Yes, You Pay More For CFLs, But Are They Worth It?
by Amanda Wills
Published on February 2nd, 2010
4 Comments
Earth911’s “Ask The Editor” series tackles your toughest environmental and recycling dilemmas.
Q: I’ve been switching to the CFLs but find that, in some cases, they don’t last any longer than the incandescent bulbs I’m replacing. I thought they were supposed to be cheaper to operate and longer lasting – thus justifying their higher cost. Am I confused or is there a problem with the bulbs? – Karllynn
A: The thing to remember about replacing your standard incandescents with CFLs is to evaluate your frequency of usage. These bulbs work better in lights that are kept on for longer periods of time, such as your porch light or a bedside lamp you keep on for hours.
When talking about CFLs, it’s also important to remember that each bulb contains a trace amount of mercury, meaning that proper disposal is a must. Photo: Flickr/Karin Bell
You’ve probably noticed that CFLs need a little more energy when they are first turned on. A CFL’s ballast helps “kick start” the CFL and then regulates the current once the electricity starts flowing. So, if you’re constantly turning the CFL on and off and on again, that energy has to kick up once again to power the bulb.
CFLs can cost up to 10 times more than an incandescent bulb, and the even more energy-efficient light-emitting diodes (LEDs) can cost up to $50 for a single bulb.
However, an ENERGY STAR qualified CFL will save about $30 over its lifetime and pay for itself in about 6 months. Plus, it uses 75 percent less energy and lasts about 10 times longer than an incandescent bulb.
If you’re not a fan of CFLs, start thinking about investing in LED lighting. While 74 percent of Americans have switched to an energy-saving lamp, such as a CFL or LED, in the past year, many consumers are still largely unaware of the impending federal phase-out of incandescent light bulbs will begin with the 100-watt bulb in 2012.
Got a question? E-mail the editor at awills@earth911.com or send us a message via Facebook or Twitter.
Crystal
posted on February 2nd, 2010 at 2:52 pm
I must say I am not a proponant of the CFLs! It seems to me though they may be energy efficient they certainly are not Earth friendly when they contain the highly toxic mercury. That means when one is broken or burns out the fumes they send off are highly toxic. The Fire Department in my county suggests turning off all air conditioners and heating, open all windows should a bulb burn out and pick up any broken bulb pieces with duct tape and proceed to vacuum with subsequent vacuuming with all air/heat off and windows open!! Honestly are we poisoning ourselves in the process of being energy efficient? Please look into this and the seriousness of the toxicity of mercury!
Is it true there is legislation to replace all bulbs to CFLs in the near future?
mudnessa
posted on February 2nd, 2010 at 4:59 pm
Coal fired power plants emit mercury into the environment so if you are using something using less energy even if it does contain small amounts of mercury it reduces the overall mercury exposure. Yes cfl’s contain mercury but as long as they are handled with care and disposed of properly the overall mercury exposure is less. I do not believe cfl’s are the permanent answer because of the mercury but they are definitely a lesser of two evils. Also we have had florescent bulbs in our homes for years, the long tubes most people have in their kitchen are florescent and contain mercury as well. No one has really complained about these and people throw them in the trash all the time, I see them in the dumpster at my apartment complex all the time.
fletc3her
posted on February 2nd, 2010 at 8:57 pm
CFLs do contain mercury, but significantly less than the old familiar fluorescent tubes. A common CFL contains less than 5 milligrams of mercury whereas a fluorescent tube may contain 10 milligrams or more. It is important to carefully clean up shattered CFLs and to recycle used CFLs at the proper facility, but they are no more dangerous than the fluorescent tubes which light all our schools, grocery stores, and factories.
The U.S. government is currently in the process of phasing out most incandescent bulbs. Eventually, LED lights will be even more efficient and less toxic than CFLs. But, for right now, CFLs represent the best compromise between energy efficiency and cost.
Linda A.
posted on March 19th, 2010 at 1:44 pm
When I bought my first CFLs, thinking that I was being so “earth friendly,” I admit I was dismayed to discover that they contain mercury. (I wondered how anything containing mercury could be considered “earth friendly”?) Anyway, I DO like them. They give a very pleasant light, and they last a heck of a lot longer than incandescents, at least in my experience.