I’m sorry, but I just can’t get my arms around compact flourescent light bulbs (CFLs) replacing incandescent bulbs in a few years. I don’t care if incandescents are only 10% efficient energy-wise. How efficient is a match? The current CFL product actually sucks, in looks and size, and they’re dangerous in many cases. They won’t fit into many of my light sources, they aren’t instant on (watch those stairs, Grandma), and they suffer from being turned on and off too often. I figure that the current energy bill will be like the previous ones — politically popular but it will be whittled down as the car and light bulb industries go back to Congress saying it can’t be done on time. This is why those industries didn’t let out a whelp with this bill — they know it’s just smoke and mirrors.
Discussion Forum
Discussion Forum
Up Next
Video Shorts
Featured Story
Learn more about the pros and cons of single-room ERVs.
Featured Video
Highlights
"I have learned so much thanks to the searchable articles on the FHB website. I can confidently say that I expect to be a life-long subscriber." - M.K.
Fine Homebuilding Magazine
Fine Home Building
Follow
-
Fine Homebuilding
Dig into cutting-edge approaches and decades of proven solutions with total access to our experts and tradespeople.
Start Free Trial Now -
GBA Prime
Get instant access to the latest developments in green building, research, and reports from the field.
Start Free Trial Now
- Home Group
- Antique Trader
- Arts & Crafts Homes
- Bank Note Reporter
- Cabin Life
- Cuisine at Home
- Fine Gardening
- Fine Woodworking
- Green Building Advisor
- Garden Gate
- Horticulture
- Keep Craft Alive
- Log Home Living
- Military Trader/Vehicles
- Numismatic News
- Numismaster
- Old Cars Weekly
- Old House Journal
- Period Homes
- Popular Woodworking
- Script
- ShopNotes
- Sports Collectors Digest
- Threads
- Timber Home Living
- Traditional Building
- Woodsmith
- World Coin News
- Writer's Digest
Replies
We've replaced almost all our incandescents with CFL's. It takes about three days to get used to the slow startup, and you're right, in some fixtures they just don't fit.
But, they do save a lot of energy.
So I should start stockpiling bulbs while I can? Man. this is getting tough, as I about already filled up my garage with 3.5 gallon toilets. Have to move aside the cases of lead shotshells, put the aluminum wiring up into the loft, since it weighs less, take the Diazinon to the basement along with the oil paint. The basement freezer's already full of transfat margarine and swordfish, so there's little room for the cigarettes we bought before the tax went up a dollar a pack. What's the average guy to do?
Put it next to the generator for Y2k
I am transitioning. Using first in our outdoor porch lights. We like to have em on all night. Reduce the perps chances and all. With the incadesant we burned em out about 1 per month. It's been about 3-4 months with the CFLs so far.
How'd you know about my Y2K generator? You the nut next door with the solar panels? I'm too old -- have to be eased into something like changing a 100+ year old habit in a few years. I'm an expert at removing the flow restrictors from showers, so I guess to be dragged kicking and screaming into this next one. Have to go -- the coal auger for the furnace is screeching again for oil.
Got room for any five gallon toilets?
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
So I should start stockpiling bulbs while I can? Man. this is getting tough
May depend--IIRC, only new manufacture of 100W lamps are banned, and then not for 3-4 years. Allegedly, there's some sort of incremental, 75w, then 60W, and so on "no new manufacture" provision, but, it was my understanding that it was not mandated, only suggested, and could not start until 8-10 years from now.
Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Be careful you don't tip over that glass jug of DDT while you're at it.
BruceT
But, they do save a lot of energy.
define "a lot".
I just saw a show where the conservation recommended the couple buy a new energy efficient fridge. Their old one didn't look all to old.
said the new one would "save" ... because the old one cost $90 a year to run.
so ... if they bought a new one ... they'd save that $90!
I started to question ... uh ... guess the new one runs on free electricity?
later in the same show ... they did say that new fridges would cost about $60 per year ... ok ... so that's a $30 yearly savings.
How much is that new fridge gonna cost?
we recently bought one ...
they average between $900 and $1,200 so call it an even $1,050.
divide that by $30 ...
35 yrs to break even.
Yeah ... that's a good deal?
spend a grand to save $30 a year.
$.08 cents a day.
plus add a useful Fridge to the landfill.
even better.
and use energy to make the new one ...
most of these energy saving ideas don't add up.
Jeff Buck Construction
Artistry In Carpentry
Pittsburgh Pa
I figure we're saving on the order of $20-30 a month. More in summer because you pay for it twice with the AC on.
If your view never changes you're following the wrong leader
Good points.
For the most part we didn't just throw away all our old light bulbs, we replaced them as they burned out. Only took a year or so. We have had very few issues with the new CFL's, maybe one in 6 or 10 don't work, about the same as incandescents.
Is changing over to slightly more energy-efficient fixtures and appliances going to mean YOU have free electricity? Heck no. But if each of us replaced worn out/used up stuff with 30% more efficient stuff, multiplied by all the houses in the country, that's a lot of energy saved. Oil and coal not burned. Wars for oil not fought. Etc.
Lifecycle cost and inherent energy need to be considered along too though.
35 yrs to break even.
And, it's real tough to find appliances with three-decade lifespans anymore.
The proponents of these things take them very seriously.
Why, even a "five year old" appliance "ought to be replaced."
Not a good idea to ask these folks to calculate ROI, it confuses their True Belief (far, far too many will agree with you if you flippantly suggest that everybody ought to buy two new refrigerators, and you'll save twice as much energy . . . )Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Not a good idea to ask these folks to calculate ROI, it confuses their True Belief (far, far too many will agree with you if you flippantly suggest that everybody ought to buy two new refrigerators, and you'll save twice as much energy . . . )
I was hoping to make that my excuse for buying some new tools. Aren't the new tools more energy efficient?! I'd better buy some new tools ;)
jt8
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." --Upton Sinclair
Aren't the new tools more energy efficient?! I'd better buy some new tools ;)
Well, there's some "greenie" griping about the contents of batteries in cordless tools. One of the broadsheets was quite exercised that the lithium batteries are out, as the hoi polloi might, unless instructed by their betters, not only go out and willfully engage in profit-oriented commerce, but, worse yet, toss their old nicad batteries out. O the horror, the horror . . . Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
everybody ought to buy two new refrigerators, and you'll save twice as much energy . . . )
The more you buy the more you save!
Jeff and all,
The new friges use 45% (less than 1/2) the electricity of a comparable sized 9 year old frig. They may not last as long but the new compressors will save money on electricity.In our area with 13-14 cents /KWH, an energy star, regular side by side uses about $80-90. 13cents X 613 KWH = $80. When everyone was quoting their rates, I can see in some areas the payback would be impractical. In New Jersey...WOW 19-20cents/KWHSo, you have a 12 year old frig that uses 2X (1/2) more of the juice or 1362 KWH/yr or $170-180/yr.The new frig lasts 10 years and saves $850 $900 or more if our rates keep going up.Here in TX, people have an old frig in the garage. This can more than double that figure.Pete
You are right CFLs often suck. I've had very spotty luck with them. When I pay $6 for a bulb and it burns out after 2 years I don't get the warm and fuzzies... And as you said, they just don't fit in some fixtures. The ones that you buy in a "6-pack" or whatever from Sams or BJs seem particularly bad. I've had particularly bad luck with the ones that go in can lights.
OTOH I have recently come to the conclusion that I have to install more regular florescent fixtures in the homes I build. Start with the right fixtures from the get-go. Our regional Energy Star program requires it. I havn't seen a time of service issue with regular florescent tubes. Q: do regular tubes have the start-up time issue? I've never noticed.
Can you buy CFLs in California....they contain Mercury.
What are we going to do with them when they start to burn out? They can't go to the land fill are we going to have to pay a Hazmat Co. to dispose/recycle them?
Garett
Maine has had a mercury hazmat law active for a good ten years now requiring that florescent bulbs be recycled.Not that anybody pays any attention. They usually just go right in the trash can with everything else.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
There's something like two orders of magnitude less mercury in a CFL than would be released by burning coal to power the equivalent incandescent. The mercury contentof a CFL is a technicality only, and not a real hazard. (Though it's good to recycle the lamps if you can feasibly do so.)
If your view never changes you're following the wrong leader
Define "not a real hazard".One big difference is that power plant discharge is very diffused.Where the mercury in a CFL is concentrated in one small device.I will expect that we will be seeing more these and "mandatory" recycling.http://www.energyfederation.org/consumer/default.php/cPath/1631_2232http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7431198" "Given what we anticipate to be the significant increase in the use of these products, we are now beginning to look at, and shortly we'll be discussing with legislators, possibly a national solution here," says Earl Jones, a senior counsel for General Electric.In fact, Jones said he was having his first talks with congressional staffers on Thursday.".
.
A-holes. Hey every group has to have one. And I have been elected to be the one. I should make that my tagline.
After growing up playing with beads of mercury, I don't consider the tiny amt in bulbs a real hazard, but the State does.
For quite a while, there was a lot of mercury being found in fish here, I think due to some stuff used in paper making mills washing out into rivers and poisoning fish, so the law was passed to control every tiny dusting of it.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
are we going to have to pay a Hazmat Co. to dispose/recycle them?
Good question.
Pretty sure it will get answered in CA first, too. CA requires CFLs for almost all new residential work (search BT for "CFL" & "can" for some fascinating stories).
CA also has some of the strictest "evironmental" laws out there, too. The scuttlebutt I keep hearing is that they are closing in on bringing the limits on a number of items to "below background" (which is about where the Mecury levels in fluorescent lamps run).Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
In addition to CFL's, I think we will be seeing LED lights come onto the market seriously as the technology improves and the end of incandescent lights gets closer. Personally, I use CFL's anywhere that I would otherwise use a standard bulb that gets much use. Decorative bulbs such as in chandeliers still need some work. I don't know of any candelabra based CFL's and they would look pretty funky in the chandelier any ways. I bet reasonable LED lights will come out for these applications in a couple of years. In 5 years, who know, CFL's may be old technology.
Flame-shaped candelabra-base CFLs are on the market....certainly available through electrical supply houses.
LED's are useful for low-level illumination but CFL's are more efficient in terms of lumens/watt and waaayyyyy less expensive.
Ed
I am glad to hear that there are candelabra based CFL's but they haven't made it to the big boxes yet alone the grocery store where most people will get there light bulbs.LED's are a relatively very new technology and I think will see great improvement in price and applications. They are currently capable of greater efficiency than CFL's and most likely will improve in the future. CFL's 10 years ago cost about $15 for a bulb that costs about $1.50 today. I bet LED's will see similar improvements in the next few years. I think they will have a much better chance of reasonably imitating the variety of shapes and sizes currently available in decorator light bulbs for which people will be more willing to pay more money for than for the basic bulb for the garage or basement.
They are currently capable of greater efficiency than CFL's and most likely will improve in the future
I'm sure you're right about improvements coming. But from what I've seen, they are not yet as efficient in terms of lumens/watt. Here is a link to a little summary about it.
http://www.taunton.com/finehomebuilding/how-to/departments/what-is-the-difference/green-lightbulbs-cfl-compact-fluorescents-and-led-light-emitting-diode.aspx
Do you have a reference that shows otherwise?
I did a quick and dirty Google search on "lumens per watt led" which gave a whole range of answers up to 300 lumens per watt with most in the range of 140. I was lazy and did not read anything other than the Google search summaries. These may have been all things in the laboratory as your link I am sure is referencing lights that you can buy today. The numbers I found may indicate more of what LEDs may be able to do in the future than what you can buy today.
Alot of discussion on energy efficiency and impact to the environment. Let me add that current discussions all over the media regarding "Carbon Footprint" are a lot closer to trying to describe the penny wise, pound foolish problem of buying a new energy efficient appliance which, net sum final analysis, adds significantly to pollution in creating the need to manufacture yet more appliances and in distribution, and finally sends an old appliance to a yet growing landfill. Carbon footprint attempts to see the entire problem which is amazingly broad when you look at it from that perspective. Also, I remember about 15 years ago reading that policy was to subsidize the recycling effort in the US as it would lead to an improved infrastructure regardless of actual environmental impact. The report believed that by 2010 recycling would become slightly profitable due to expected tech advancements but probably not before then. By starting early the policy makers believed the sorting and recycling discipline in the population and in the infrastructure would allow us to support growing and shifting populations across the US and spur economic growth through an aging population. So, for 15 years or so recycling in the US is a net-loss endeavor without government subsidy, and it is the subsidy that prompts almost every municipality in the country to drive recycling.Interestingly, I believe there are a couple of groups who have found ways to make recycling pay by processing garbage into energy(burning for steam turbines, generating methane), composting into fertilizer and good fill. All profitable because the overhead of getting well-sorted waste, and enough of it, to the right place is already taken care of. Government subsidy hard at work for your tax dollars. Oh, and one last minor point, CFLs have had a lot of effort behind them to have the regulatory support they have but I think you'll be amazed just how fast and strongly LEDs will be touted to replace CFLs. LEDs pollute far less in every stage of manufacture, have far longer life and lower energy consumption for greater lumen output (efficiency). Their downside is color range but that's being quickly addressed. So get ready to replace every one of those CFLs.
It is an interesting topic and one that we'll be living with for a long time to come.
LEDs......................have ............ lower energy consumption for greater lumen output (efficiency).
This does not seem to be true, at least for what's currently on the market (thank you Kurt).
Do you have a link to available LED lamps that reflects this?
Ed
Ed,
Sorry, no link. I was referencing an article I read in a science journal of about 8-10 months ago. And I made no claim as to availability simply the results of testing LEDs against all other light sources and the opinions of the article authors which I had to agree with based on the facts. The lowering cost and efficiency of LEDs will drive the change, I have no issue buying $30-40 LED replacements that last 30 or more years. I will point out that a simple google search gets a table where you can see that 2 watt LEDs are equivalent to 40 watt incandescents or 11 watt CFLs and will last 10+ years, etc...: Incandescent Fluorescent LED
Input Power (W) 40 11 2
Annual Power Consumption (kWh) 350 96 18
Lamp Life (years) 0.25-0.5 1-2 10+
Annual Energy Cost (0.06 $/kWh) $21.00 $5.75 $1.10
Its only I rumor I heard but they are thinking about changing code to allow only the pin type fixtures installed in new homes.
Like I said its only a rumor and I doubt it will happen anytime soon if at all.
Where there's a will, there are 500 relatives
California does require most lighting to be flourscent. Have not seen the wording.And they have apparently tightened up in the last year or so..
.
A-holes. Hey every group has to have one. And I have been elected to be the one. I should make that my tagline.
I had heard that from our HERS provider and again from an electrician friend of mine. Texas will be the last to comply probably. The GC liscense here is a joke. Just pay your $500 and you can build without any credentials at all. No test or nothing.Oh yeah, you only need one if you are increasing the living space of a residence or building a new one. If not it dont matter.Where there's a will, there are 500 relatives
We have replaced most of our bulbs with CFL's. To me its a no-brainer: Same amount of light for 1/5th the power. They are all over in Europe, and people there seem to do fine with them.
I think of each one of these as a small step to cutting off middle-east oil.
The CFL legislation is a textbook case of why we should let 'nature take its' course' rather than expect wisdom from committee rooms.
Don't get me wrong; virtually all of my lights are some sort of fluorescent, and mainly CFL. Yet, I would never want such a choice imposed on another.
CFL's have greatly improved- but they still have their limitations ... just like everything else. CFL's work poorly in appliances; ever see a microwave with one? Or a fridge?
CFL's have had a far worse reliability record than the vendors claim. In one bank of six lights, I am down to one of the original 'premium' CFL's after six years. At least two died within the first six months. There was no correlation between 'most used' and 'first dead.'
The mercury issue was conveniently overlooked in the CFL legislation. The amounts contained in fluorescent lighting are already subject to some pretty draconian legislation. Naturally, the effect of this legislation has been to encourage folks to avoid hiring real contractors, or to drop things off in commercial dumpsters in the dark of night.
What's a "safe" amount? Now, there's a topic beloved of the armchair BS artist. That EPA rules mandate levels far below what is naturally present in many places suggests that the EPA levels are far lower than they need to be. Yet, the environmental priests are not about to let true research or honest discussion take place.
For those wishing to look deeper into the matter, I suggest you start with "Trashing the Planet" by Dixie Lee Ray, or "Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom" by Peter Huber. The short take? Environmentalism isn't about health, it's a power grab.
The California energy code requires that fixtures that CAN take 'ordinary' light bulbs be treated as if they do, without regard for whatever is actually installed. Likewise, the electrical inspectors' association has taken the same position regarding fixtures in closets.
It is now routine for these energy codes to conflict with lighting mandates contained in other codes.
I like them. Less energy is good, plus I really like the choice of different colors (cool, daylight, warm, etc.). I just wish someone would come up with a good alternative to Par 20s. Outdoor flood lights need work too.
Scott.
Always remember those first immortal words that Adam said to Eve, “You’d better stand back, I don’t know how big this thing’s going to get.”