CFL bulbs: Shedding Light on Misleading Performance Claims (EPA's claims about CFL's are bogus)

Seminole County Environmental News Examiner ^ | Jan 12, 2012 | Kirk Myers

[Robert A Cook PE]

By Kirk Myers, Seminole County Environmental News Examiner

This article, the second in a series, focuses on the misleading performance claims surrounding the “more energy efficient” compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs now replacing traditional incandescent bulbs. These potentially harmful mercury-filled lamps (see my previous column describing the dangers) are being forced on consumers by the U.S. congress with support from the Green Lobby and light-bulb manufacturers like GE, Sylvania and Phillips. These and other manufacturers stand to make huge profits selling the more expensive CFLs (more on that issue in my next column).

There is a growing body of evidence undermining claims of the EPA, environmental lobby and light bulb manufacturers touting the performance advantages of mercury-laced CFL bulbs.

Exaggerated lifespan

Real-world reports from the home front show that the claimed extended lifespan of CFLs is often greatly exaggerated. There is ample data indicating that the frequent switching on and off of CFLs greatly shortens their life. A study by H. Sterling Burnett, senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, and co-author Amanda Berg concludes

“Unfortunately, except under a fairly narrow range of circumstances, CFLs are less efficient than advertised. Manufacturers claim the average life span of a CFL bulb is 10,000 hours. However, in many applications the life and energy savings of a CFL are significantly lower. Applications in which lighting is used only briefly (such as closets, bathrooms, motion detectors and so forth) will cause CFL bulbs to burn out as quickly as regular incandescent bulbs . . . When initially switched on, CFLs may provide as little as 50 percent to 80 percent of their rated light output and can take up to three minutes to reach full brightness.”

According to a story in the Wall Street Journal, Pacific Gas & Electric originally estimated the useful life of CFL bulbs at 9.4 years. But based on real-world results, the company was forced to lower its estimate to 6.3 years, meaning that it had overstated bulb life by 49 percent. “The early burn-out rate, along with several other factors, meant that the actual energy savings were 73 percent less than the 1.7 billion kilowatt hours projected by PG&E,” the Journal reported.

Less bright, more dim with age

As many consumers have noticed, CFL bulbs grow dimmer as they age. In a 2003-2004 study, the U.S. Department of Energy reported that one-fourth of CFLs, after only 40 percent of their rated service life, no longer produced at their rated output.

And according to Wikipedia: “CFLs produce less light later in their lives than when they are new. The light output decay is exponential, with the fastest losses being soon after the lamp is first used. By the end of their lives, CFLs can be expected to produce 70-80% of their original light output.”

After conducting its own tests on bulbs from several manufacturers, The Sunday Telegraph in London “found that under normal conditions, using a single lamp to light a room, an 11W low-energy CFL produced only 58 percent of the illumination of an ‘equivalent’ 60W bulb - even after a 10-minute ‘warm-up.’”

The European Commission, which led the effort to ban incandescent bulbs in Europe, said that claims by manufacturers that CFL’s shine as brightly as old-fashioned bulbs are “not true.”

Posted on its website for consumers was the warning that “exaggerated claims are often made on the packaging about the light output of compact fluorescent lamps.”

Higher heating bills

Go-Green advocates like to complain about the fact that 90 percent of the energy from incandescent lights is given off as heat, with only 10 percent providing illumination. But they ignore one important fact: The extra heat given off during the winter months can actually lower energy bills.

According to a study by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, “The heat of incandescent lights - more than 341 Btu per bulb per hour - can help to warm a room. Therefore, if the cost of electricity is low relative to the cost of home heating fuel, there may be an economic case for changing to incandescent bulbs in colder seasons.”

In other words, on a cold day when you’re running your electric heater, it makes sense to flip on all those incandescent heat sources. Of course, the contribution of incandescent bulbs to lower heating bills is conveniently missing from pro-CFL literature.

Unsuitable for outdoor lighting

What about the use of CFLs for outdoor lighting? Forget it. Most do not operate well in low temperatures, a performance shortfall that makes them virtually useless for home-security lighting, including as lights in motion detectors. By signing the incandescent bulb’s death warrant, congress has effectively rendered useless outdoor lighting systems that keep away intruders and discourage home break-ins.

Myth of mercury reduction

One of the most misleading arguments advanced in defense of CFLs is the assertion that they reduce harmful mercury levels (a dubious proposition given that the bulbs themselves are laced with mercury).

Case in point: In a letter to the Wall Street Journal in December, CFL advocate Nicole Lederer claimed that “coal-fired power plants produce about half of all mercury.”

In his Jan. 5 response, Charles Battig of Scientists and Engineers for Energy and Environment-Virginia called the statement “scientifically vacuous and misleading.”

Battig cited data from an op-ed ("The Myth of Killer Mercury” by Willie Soon and Paul Driessen) that broke down mercury contributions as follows: �U.S. coal-fired plants, about 41-48 tons per year; forest fires, about 44 tons per year; Chinese power plants, 400 tons per year, while recurring geological events such as volcanoes and geysers emit 9,000-10,000 tons per year.�

“With these missing pieces of information, wrote Battig, the U.S. power plant contribution of mercury is closer to a 0.5% value than the “half of all mercury” claim by Ms. Lederer.”

Battig then offered this advice:

“Would that Ms. Lederer and the Environmental Entrepreneurs expend an equal amount of environmental anguish over placing compact fluorescent lamp bulbs indoors in homes, schools and factories. These mercury-containing, stealth-pollution bulbs bring the mercury threat right into your living room and nursery.”

No good reason for switchover

The fact is there is no good reason for consumers - even energy-conscious go-green enthusiasts - to replace their old incandescent bulbs with the much-overhyped and potentially dangerous CFL lamps. The sole beneficiaries of the forced switchover are light bulb manufacturers who stand to make huge profits selling CFL bulbs whose shelf price has been artificially lowered (but still is higher than incandescent bulbs) through hefty subsidies paid to them by taxpayers.

In light of the facts, the switchover to CFL bulbs has become a real consumer turn-off.

[dila813]

point by point:

1. So the government knows better, who better to decide the best lighting choice for your home
2. understand you work the swing shift, so you still think this would shift the average of 12 hours used in your calculations for a normal American household? I don’t agree
3. Businesses using florescent lighting, this isn’t CFLs, this is florescent lighting which is perfect for businesses. Businesses made this decision on the merits.

Bottom line, there are light fixtures in my house I would put CFLs in, there are others where incandescents work better.

Bottom line though, for the majority of the fixtures in a normal American home, incandescents make more sense and changing them to CFLs will not even pay for the expense of buying the CFL.

Snarky, maybe, but not as snarky as using 12 hrs per fixture per day in your calculations.

You say your savings is 50 dollars for the first month. 50 dollars is my total electric bill for the entire month for a 5 bedroom home in an area that isn’t even the lowest in the United States while you say you are in one of the lowest cost areas.

I just can’t wrap my mind around it. It is like your CFLs literally make power.

[MD Expat in PA]

I understand about the disparity between the advertised life expectancy and energy efficiency on the packages and real life use. But then I’m always suspicious of any advertized claims including the MPG ratings on car stickers. But in the case of my Toyota, I’m actually averaging a bit better MPG than advertized but that has more to do with my driving habits and my typical work commute.

[Vor Lady]

Some people are bothered by all fluorescents and some have problems after extended exposure. I’m one of those people who suffer from Sunlight Affective Disorder; maybe there is some connection. I work at home and use as much natural lighting as the sun allows. When it’s dark (cloudy days or night) I use full spectrum incandescents. Because I know this about my self, I’ve stock piled ‘em until the government gets out of the micromanaging business or until Hell freezes over, which ever comes first.

Interesting experiment and results. I’m not surprised that the desk lamp helped.

[exDemMom]

Oops, I found this wiki article after I already posted a reply. It discusses some of the mechanisms and hypotheses regarding the health effects of artificial lighting.

[JDW11235]

I just wanted you to know that I just saw this article, posted minutes ago (here on FR), which refers to the melatonin issue:

“Light at night not a ‘bright’ idea”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2833335/posts

[JDW11235]

“The important discussion is, should government (and especially the federal government) mandate certain choices NOT be available? (And you can mark me down on the side of absolutely NOT!)”

I agree, and said so in the first post. The government does not have any place in determining/mandating what lights you choose to, or not to, use. Neither does anyone else for that matter. Except maybe unless you want uranium glow rods...maybe.

[dila813]

I don’t know about the Toyota, but I did get more than the advertised MPG for my Geo Metro.

It advertised 48 mpg and I got 54 mpg.

There are tons of factors in what you get in the real world. How you drive and how you maintain your car make the difference.

There are a ton of factors for car mpg vs power usage for lighting.

[DuncanWaring]

It was worse, back when the B-58 Hustlers were flying over, back in the day. ;)

When the B-36s were taking-off, the ground shook.

I was truly impressed. Scared the heck out of my little sister.

[JDW11235]

“1. So the government knows better, who better to decide the best lighting choice for your home”
-Nope, just like I said in my first post, and this is now the 4th time on this thread alone, that I have said NO.

2. understand you work the swing shift, so you still think this would shift the average of 12 hours used in your calculations for a normal American household? I don’t agree
-I didn’t use 12 hours EVER, you’re still addressing the wrong poster.

3. Businesses using florescent lighting, this isn’t CFLs, this is florescent lighting which is perfect for businesses. Businesses made this decision on the merits.
-Yes, and the merits they used were that it saves them money.

CFL’s don’t make power, buy they use a lot less to generate light, and save even more by not having to cool that air back down. Light bulbs are night unto 100% efficient. Air conditioners are only a fraction of that. Therefore you spend much more money cooling down a room that has heat added due to a bulb that generates unwanted heat at 100% efficiency. I cannot explain it any more simply than I have, nor do I care to. This is my last response to you, especially considering you keep typing to me, but using a response to someone else.

[MD Expat in PA]

There are a ton of factors for car mpg vs power usage for lighting.

True. I maintain my car, regular oil changes, regularly check my tire pressure, and while I will admit to having a bit of a lead foot I don’t drive wildly or make jackrabbit starts. My commute is also mostly highway and then on long back country roads where I can do near highway speeds with few stops and no traffic james (except for the occasional Amish buggy).

What I don’t get are some people saying that their CFL’s only lasted a few months as that’s not been my experience. I can’t attest to overall energy savings because I still have a good many incandescent bulbs. But where I have used CFL’s I’ve been pretty happy, excepting they take a while to come to full brightness.

[Krankor]

did you check the link? Yes, and that is a high price for them.

So if you paid for them, that means they're not real.

[exDemMom]

I just wanted you to know that I just saw this article, posted minutes ago (here on FR), which refers to the melatonin issue:

Interesting. It helps to shed light (haha) on an issue I've dealt with my whole life.

[Williams]

Can only say I have a cfl in my front porch light, works in the winter and if it’s dimmer then I don’t really care. Don’t leave it on all night seems it’s been out there for years now.

[exDemMom]

I'm with you on the depressing aspects of the light. And the older CFLs make a noise that magnifys my tinnitus, not a happy sound.

I've noticed that some lights make a sound. But, in my case, the tinnitis pretty much drowns them out. When I was a kid, I used to hear a very high pitched screech from many fluorescent lights and TVs. I no longer hear that.

[exDemMom]

I’m on the computer at work just about all day, at least 8 hours some days more, and by the end of the day, my eyes are so red and watery it looks like I’ve been crying or coming off a bender.

I know I need new glasses but as an experiment, last week I turned off the overhead florescent lights in my office and used a desk lamp instead. The difference was remarkable. I’m thinking of buying a floor lamp and keeping the florescent lights off for good, new glasses or not.

I recently transferred to a new location, and one of the first things I did upon my arrival was complain about the bright fluorescent lights in my office. My officemate snooped around and found an incandescent lamp. I think she used the overhead fluorescents when I'm not there (they don't bother her) but when I'm there, we use the lamp.

Even the dimmer fluorescent desk lamps (on the bottom of the overhead desk cabinet) are unpleasant to me.

[dila813]

nice troll

[dila813]

How long they last varies depending on how you use them and also from lot to lot.

I had a 8 pack of globe Phillips CFLs for example installed into a bathroom fixture

-1 failed right out of the box, just defective
-1 was dimmer than the others right out of the box and looked like hell, it worked, but when it only puts out 10-15% of the light, in my mind that isn't acceptable.
-In the first 3 Months, 3 of the remaining started to dim significantly more than the other 3.
After 6 months, I had another 2 of the 6 fail.
After 1 year, only 1 of the original 8 still worked.

I have packed them all back up in the original packaging so I can hand the box to my congressman the next time I get to have a meeting with him.

Now, in this exact same fixture, I have put in the original Incandescent bulbs that came with the house. These bulbs are still working after 3 years.

I have the physical bulbs, I have seen with my own two eyes this is a scam. There needs to be a class action law suit but I bet their buddies in congress made them immune to these law suits in the process of outlawing the incandescents.

My house was built in Dec-2008, here is a picture today of this light fixture.

SCAM

[dila813]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2833134/posts?page=76#76

You replied to this thread, if you didn’t agree with the others posting, then you shouldn’t have joined in with positive affirmations.

So why did you bother. The point of this article was to articulate that the claims of energy savings that the government uses as justification are wildly inflated.

You are here defending these values as legit. I am here confirming that the article is correct and still is missing some of the reasons these figures are inflated.

Even the manufacturers own websites don’t make claims of savings many are claiming on this thread.

I am sure, there may be 1 or 2 fixtures in my house that get nearly the advertised savings and reliability, but you can’t take an out-liner and use it to justify these claims.

It is a scam.

[SunkenCiv]

[singing] if you ping steely ‘fore I ping steely, oh, oh, oh what a ping...

[cva66snipe]

Wow, that must be a really old one. Because a modern refrigerator needs about 0.5 to 1.0 kWhs per day, that's about 20-40 Watts average (sure, when the compressor is working, it's a few hundred watts or so, but most of the time it's idling, so the average is much lower).

The Bulb inside it might be 20-40 watts I can assure you the compressor uses much more. For a refrigerator to function properly & safely the refrigerator or fresh food compartment needs too be below 38 degrees. To obtain this temp it will be running a substantial amount of time per day especially when persons are home. Even at 4 amps {I doubt any medium size refrigerator operates that low} you have 115 volts X 4= 460 watts or almost 8 60 watt bulbs.

Most persons have refrigerators about 20 or possibly 25 years. Most persons will only replace them after they quit running but not before. I would put a 10-15 year old 18 cubic foot unit at between 7 and 8 amps running. 115 volts X 7 = 805 watts or the same as about 13 60 watt bulbs.

Look inside your refrigerator where the model number is & it should list the amperage. I'm betting it falls around 5.5 amps or more especially on a higher capacity unit.

In short the little attractive yellow sticker telling you how much it cost too operate means really nothing. Treat that information about like you would the EPA rating on a new vehicle. It's simply not accurate.