I wonder whether the following factors are taken into account when drawing the energy balance between incandescent bulbs and CFL bulbs:
Under continental climate you heat your house half the year, so no heat goes to waste provided you have an automatic heating system. This means that the energy ‘lost’ is made up for by the reduced heating fuel consumption; and
incandescent bulbs are much easier to produce (some metal, wire and glas) compared to CFL bulbs which are really complicated. This means that they cost much more in energy to get produced.
Are there any quantifications on this?
about compact bulbs lasting longer, a dimmer will make a regular incandescent bulb last for years and years, so in one more case of corporate greed planed failure meant more profit.
I’m no expert, but I seriously doubt the energy “lost” as heat from incadescents comes anywhere close to the efficiency of most any heating system. Yes the heat might be retained, but you cannot heat your house with light bulbs efficiently.
And yes, they might be a bit more comlicated. So what? With that analogy we should chuck any complicated technology and go back to horses and carts.
Recently I had a primary failure in a CFL. I assume they have the equivalent of the “ballast” in the big fluorescent fixtures. I smelled the smoke, acrid tar burning smell. I used to work in building maintenance … I knew the smell. Cut the power to the bulb and removed it … extremely hot. I’ve seen a primary short in a big ballast … once they burn, they ignite a very hot fire. A surprising number of business fires are caused by these things.
In short, I predict we can expect a rise in the number of house fires over the coming years.
I live in an older (built before 1940) house with erratic electricity, including occasional voltage surges. This radically cuts the lifetime of CFL bulbs, to the point where they probably cost more than cheap disposable incandescents.
BTW, as someone who hates having government shove social mandates down peoples’ throats, I was tickled to see Cecil voice a similar sentiment.
They do have a ballast, but it’s electronic, nothing like the old fashioned 10 lb monster you’d see in older fluorescent fixtures. It’s unlikely to be an issue.
First off, resistance electric heating is typically one of the least economical ways to heat a house, even if you do get a co-benefit of light.
Second, even in cold climates can still get a net benefit from CFL bulbs: one Canadian study found that replacing just 5 incandescent lights with CFLs slightly increased household heating energy requirements, but overall reduced electrical costs by 3.7%, giving a payback period from 2.5 to 6 years for the cost of the lights.
Institute for Research in Construction. Benchmarking of energy savings associated with energy efficient lighting in houses. Parekh, Anil et al. NRCC-50874, 2005.
However, there are special cases where one can claim if most of their electrical power is supplied by hydroelectricity or nuclear power, and most of their heating by gas, then CFLs could be a net detriment in terms of GHG emissions. Outside of regions in Canada, France, Brazil, and a few other places here and there, that is not likely to be the case. For most of the United States it certainly wouldn’t be.
This is incorrect - it’s actually almost impossible for an inefficient electric resistive heating element to exist - and lightbulbs are just resistive heaters, really.
Inefficient conversion of energy in most devices usually ends up as dissipated heat - so a 1kw room heater is more or less exactly as efficient at heating a room as 1kw worth of incandescent bulbs (well, unless you’re deliberately shining most of their output out through the window or something).
An electrically-powered central heating system must be less efficient, in terms of cost-to-heat, than the equivalent wattage of electric toasters, lightbulbs or standalone radiant heaters, if only because some of the heat will be lost outside the building or into walls or unoccupied spaces on its way from the heater to the room.
Further, if you’re going to account for heating costs saved by using inefficient light bulbs, you’d also have to account for additional air conditioning and other cooling costs, unless you live in a climate where you never even turn on a fan in the summer.
Is electrical heating “inefficient” in the sense that generating the electricity in the first place from fossil fuels wasted energy? I doubt having houses go back to coal furnaces would be worthwhile, but a lot of homes use natural gas and a few regions even still use fuel oil.
The efficiency of electric heating is based more on the method of production of electricity (plus transmission losses) in the first place. For example, if you have gas-fired electric plants, you’re better off using the gas to heat your house directly than generating electricity with it and then running resistance heating.
As was mentioned earlier, direct resistance heating itself is pretty much 100% efficient.
My problem with most CFLs is that they do not work in dimmers, or, if they do, they cannot dim deeply enough (i.e. be barely lit). So, regular incandescent bulbs will be gone, but spotlights and floodlights (those used in cans in the ceiling) are still around - time to stock up on those!
Just to clear up a common misconception (as mentioned in several posts), incandescent bulbs were never banned; in fact, they are still very much allowed to be sold - if they meet a minimum efficiency standard; for example, a 100 watt equivalent must use 72 watts or less for the same brightness, which is met with halogen bulbs (they also last longer, offsetting some of the higher cost; I also imagine that some of the cost of a CFL or LED bulb is from the energy needed to make them, thus the energy saved far outweighs the increase in energy used to make them; of course, they are harder to recycle and use more energy there as well).
Also, on the efficiency of electric heating, as an example, a modern gas furnace may be over 95% efficient, while a combined cycle gas power plant may be up to 60% efficient (up to around 40% if steam only), not including transmission losses.
I’m a living embodiment of the Jevons paradox: I used to run around manically switching off lights when I wasn’t in a room. Now I’m much more apt to say “eh, it’s only 12W. I’ll turn it off when I go upstairs (an hour later).”
We went cabin camping last weekend, I thought the electricity was out until I realized the bulbs were CFLs and they were just cold. I’ve also had floodlights at home which also take a minute to come to full brightness. However, we have a new kitchen fixture that uses CFLs in GU24-style sockets, which come on instantly. Does anyone know why there is a difference? If my GU24’s can come on instantly why can’t all CFLs?
Yes, you’re correct that there is no energy loss when using incandescent bulbs in cooler climates, which coincidentally includes most of the United States. People use less light during the “cooling season,” because there’s more daylight. They use more during the “heating season,” where the IR emitted by incandescent bulbs is actually helping keep the home the temperature you want.
More things to note:
CFL lifetime has two ratings: the number of hours, and the number of starts. CFL’s can last a long time if you turn them on and leave them on. Put one in the bathroom or a closet, though, and they’ll burn out faster than an incandescent, at a much greater cost.
Bulb makers tend to overinflate the “equivalent” efficiency ratings. A 23W CFL isn’t equivalent to a 100W incandescent; it’s really more like a 60W.
The bulbs get dimmer with use. By the time it starts flickering and telling you to replace it, it’s lost 50% of its luminous efficacy. You notice how dim the bulb is, so you upgrade it, switching out an 18W bulb for a 28.
Of course, people are replacing their incandescents with bulbs that are bigger than the matching equivalents anyway, to make their homes brighter.
The bulbs take time to “ramp up.” In rooms where you want light quickly (like a kitchen or bathroom), people are known to install multiple lights so they can have the light “right now.” There goes the savings!
The CRI (color accuracy) of CFL’s is abysmally low – 85 is typical. The CRI of incandescent bulbs is 100; the same as the sun. People notice this – the light doesn’t seem “right.” So what do they do? Why, they get bigger bulbs.
I wish I knew. In my house, I have had some CFLs from some no-name manufacturer for maybe five years now. These make it to full brightness nearly instantly. I also have some major-name-brand bulbs that take up to a minute to brighten up. I know not why.
I have some of the “twisty” type bulbs, and some reflector bulbs (essentially “twisty” bulbs in a glass envelope) in the same room, from the same manufacturer, and while the naked bulbs come on instantly, the reflector bulbs take time to warm up. No idea why.
Several excellent points, C. In my office I had two 60-watt incandescent blubs. That’s all the fixture can handle. I replaced them with FOUR 5000K, instant-on (they rock!), 100-watt equivalent, CFL bulbs . Almost six times as much light, better light quality (very close to sunlight) AND still reduced the total power usage. I only use incandescent bulbs in fixtures I want to be able to dim, or rarely use or are in cold spaces, like my garage in the winter.
LEDs? I use them in my car, flashlights and some day will put them in the outdoor spotlights. Not yet.
Instant-on CFL takes an additional circuit to boost the starting voltage, much like the ballasts of olden days.