Do Efficient Bulbs Really Pay?
Love ‘em or hate ‘em - Efficient light bulbs are the future. CFL’s (Squiggly bulbs) & LED’s claim to save a lot of energy and last a lot longer than conventional bulbs. They are the biggest things since, well, errr... the light bulb. (which was invented BEFORE the automobile)
Needless to say, these new products are not without controversy. And, some people simply hate change, and thus, there is a lot of criticism about Energy Efficient bulbs.
The primary question we want to address is, do these bulbs actually pay for themselves? Check out the video and find out! [Note: the purpose of the video is not to promote CFL's or LED's, but to show the value of an energy-model!]
Can't view the video? Click here
By the way, do YOU want to run an energy model? Sign up for our highly praised “getting started Package” and start running your own evaluations using FREE software! If you aren't doing energy models, you aren't making informed decisions.
Learn to do Energy-Modeling fast for $99
- Introduction to Energy-modeling ($99 value)
- Quickstart Energy-modeling Demo ($99 value)
- Free Access to Energy-models.com Building Performance library
- More Free Stuff
Q & A on Efficient bulbs?
1) Do they Produce UV light? Is it dangerous to me?
Yes, UV light is produced within the bulb. There have been numerous studies on this. Currently, it is believed that if any UV light does escape, the effect of the UV light is only relevant at distances of less than 1 meter.
If you put the bulb behind a glass lighting fixture (as is common in American households), the glass will block the UV light, and there is no issue.
Thus, this criticism should be a concern and researched but can easily be avoided. (If they produced enough UV light, you would see “hillbilly” tanning salons)
Check out this news article for more info
2) Do CFL’s contain mercury? Do they increase the mercury in the environment?
Yes, and this is true of Tube Fluorescents as well, and they have been in use for several decades. CFL’s contain mercury - primarily as vapor which, upon breaking a bulb, does mix with the surrounding air. This is probably the number 1 drawback of CFL’s. There is approximately 5 mg of mercury in each bulb (old thermometers have approximately 500 mg of mercury) However, LED’s will soon replace CFL’s and they do not use mercury.
The counter-point is that coal power plants also produce mercury, and since efficient bulbs use less electricity, they produce less mercury through coal powered plants (which spread mercury into the atmosphere, and are the probable cause for mercury contamination even in remote Canadian lakes)
It is a good idea to put the bulb behind a sturdy fixture, to limit the risk of breaking the bulb, and to replace any fluorescent during unoccupied hours.
It should be noted that exposure to 1 broken bulb would most likely have minor or no consequences, but should absolutely be avoided (due to the longevity at which mercury remains in the body, and it’s ability to accumulate
3) Are LED’s and CFL’s bad for the environment because of the raw materials that are mined to produce them?
This is often said by critics in regards to LED’s, but also about CFL’s. It is probably true. HOWEVER, the same thing can be said of Traditional light bulbs - since the mining of Tungsten is also controversial (tungsten is used in good old fashioned light bulbs), not to mention the other materials used in conventional light bulbs (like Hydrofluoric acid). Thus, this criticism may be true, but it is misleading because you could make the argument about any type of lightbulb, or any manufactured goods for that matter.
4) Are efficient bulbs pointless because they increase your heating consumption?
This was addressed in the video. By producing less heat, efficient bulbs technically increase your heating equipment use in winter months but also lower the air conditioning bill, which in most climates (even in Chicago), will easily offset the increase in heating.
The other issue is that gas heat is generally much cheaper than the electric heat that is produced by the bulbs (even at 50% efficiency)
This criticism holds weight ONLY when the following conditions are met:
- Building with no cooling system (not even fans for cooling)
- Building uses electric heat only (excluding heat pumps)
- Building is in a very cold climate
These three conditions are seldom met, since most buildings in very cold climates use some form of gas, or oil heating.
FAQ on video:
Why did you use $9 for an efficient bulb?
We did this to assume a high cost scenario. Even though we display CFL's, we wanted to account for the possibility of LED's purchased in large quantities (they are rapidly dropping in price) as well as the cost for maintenance, which is often forgotten from a residential point of view.
Why do you show a picture from eQUEST and a report from TRACE 700?
Because we actually modeled this in both programs and unsurprisingly got similar results.
I don't like CFL's and now I want to yell at you. How do I do this?
Scream really, really loud at your computer. The government is listening and they will hear your plea before they come and take your light bulbs. (or you could just pretend that we did the analysis on LED's)