Environmental Defense: Why Today’s CFLs Are So Much Better
By Erica Rowell, Environmental Defense Writer, Editor, Producer
CFL and incandescent bulbs side by side
Quality was spotty in the 70s, but this is a new millennium
Apple computers. Punk. Compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs). What do they have in common? They were introduced in the 1970s and are now back in style.
CFLs have improved dramatically from their inauspicious beginnings. They took a while to come on, flickered as they lit and gave off an unpleasant green hue. That was then. CFLs not performing well today is a myth—as fictitious as the urban legend that says Mikey from the Life cereal ad died from noshing on Pop Rocks. He's alive. CFLs rock.
Brighter, whiter, faster
Thanks to improved technology, CFLs are now like familiar old-fashioned incandescent bulbs (ICs) in just about every way. CFLs can be as bright, come on as quickly and provide warm white, eye-pleasing hues. They can even be dimmable and used in 3-way sockets. If you haven't tried a new-fangled CFL, go on, "Try it—you'll like it."
Plus, as their prices have come down and energy rates have ticked up, the savings keep improving. CFLs slash global warming pollution, too.
How CFLs save money and global warming pollution
Turning on a light taps electricity from your local utility. About half our electricity comes from coal-burning power plants and another 20 percent comes from from natural gas, so powering things on generally means spewing lots of heat-trapping pollution. These greenhouse gases drive climate change. So using less electricity means less global warming pollution—and lower electricity bills.
How much savings CFLs rack up
Crunching the numbers is eye-opening. Let's compare a 25-watt CFL costing $3 (a good average price) to a 60-cent, 75-watt IC.
Now, let's turn on both our 10,000-hour CFL and our 750-hour IC bulb at 12:01 a.m. on January 1 and keep them running 24/7 for a year. On December 31, our CFL has racked up extraordinary savings in cash and pollution.
| 75-watt IC | CFL | Notes | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Initial cost | .60 * 12= $7.2 | $3.00 | Because the IC bulb only lasts 750 hours, we’ve had to buy 12 of them. The CFL, on the other hand, has over 1,000 hours left. |
| Energy used | 657 kWh | 219 kWh | |
| Energy costs (.10/kWh) |
$65.70 | $21.90 | Oh, to have this electricity rate! Very few places in the U.S. are so lucky. (Check your bill to compare your rate.) |
| Energy costs (.20/kWH) |
$131.40 | $43.80 | Here's a more realistic energy rate. |
| Carbon dioxide (CO2) pollution | 880 lbs | 293 lbs | These calculations use the national average of 1.34 pounds CO2 per kWh. State averages vary widely [PDF], from 0.03 (Vermont) to 2.24 (North Dakota). |
| Total savings from the CFL: $48-$91.80 and 587 lbs of CO2 | |||
What to look for in energy-saving bulbs
To replace a 75-watt bulb look for a CFL with these specs:
- 20 to 25 watts. CFLs use roughly a quarter of the energy to produce the same light.
- 1200 lumens. This minimum level of brightness provides what you're used to.
- Warm white (or 2700-2850 degrees Kelvin). This color temperature mimics an incandescent light.
- Energy Star symbol. This label indicates high-standards and ensures that the CFLs' claims (brightness, longevity, power used, etc.) are real.
- Get more CFL tips
Time to switch to CFLs and save
Bottom line: CFLs save you money and cut heat-trapping pollution. How much of each depends on things like your electricity rate, the energy mix your utility uses, and which CFLs you buy. (See our chart for info on other bulbs.)
Check out the Environmental Defense CFL guide to get started and see which CFLs are right for your needs. And then turn on your new Mac, crank up the Ramones, and dim your new dimmable CFL.
March 14th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
The most recent 3-way CFL I’ve used didn’t come on immediately (took a little over a second). It may have been the lamp socket, but it only worked as a 2-way but you could hardly tell the difference between light intensity. It’s hue was much better than older CFLs I’ve seen.
As far as cutting CO2 emissions, if everyone on the planet switched to CFLs instead of incandescent bulbs tomorrow, we would cut about 0.1% of human CO2 emissions. Humans produce about 10% of the earths total CO2 output, so the earth would only have 99.99% of the CO2 output tomorrow as it does today.
The point about CO2 is moot. Sell the energy/cost savings.
March 14th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Great article! Very handy information. People — especially environmentallly conscious consumers who have not yet begun making the switch to CFLs are blowing it. The cost and enviro benefits are so clear. Good article in the NY Times today about a push to abandon the production of regular bulbs altogether (registration required):
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/14/business/14light.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin
March 14th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Late last year I converted all my lightbulbs in my apartment to CFLs. My electricity bills have literally been cut in half since doing this! In the past I had to replace bulbs every 3-4 months. Changing has saved me both time and money.
March 14th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Is your new 3-way bulb an Energy Star CFL? Until we have across-the-board standards in place for these bulbs, Energy Star CFLs offer the most reliable performance. (Today’s NYT piece on CFLs makes case for standards.)
Also, CFLs currently have three main start-up technologies. Instant-start CFLs, like traditional IC bulbs reach full brightness, nearly immediately.
CFLs using rapid- or preheat-start technologies may take a few seconds to light up. Because the start-up technology isn’t generally included on packaging, it’s a good idea to buy one bulb at a time until you find one you love so that if it’s not to your liking, you can put it somewhere where instant brightness isn’t needed.
Finally, switching to CFLs is one small part of increasing one’s energy efficiency, which is key to fighting global warming. (Read about Princeton professors Pacala and Socolow’s paper on wedges [PDF] or visit climate411.com for more on this.) Plus, electricity saved, especially during peak hours, puts less strain on the grid, and this can help reduce brownouts and blackouts.
March 14th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
I’m not sure where James gets his numbers, but I’d love to see the source for that 99.99% figure.
I’ve been using CFLs for years, even the old, crappy ones…and can tell that the new ones are a notch above for sure. Is there still room for improvement? You bet! But, they are such a no-brainer.
March 15th, 2007 at 12:40 am
I got the figure from data I gathered from the sources cited in the article here. I extrapolated the savings from Australia. CFL bulbs would allegedly save Australia 800,000 tons of CO2 per year
Australia allegedly produces 565,000,000 tons of “greenhouse gases” per year (in 2004)
800,000/565,000,000 = 0.0014 = 0.14% (ok, not the 0.1% I said earlier, but still close)
I’ve heard the 10% figure somewhere. Let’s just say the oceans, volcanoes, and other carbon dioxide sources are negligible. CFLs will bring global CO2 emissions down to 99.86% by extrapolating the Australian data.
I just think the GW argument isn’t a big deal for CFLs.
I’d like LED technology to develop so that an LED bulb is as cheap as an incandescent bulb someday. They’re an order of magnitude more efficient than even CFLs.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
James, thanks for the response. I think something is way off with that calculation for a couple of reasons.
1) At least in the US, lighting appears to account for 9% (residential) to 13% (commercial buildings) of electricity consumption according to the EPA/DOE.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2001/enduse2001/enduse2001.html
2) Turn on a few lights, then find your meter. Count how many seconds it takes to make a revolution. Then keep everything on in your place and turn off the lights. Go check the meter again, at least for me…it’s not going anywhere near 99% of the speed it was before.
March 16th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
I replaced all of the lights in my kitchen with CFLs. I have recessed lighting in the kitchen, so I use reflector bulbs. They take a minute or so to warm up when I turn them on, but that’s just fine with me - in the morning when I’m just waking up it’s easier on my eyes to adjust to the light as the CFLs adjust! Also, I spend the most time in my kitchen area, so I often have the lights on there for more than 3 hours. I’ve been told that if CFLs are on for more than 3 hours at a time they can last even longer than their rated lifetimes. (This is because you can turn CFLs on a finite number of times, so their lifetimes in hours are the number of starts they can withstand times 3 hours of use per start. If you use them for more hours on one start, they last for more hours overall.) (http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/rewilliams/cflfaq.html)
March 16th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
Great tip, Carol! I've rarely seen that mentioned by CFL advocates (probably because they're scared ofturning people off to the technology), but it's something that everyone who switches to CFLs should know.
-David
March 17th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
I’ve read 4% for residential before, but I don’t disagree with you on that point. Electricity consumption is only a part of your total carbon footprint. If you added all the energy it takes to drive your car, produce your food, etc., you’ll see what I mean…
While installing CFLs may save you 10% on your electric bill, it’s not cutting 10% of your energy consumption/carbon footprint.
Although lighting is a larger portion of electricity bills in commercial buildings, I imagine they will not benefit much from CFLs because they already tend to have florescent lighting. At least in the places I’ve worked.