Get ready for the next huge scam — like that of ethanol — to be perpetrated on the American people. Why do I know it’s a scam? Because it has to be forced on us by an Act of Congress. Congress forced ethanol on us and now they are about to force CFLs on us. If CFLs or ethanol are as great as they are claimed to be why wouldn’t the free market usher them into universal usage? The truth is that they aren’t as great as the claims.
USA Today reports on a bill now being pushed through the Senate that President Bush has said he will sign. It sets a timetable for phasing in energy savings in light bulbs. Comparing fluorescent and incandescent bulb energy costs, it says that a fluorescent bulb “saves about $5 a year in electricity costs, paying for itself in as little as four months.”
Although they don’t say so, apparently that claim is based on burning the bulbs constantly for a year. Otherwise it doesn’t make any sense. Its obvious that a bulb that’s only on for two hours a year is not going to save $5 a year in power costs. The lights in my boathouse are turned on about once a month and only stay on about 10 minutes each time. The lights in my detached garage aren’t on much longer. But Congress is going to force me to pay four times as much for these bulbs in order to save maybe about two cents a year in energy costs.
I tried CFLs and found two deficiencies so far. They don’t last as long as claimed and they don’t work too well outdoors on cold nights. And there’s the disposal issue. We aren’t supposed to just throw them in the trash because they contain mercury. Does this mean we have to get another recycle basket and have another big truck lumbering down our street each week?
How long before Congress tells us what color to paint our walls? After all, a room with white walls doesn’t need as much light wattage as the same room with darker walls.
Update: A commenter has pointed out that new problems with CFLs have surfaced. Some people with certain skin sensitivities have found that fluorescent light exacerbates the condition. And it has been found that the CFLs can cause migraines and increase the risk of seizures in people with epilepsy. See the comments for a link to a BBC article.
Based on the number of fluorescent bulbs I see in the stores, the market seems to be taking to it pretty well. There are three important reasons why they aren’t universally used:
1. Many people think of immediate costs instead of long-term.
2. Those who are just scraping by, and can’t afford them.
3. Skepticism of their worth.
No one’s taken up my offer off free incandescent bulbs, incidentally, which I recently replaced.
The claim that I see on this box is $54 savings over the life of the bulb (8 years @ 4 hours/day), including a free replacement if it does not last 8 years.
—
At least you get a truck coming by your place to take your recyclables. I get to drive 15 minutes (each way) to a recycling center. Don’t even mention the irony of that.
This article from the BBC talks about people who have skin conditions that are exacerbated by fluorescent bulbs, so must use incandescent bulbs.
You know why it did not last long? CFL’s are mostly used indoor! You have to put something on it when you used it outdoor because it is the way it is made. It is not really advisable in a very cool place. Thats why its life span lessens. CFL’s were recommended because it helps our environment. Buy a good CFL product.
@grace: At my home, and most other homes, all bulbs are mostly used indoors. But I, and most other people, need a few bulbs to work well outdoors. If incandescents are outlawed what are we to do, install gas lights?
The point of my post is that CFLs obviously aren’t economically viable or we wouldn’t have to be forced to use them.
Anyway, the jury is still out on whether CFLs will be a net gain for the environment. Don’t forget the disposal issue.
This makes me SO angry! My family owns a three generation lighting store and I have watched the CFL craze from the start. To say CFLs are more eco-friendly than the standard incandescent bulb is a terrible scam. In the pursuit of saving money and the earth, people are becoming lemmings, buying anything with either the energy star on it or anything that claims to be “green” without really questioning the validity of that claim.
Barely anyone discusses that unlike the standard Phillips incandescent bulb, CFLs aren’t made in America but rather shipped here from China and India. And how about the energy it takes to make these CFL bulbs each with complex individual magnetic or electronic ballasts, with special spiral glass tubes filled with toxic mercury gas (which, by the way, tend to brake quite easily when screwing into a fixture), and with heat sealed plastic packaging placed in boxes within boxes. Did you know that only special more expensive CFLs can be used with dimmer switches? Did you also know that after so many hours of use, the bulbs change color significantly? A fixture with an older CFL and a newly replaced CFL looks pretty silly with one having a greenish tint and the other pink. Yes they’re recyclable, but what percentage of the population is truly going to seek out a place that take them each time a bulb burns out? And what about the energy it takes to recycle all that glass, plastic, and fumes?
If you still need a bit of convincing, watch this video which is meant to impress but only makes me ill. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tf-LOmMZoIw
@Shauna: Thanks for adding your experience with CFLs to the discussion. There will be unintended and undesirable consequences from the forced conversion to CFLs. There always are when Congress meddles with the economy. Like the $15 per gallon corn oil here and people starving in other parts of the world, both resulting from the ethanol push.