just be more conscious of their light useage. Additionally, halogens are often spot style lighting - putting light where people want it most and permitting lower wattage use than more diffuse lighting would allow. (I'd much rather read by a 25W halogen spot than by a 100W frosted bulb.)

On that note, I wish I could say that I prefer CFLs, but I don't mind them either.

[BlisteredWhippet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Now obviously we realize that perhaps having this nearly new pickup is not the most efficient use of it's capabilities. So assuming by trading it in, the next buyer (yes, there will assuredly be a next buyer) will have the opportunity perhaps to better utilize it, does it really make sense for us to continue to drive it? We on the other hand would not be out of line to use a more efficient vehicle that better suits our needs - whether that is new or not.

[snax]

This topic does have me thinking about which bulbs in the house it is practical to replace however. For example, the light over our kitchen sink often remains on for 6 or more hours per day in lieu of the higher power overhead flourescents. It was a no-brainer to replace that with a CFL at 1/4 the power.

A light in a utility closet that is on just a few minutes per day would however be the worst use of a CFL.

My point is that replacing every light in the house with a CFL is just stupid. They do however have their place - and usually that's in the fixtures that are on the most - like in my kids rooms where they NEVER remember to turn the light off. Grrrr . .

The bathrooms have CFLs and motion sensors.

And yes, we are working on alternate means for a primary (currently only) vehicle. I'm shooting for something that can tow, seat at least five, and get at least 25 mpg - as the backup vehicle, and something even more efficient for the daily grind that my wife will drive. I'll hopefully have a homebuilt recycled MR2 EV on the road sometime this year.