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

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.”

“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.”

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.

I get 4 good ol bulbs for 86c vs 6.88 for 4 new bulbs at my local walmart

What are you talking about?

Here are some example online prices for incadencent 38c per bulb vs 1.24875 per cfl

http://www.1000bulbs.com/category/60-watt-standard-shape-light-bulbs/

http://www.amazon.com/GE-13-Watt-Energy-SmartTM-replacement/dp/B000NISDNU

Also, you really have your lights on for 12 hrs a day? My lights only average about 1 hr of use a day. Yes, there are a few that get used for 6 hrs a day, but there are only 4 in the entire house that get used this much.

Like I said, even the manufacturers don’t make this absurd of a claim. And we know they aren’t right either.

Also, you really have your lights on for 12 hrs a day?

Yes, some are. My wife refuses to turn them off. Even when we had incandescents.

Here are some example online prices for incadencent 38c per bulb vs 1.24875 per cfl

Proves my point. Over three years I would replace the bulbs six or seven times to the one CFL.

The calculations I used are an example. If you choose to live in the dark using incandescents that's your choice. We use the lights and so we save money. It's really just simple math.

Oh, another thing about CFLs. You can get the daylight lamps (5000K) and they REALLY brighten up a room. It’s a much whiter light than a typical incandescent. They take a little getting used to but once you do it’s amazing how much they light up a room. Can’t get that from an incandescent.

I don’t buy decorative light bulbs (or spots), but would have saved their cost anyway, had I chosen to do so. I get my electricity from the local power company (3rd lowest in the nation, IIRC). The fact is that it’s not merely the savings from the reduced wattage itself, but also the reduced air conditioning also used from the mini space heaters in every fixture. When you have 5 bulb fixtures, that’s between a quarter and half of the heat of a space heater PER fixture. Having lighting on and paying to cool down the same air that is being heated adds up fast.

The money quote:

“The calculations I used are an example. If you choose to live in the dark using incandescents that’s your choice. We use the lights and so we save money. It’s really just simple math.”

Ditto. Unfortunately people are all about choosing until they tell us how we’re wrong. I merely stated the pro’s and con’s I’ve seen in my own use (FIRST HAND!) of CFL’s and it’s become a witch hunt.

If they worked so great they wouldn’t have to force them on us.

Bingo. I use them where appropriate, they aren't all that bad.

I reckon I would be the cheap Charlie, I buy 'em when I can get 'em for about a buck. They don't last 9 years or even 6, rather two or three. Sometimes they blow up sooner. The light is not the same is an incandescent. They are terrible in the cold.

Exception to all that is the purpose built CFL lamps & fixtures (with the plug in U-shaped lights). They do provide better, brighter light, they do last 6-9 years, and there are versions which work great outside in the cold. I have a lot of them in my house in Oregon (the one I don't live in, thanks again Mr. President).

But either the plug-ins or the screwy ones lower my electric bill. Substantially.

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.

Ironically the article lists all the reasons I switched to CFLs a long time ago. I certainly don't want to proselytize - everybody should make up his own mind. But for ME personally CFLs make sense:

Overall lifespan

6.3 years sounds about right. Compared to 4 months with conventional lightbulbs (probably because of the shoddy wiring my landlord installed) it's heaven not having to change lightbulbs constantly.

High electricity bills

Where I live heating is cheap compared to electricity, and for many others that goes as well. So if I have to pay $5 more for heating while saving $30 on electricity the choice is obvious to me.

In short: I don't mind the slightly different tone of CFL light, while at the same time saving money. Other people have other priorities.

A medium size reach in refrigerator takes about 900 watts.

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).

You are the only one that I know that attempted to leave their lights on 12 hours a day and still needed air conditioning.

Most people that use lights this long each day, they live north of the arctic circle.

Did you even check your power bill?

My 38c incandescents were purchased 5 years ago and are still going strong in the same light fixtures where CFLs died after only 6 months.

I guess if you buy bulbs with no intention of ever turning them off, they are the bulbs for you.

We are talking about the government dictating that you are the normal case in the United States, I doubt you would even dare try to argue that. You are a statistical out-liner.

I assume you’re unaware of who you’re talking to. I didn’t say I left them on 12 hours a day.

Laying aside your snarky and ignorant babble, yes, I do check my bills, I certainly pay them every month. Also, just for your information, not everyone works in the day and sleeps at night. Some people work in the evening are up and night and sleep in the day. It’s called the swing shift.

I realize now that you’re the kind of person that covers your ears and hums when you hear something you don’t like. Several posters have already described their SUBSTANTIAL savings with fluorescent lighting. If it (fluorescent lighting) wasn’t cheaper, businesses wouldn’t use it. The fact that it now comes in compact bulbs now and not merely long tubes shouldn’t mystify you, it’s called technological advancement. Get a grip.

If you want to pay extra for a mini heat lamp that suits your purposes, I’m not stopping you. I don’t even care. But don’t be a moron who questions my ability to review a power bill, because you simply can’t grasp the concepts of simple energy matters. More energy=more heat. More energy=More cost.

If you have a reason to use a particular bulb, use it. See ya!

...it’s become a witch hunt.

Crazy eh? Sort of like troofers.

Bottom line - one size does not fit all, and there are good reasons for each individual to use or not use certain options. 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’ve had the same CFL bulb in a table lamp in my living room for over two years now. It’s turned off and on regularly and for a time I had the lamp on an auto timer. I used a CFL in the laundry room at my old house that I kept on 24-7; it was still going strong at 3 years. I don’t like the warm up time for CFL’s but otherwise I have no complaints about them. I also have a halogen desk lamp that I’ve owned for at least 6 years now. I leave that on all the time and the halogen lamp has not yet needed to be replaced and that was even after sitting in a storage unit for a year, if only my TV had faired as good.

Of course with all that being said, I don’t want the government to mandate what light bulb I can and can’t buy or use. On the other hand I like saving money over the long term. If I were ever in a position to custom build a house, it would have a conventional HVAC system but I’d also look into solar panels and geothermal heating and not because I'm a "greenie" unless being a greenie is liking to hold on to the green.

OTOH, the heat generated by incandescents is not a selling point. If you want heat use the heater.

Not considered a selling point, but a useful byproduct at this latitude (48 degrees N+). In the summer, we have far longer daylight hours (up to 16 hrs/day) and seldom use electric lights. In the winter, daylight hours are far fewer, but the weather is cold outside--the rooms in use gain from the extra heating effect, those not in use do not. Thus the incandescent bulb heat effect permits lower thermostat settings for the entire structure.

I have been saying this since my nitwit Congressman (since replaced) flapped his lips on Capitol hill saying 'waste heat' was a good reason to vote for the bill that made this mess, but he had been living out of this area for too long to realize it isn't a problem.

The lower wattage ones work a lot closer to what they advertise on the packages.

I believe they are taking the case of a 11w bulbs and extrapolate this onto the higher wattage bulbs.

My desk lamp lasted the longest, it was one of the last bulbs in my frequently used light fixtures to fail. It lasted almost 3.5 years before it finally stopped working.

The thing that makes the cfls fail is turning them on and off. If you leave them on all the time, that isn’t a normal case.

I suspect, if you left an 11w bulb on without switching them off, you would perfectly replicate their results on the package. That just isn’t the real world though.

I find fluorescent light horribly unpleasant and depressing.

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’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.

Interestingly, I had never before thought about why I have this instantaneous reaction to ANY source of artificial light.

I'm fairly certain that it's related to seasonal affective disorder (which I have). Also, according to this (non-peer reviewed) article, the artificial light may interfere with the circadian rhythm. I find absence of light far more tolerable than artificial light.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.