|
<Previous
Next>
All Hail the CFL
 Surely you have heard by now that
compact fluorescent lights (CFLs) are the savior of the world.
Thomas Edison's incandescent bulb is the devil.
Australia announced back in February of this year (2007) that
incandescent bulbs will be phased out within a few years. The stated goal is to
cut greenhouse gas emissions by 4 million tons by 2012. According to one official,
"If the whole world switches to these bulbs
 today, we would reduce
our consumption of electricity by an amount equal to five times Australia's annual
consumption of electricity." California politicians are pushing for the same policy
for their state – Arnold “the Gubernator” Schwarzenegger likes da idea.
European Union
countries are seriously considering a ban on incandescents as well. Proponents there
claim, “...if all inefficient traditional incandescent bulbs sold in Europe were
to be replaced with more efficient bulbs - such as compact fluorescent lamps or
CFLs - the continent would need 27 fewer power plants.”
Compact fluorescents consume about 20-25% the amount of energy per lumen that
their incandescent equivalents consume. Depending on which manufacturer's product
you buy, the light is usually whiter than that of an incandescent. In my experience,
it is typically true for the 100 W and above models, but all the 60 W CFLs I have
seen are annoyingly yellowish – almost like a low pressure sodium parking lot light.
Here is a comparison of CFL versus incandescent according to information on the
package of 100 W CFLs that I bought at
Lowe's.
CFL
Incan .
Output (lumens): 1600
1680
Energy (watts): 23
100
Life (hours): 8,000
750
Cost: $8 for 4 $1.5 for 4
Savings Over Life: $61
$0
Melanie and I just moved into a
new house
that we were able to contract for prior to it being built. We figured it would be
a good test platform for some of the newer energy efficient technology (for what
our budget would allow). It is a split foyer design with all up-to-date building
components and plenty of insulation in the walls and attic, an upgraded HVAC system,
and good quality windows and doors. It has a little over 1,200 square feet upstairs,
with a 2-car garage and unfinished living space underneath. One additional measure
we took was to use all compact fluorescent bulbs in the light fixtures (except the
outdoor fixtures). 60 W and 100 W CFLs were used.
Since our old house had all incandescent bulbs, it was fairly easy to make a
comparison on the quality of light. Both houses have roughly the same size and color
walls and ceilings (off-white), as well as light fixtures with the same number of
bulbs. There is no doubt that the CFLs do not illuminate the rooms as brightly as
the equivalent incandescents do, and the color of the light overall is noticeably
yellower (even for the 100 W). The lumens might be equal, but the spectral distribution
of a lot of the energy must be in places that my eyes do not respond to. It is hard
to resist the urge to throw away the CFLs and replace them with incandescents, but
for the sake of single-handedly saving the planet, I will learn to live with them…
unless it drives me totally nuts. Sure, I could add additional lights to the room
or put in larger (and very expensive) CFLs, but doing so would defeat the purpose
of using CFLs and besides, some day in the not-too-distant future the light bulb
police will be threatening me with jail time if I do not comply. Resistance is futile.
So, with all the good that compact fluorescents are going to do the world, is
there no downside to using them? In fact, there is. Just as with the long, tubular
fluorescent bulbs you have seen for years in office ceilings, stores, and in your
workshop at home, these CFLs need a pinch of
mercury (turned into a mercury vapor by a high voltage arc) to
cause the fluorescent material in the bulb to glow. How much mercury? Per a very
recent NEMA ruling, "Under the voluntary commitment, effective April
15, 2007, participating manufacturers will cap the total mercury content in CFLs
under 25 watts at 5 milligrams (mg) per unit. CFLs that use 25 to 40 watts of electricity
will have total mercury content capped at 6 mg per unit." Incidentally, the Hg content
limit is what ultimately also limits the lifetime of the bulb.
Bonus Fact: Mercury's chemical symbol, Hg, comes from the Latin word "hydragyrum"
which means liquid silver, due to its color and phase state at room temperature.
Mercury is a potent neurotoxin with the potential to build up in the food chain.
The EPA and FDA in the United States prohibits or greatly restricts mercury content
in everything from building materials to processed tuna fish. You have heard, no
doubt of Lewis Carroll's
Mad Hatter
(or the saying, "mad as a hatter”). Hat makers of yore used mercury nitrate as part
of the felting process; it famously over a career left them loony. It only takes
1/70th of a teaspoon of mercury (about the amount of Hg in a typical medical thermometer)
to contaminate a 20-acre body of water and make all fish within it toxic to humans.
1/70th of a teaspoon equals about 970 mg, which is approximately 194, hundred-watt
CFLs. I have not seen a calculation showing how much mercury would need to be mined
and then disposed of once the entire world converts to fluorescent lighting. Some
pro-CFL sites like to demonstrate how the mercury put into the air by electric generation
plants to supply the additional energy used by incandescents is greater than that
used in the production of CFLs.
Hopefully, the entire debate will be made moot with the advent of high power
LED lamps. Both incandescent and fluorescent lamps could be made obsolete by the
kinds of advances that are being reported for LEDs. The
Science Daily website has
run many stories in the last couple years on the topic. From what I have read, there
is no as-yet identified down side to LEDs either in the manufacturing process or
in the disposal thereof. One advantage to LED lamps is that typically they are constructed
from an array of individual LEDs, so that a graceful degradation of the output occurs
rather than a wholesale failure. It is not uncommon to see commercial truck tail
lights with one or more LEDs from the cluster not working, yet the tail light is
still useful.
As with all of these kinds of debates, the extreme proponents are as wildly vehement
about their call for the complete abandonment of incandescent bulbs as the extreme
opponents are about keeping their beloved Edison models. I think that a lot of the
rejection of new paradigms like adaptation of alternative lighting, fuels, etc.,
is caused by the over-zealous, in-your-face, I'm-smarter-than-you attitude by the
early adopters. Usually those people have no credentials for their nearly militant
efforts at evangelization; they are simply regurgitating what they have heard from
some other non-credentialed source.
I am personally an environmentally friendly person and do what I can within reason
to help preserve the health of Planet Earth, but nothing makes me want to go buy
a Hummer more than watching Al Gore pontificate about how he lives a carbon neutral
life by virtue of purchasing "carbon offsets" to atone for his excessive lifestyle.
Fluorescent
Light Bulbs Can Become 'Toxic Time Bombs'
Please make your comments on the RF Cafe Forum (CFL vs. Incandescent Debate).
Posted April 6, 2007
|
"