Newsmaker: Bright ideas for energy efficiency

(continued from previous page)

I personally installed CFLs in all the fixtures and lamps in my home that have shades or glass coverings. And I really haven't been able to tell the difference. But when I tried the CFLs for recessed lighting in my kitchen, they took about 30 seconds to come on and the light was extremely harsh. It was so bothersome we had to put the old ones back in. What do you say to this type of a complaint?
Levine: You probably bought the wrong ones. If you buy a bad bulb, don't equate all CFL bulbs with that.

I will tell you personally, I used to get headaches from compact fluorescents. I actually now have one as my bedside light that I read by before I go to sleep at night.

And you're saying it's because you had a different kind?
Levine: Yeah, it's a newer bulb, newer technology.

So, people who want to make the change, what should they look for on the packaging to make sure they buy the "good" CFLs as opposed to the harsh-looking ones?
Levine: Look for major manufacture labels: Philips, Sylvania, GE; there's a couple others. The ones you buy at the 99 cents store, while cheap, aren't good. Look for the Energy Star label. If you've got lights that go in dimmer switches--this is one difference between the two--compact fluorescents that are used with dimmer switches actually have to say dimmable on them. You can go find them in a lot of stores: Home Depot, Lowe's, you know, Ikea, Target. I was more successful there than I have been in grocery stores, I will tell you that.

This is just sort of a kitchen table question, but what about the fact that CFLs are more expensive initially?
Levine: Marginally.

In my own research, I found the average 75-watt incandescent bulb was about 82 cents, and a 20-watt CFL, the equivalent to the 75 watt, is about $4.80. That's not a big deal for you and me, but how would poor families offset the initial higher cost?
Levine: The average cost we found here is $3 versus 50 cents for comparable bulbs. That doesn't take into account that, at least in California, most of the energy companies--whether they're the investor-owned utilities or municipal utilities--engage in giveaway programs.

In my district...the department of water and power brought 1,000 lightbulbs to give away all free. The Sacramento Municipal Utility District has a program where they subsidize them at hardware stores so you can get them for about 99 cents, or two for 99 cents.

We've done things here in California that actually provide incentives to the utility companies to give away lightbulbs. We have put energy efficiency at the top of our energy loading order...so it's the first thing that they're required to invest in.

Secondly, we have broken the linkage between the profit and the energy sold. In the old model, the more energy you sold, the more money you got. We don't actually do that.

How does that work?
Levine: A very complicated formula through the Public Utilities Commission basically smooths out an average rate of return for the energy companies...If this year you sell less in California because you've engaged in energy efficiency, we still smooth out your average to make sure that your profits aren't dipping.

OK.
Levine: So because of those two incentives a lot of the companies treat energy efficiency as procurement, not just as a public benefit. And one of the things they do is give away or subsidize the sale of lightbulbs.

CFLs can't be thrown out with regular thrash. Are there measures in the final version of your bill to provide for this?
Levine: Yes, we will be engaged in an educational effort with consumers, and the recycling component would be there as well.

Is there anything else you wanted to add?
Levine: You know, as a kind of half-joke, I say everybody wants the electricity but nobody wants the power plants, and everybody wants electricity but nobody wants the power line. Well, then we need to use our energy more efficiently, and this just follows in that vein.

If you can't bring yourself right now to make the switch for every light, what about your porch light? Does your porch light really have to be incandescent? You know, what about your outside lights? What about your garage lights? What about closet lights? Look around your house. How many bulbs are there that you could change that you don't read by?

Those are the kinds of changes people can start to make even if they're not going to go 100 percent. You can still make a savings, make an energy savings, make a cost savings.

 

More Newsmakers

[challman]

I use CFLs

We've been making the switch to CFLs to reduce the heat output from standard bulbs and their electrical consumption. We haven't had any side effects from using them. The only complaints we have had just take time to grow accustomed to them:

1. There is about a one second delay at power on, and
2. It does take 20-30 seconds for them to reach full brightness.

Other than that, we enjoy them. Not to mention my light bill is noticeably lower.

[nrauch1942]

READ THIS! Brightness/great, Life Span/super, but complicated.

First, I have been using these new CFL bulbs for 3 years in our restaurant. There are over 45 bulbs (100w equivalent - 27 watts power consumption). These bulbs have been operating from 5:30AM till 5 PM daily for these years, I have replaced 4 bulbs. We had traditional 100w bulbs over our counter area, and installed the CFL 100w equivalent bulbs altenately with them. NO DIFFERENCE in light. What I do want to comment on is this: one of the failed bulbs was taken apart .... utter complexity as compared to the simplistic construction of a standard light bulb. You will find a circuit board with copper windings, transistors etc. etc. It looks like an old transistor radio. My point is, are these bulbs really environmentally sound, or have we transferred the energy consumption to the manufacturer. I definitely LOVE the energy cost savings to me, the consumer, but hesitate to accept they are environmentally friendly.Massive use of plastics ...wave soldering for the boards ... and a true waste of copper (a precious commodity). Your comments PLEASE.

[Moozuki]

Disposal

The one problem I have with CFL's is:

They contain Mercury, which everybody knows is a posion. Are we
going to start filling the landfills with this deadly substance now?

[nobdoy_knose]

how about letting the market decide?

it's really disappointing that a tech publication like CNET would publish a puff propaganda piece celebrating the idea of the government choosing winners and losers in the marketplace. I shudder to imagine the state of technology and the web if we had gov't regulators determining computer specs and licensing who had the right to run a web site.

[The_Nirvana]

How about letting people decide...

if it is safe to drink and drive. You get the point..

[skrubol]

I agree, but..

The market will change over to fluorescents and LED lighting. No need to legislate it. A 75 watt bulb costs about $65 per year to run if it's on continuously. $5 for an equivalent CFL doesn't seem so bad... Public awareness campaigns would do more good.
Many places that CFL's fall short, LED's can pick up the slack. CFL's don't take well to vibration or impact, they really can't be focused into a spot light, and many don't like the quality of the light. LED's are more durable than incandescents, and focus pretty well. LED's are available in every color, and a broad array of color temperatures for white. The newest generation of LED's are just as efficient as fluorescents as well (80-100 lm/W.)
Hopefully there will be a bit of a paradigm shift in the lighting industry. The traditional edison light socket is not ideal for LED or fluorescent lighting (look how long it's taken the industry to make good fluorescent's that fit it.) LED's have only recently reached the power density (15W white LED's are now out in the wild. About as bright as a 40-60 watt bulb,) and efficiency to be a serious option for fixed lighting.

[ua549]

CFL's don't produce enough light

While everyone says how great CFL's compare to a 75 watt incandescent bulb, I need a 200 watt 3900 lumen light to read by.

I have yet to find a CFL that fits in a standard lamp that outputs 3900 lumens. It would be about 50 watts or so.

My experience with CFL bulbs is that they do not last any longer than a standard incandescent bulb, about 3 months.

[Renegade Knight]

Your experience isn't typical.

I've tossed maybe 2 CFLs in the past 5 years and gone through 10 times as many incandesent. It makes upgrading easy since the incandesent burn out anyway.

The only issue I've noticed with CFL's is that they tend to take a little time to warm up to achieve maximum brightness.

They are starting to make "oversized" CFL's to give more total light output than Standard 100W Bulbs.

Early CFL's were not as bright per watt. Now they are brighter and every bit the match for the equivilent regualar bulb.

Alas since I think in watts and not Lumens (beyond flashlights) I can't reccomend a bulb to hit your lumen rating. Only that if it's a standard bulb's output you should be able to find something that works in a CFL.

[suyts]

Can't give them away.

I work at a small electrical co-op. We give the things away at all of our meetings. They simply don't produce enough light. We still have boxes and boxes in our warehouse because no one wants them. Now there is some nut in Cal.(wouldn't you guess)that thinks he could/should dictate how you light your own home. Sad that the ideas of personal freedom and liberties weren't discussed in the interview.

[Jess Essekund]

Maybe not so bright.

I wonder if the energy savings will be offset by the cost of disposing of and controlling dangerous quantities of mercury. Mr. Levine may be deep in something but it's not energy conservation. The cost of safely dealing with used CFLs alone, so that they
would not introduce toxic levels of a dangerous poison into the eco-system are likely to be staggering. A case in point
.http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=aa7796aa-e4a5-4c06-be84-b62dee548fda

[AZEqualizer]

mercury contamination

Yep I agree.... politicians and people have to focus on the big picture and they often don't. When I first heard of the bill they were talking a forced CFT replacement. LED's would seem to be better at taking up the slack if manufacturing concentrated on producing better models... plus there may be other things?.CFT are not the end all to save the environment.

[Tom Budlong]

Mercury in CFL Bulbs

CFL bulbs have mercury in them. The box of CFLs I recently bought says, "Lamp Contains Mercury. Manage in accordance with disposal laws."

Coal mines are currently being hassled for their mercury emissions.

Other than medical reports that say high mercury levels can make you really really stupid, I have not yet seen the CFL-mercury issue recognized, let alone an unbiased analysis.

[Holly Klug]

Focusing problems

I have trouble focusing with fluorescent light. Daylight/halogen is by far and away the best light. As I get older, I suspect I need more blue in my light. But fluorescents are the worst. I replaced my two 18W CF floods with two 50W halogen floods, no comparison. I have added another 10 years to my eyes.

[Schratboy]

Another feckless Legislative Act of Ditwittedness

Strike the light bulb from the market! Replace it with what? Has this twit researched the manufacturing issues surrounding his proposed replacement? Does it create more waste than conventional technologies? Are their ill-health effects? Considering that florescent bulbs emit a pulse wave form it could upset our internal rhythm. I think we should collectively storm the house and pillory this meathead. Not that discussion is merited, but jumping to banning something is the folly of a very insecure male...not a leader but a feckless troll in a pin-stripped suit.

[jdbwar07]

Better yet

How about just setting an efficiency standard. For example, no lights that produce less than X amount of lumens per watt. Then possibly lower it regularly as technology makes it feasible. And as an alternative instead of bannning officially wasteful light bulbs, they could restrict them by not allowing them to be sold in stores and forcing them to be extremely expensive (like 50 or $100). This would allow anyone who needs one to get it, whether for scientific purposes or for TV or whatever, I can't think of any feasible reason but it would let people get it if it's necessary for some reason.

I'm normally skeptical when people start spewing free market rhetoric but perhaps this would work better through the market than banning a specific technology.

[jdbwar07]

Well

Personally (like I said in the post "how about") I think he should ban all lights below a certain level of efficiency, and maybe allowing inefficient ones for certain purposes but at high prices. This would allow people who "need" inefficient ones to still get them and allow for supposedly efficient incandescents.

However, unfortunately the last few years have shown consumers really don't always make the best decisions. Too many people are apathetic and don't care.The sales of SUVs are high even when it makes no sense. If it just affected the individual it would be different but global warming and peak oil affect everyone. And I doubt the ACLU will be up in arms about someone's "right" to obsolete lightbulbs being infringed by forcing them to buy ones that'll save them money anyway.

It isn't just about consumers either, things like this are just as much to force manufacturers to make a change as well.

[cce2]

Invalid criticism

The biggest source of manmade mercury in the environment comes from coal fired power plants, which provide more than 50% of the country's power, and an even greater percentage of the world's power. Installing CFLs results in a net mercury reduction by reducing electricity demand. Use less electricity, burn less coal, emit less mercury and every other form of pollution that coal power plants are responsible for.

We have used flourescent lights in schools, office buildings, stores, industry and just about every purpose other than residential lighting for decades. They haven't resulted in an environmental nightmare. The new standards have reduced mercury content of CFLs to an extremely small amount. If you crack them open, wear gloves and sweep it into a sealed bag. Throw in trash.

The current issue of Popular Mechanics tested various brands of CFLs against an incandescent standard. The CFLs were judged to have superior light quality than the incandescent, and the difference in the amount of light produced between both types was indistinguishable.

When Solid state lighting (LEDs) becomes economical, CFLs will no doubt meet their demise. If this is 10 - 20 years from now, you'd only have to replace the CFLs a handful of times in that time period. Even if they burn out prematurely, the branded CFLs have a 5 year warranty. You'd only have to "buy" 4 bulbs per socket over the course of 20 years.

[FRE0]

Don't outlaw incandescent lamps!

In places where they receive a lot of use, CFLs make sense and
should be used. However, every house has a few lamps which
receive little use, such as in closets. In closets, it would be silly
to use CFLs since closet lights are used for only a few minutes a
day. Also, when CFLs are switched on and off often, their life is
considerably reduced and under those conditions, they might
not last as long as incandescent bulbs.

Also, what about light bulbs used in ovens and clothes dryers?
The heat would destroy CFLs.

Although I believe that people should be encouraged to use
CFLs, there are places where they make no sense and therefore
incandescent bulbs should remain available.

[javaman97]

CFL's best for minimum 3hrs daily

Like Fre0 suggested: closets, appliances, and bathrooms are not good uses of CLF bulbs. Anytime a light will be turned on and off several times a day a CFL should not be used, the incandescents are more suited to that usage. Even some energy conservation organizations recommend incandescents for these frequently power cycled uses.

CFL bulbs are recommended to be used where they will be on for a minimum of 3 hours at a time, or once a day. CFLs are excellent for general room lighting, where it comes on at dusk and off at bed time. They are also excellent for reading, again it gets turned on and stays on till you're done for the day.

[javaman97]

Out law excessive quantitiy of lights

Why do some bathrooms have 14 lights in them!?! Seriously, I walked into a bathroom in a model home, I thought I was going outside. There were 6 100 watt bulbs over each of the 2 sinks, plus one over the bathtub, and one over the toilet. That's 1400 watts combined. One switch controlled both sets of over the sink lights.

Bathrooms do NOT need fixtures with 6 or 8 light sockets. Especially when theres one of these fixtures over each sink. Home builders should be limited to installing fixtures with AT MOST 4 lights, with two being preferred.
Each of the light fixtures should have it's own switch, you don't always need both sinks at once.

To conserve power on your own:
Replace the existing 100 watt bulbs with 40 watt bulbs. 4x40 watts, is 160 watts, that's plenty of light in a bathroom.
Replace multi-light fixtures with ones using fewer lights. Instead of 6 or 8 bulbs, a fixture using 2 bulbs is fine. Having only 2 bulbs to replace is less expensive than having 8 to replace.

[scrutch]

First off, like I predicted years ago, ethynol ain't it. Does nothing but drive up corn prices, which drives up all other crop prices, which drives up all prices, and only compounds the problem. Electricity is the answer, but from where? Wind is good, but the initial expense is herendous, and water is more powerful. Here we go, paddle wheel generators all up and down the Mississippi river, Missouri river, Ohio river, so on and so forth. If that's not enough, catch the tides and prevailing currents off shore. Nothing but a boat dock, paddle wheel, and a generator. Next comes electric cars. But government regs make them all use a uniform standard battery. No need to recharge, just pull into the "usta be a gas station" and swap batteries. No more need for coal burning, carbon footprints, and the Middle East. Tom

[scrutch]

First off, like I predicted years ago, ethynol ain't it. Does nothing but drive up corn prices, which drives up all other crop prices, which drives up all prices, and only compounds the problem. Electricity is the answer, but from where? Wind is good, but the initial expense is herendous, and water is more powerful. Here we go, paddle wheel generators all up and down the Mississippi river, Missouri river, Ohio river, so on and so forth. If that's not enough, catch the tides and prevailing currents off shore. Nothing but a boat dock, paddle wheel, and a generator. Next comes electric cars. But government regs make them all use a uniform standard battery. No need to recharge, just pull into the "usta be a gas station" and swap batteries. No more need for coal burning, carbon footprints, and the Middle East. Tom

[brucerobb]

I, for one, want a high-efficiency bulb that I *can* read by. That's the major use I have for light bulbs. Actual reader bulbs (incandescent) in the range of 200 watts and higher produce 3900+ lumens. I'd like to find, preferably, an LED, but would settle for a CFL, that produces that amount of light. I have found a BlueMax CFL that will do the trick, but I'd rather have an LED bulb. (Since CFLs contain mercury, something I don't want my daughter's generation to have to correct later.) Also, the BlueMax uses a non-standard 4-pin connector, instead of the regular screw-in type, fixtures for which are scarce, limited in available styles, and expensive.

[brucerobb]

"Levine: Twenty percent of residential energy bills are in lighting. By making a change in lightbulbs, you would have a 75 percent reduction in your energy consumption."

Um, no. You might save 75% of that 20%, but not 75% of your energy consumption. You'd save, then, about 15% of your energy consumption, which is probably enough to notice, and not to be scorned, but it wouldn't reduce your power bill by 75%.