Skip to main content

Secondary menu

User menu

  • Join
  • OR
  • Log In

MNN - Mother Nature Network

Saturday, May 25, 2013
SPECIAL FEATURES:
  • Leaderboard
  • Nest
  • TreeHugger
  • Photos
  • Blogs
  • SB 2013
  • Joy of Less

Search form

Social links

Main menu

  • Earth Matters
    • Browse all »
    • Animals
    • Weather
    • Energy
    • Politics
    • Space
    • Translating Uncle Sam
    • Wilderness & Resources
  • Health
    • Browse all »
    • Allergies
    • Fitness & Well-Being
    • Healthy Spaces
  • Lifestyle
    • Browse all »
    • Arts & Culture
    • Travel
    • Natural Beauty & Fashion
    • Recycling
    • Responsible Living
  • Green Tech
    • Browse all »
    • Computers
    • Gadgets & Electronics
    • Research & Innovations
    • Transportation
  • Eco-Biz & Money
    • Browse all »
    • Green Workplace
    • Personal Finance
    • Sustainable Business Practices
  • Food & Drink
    • Browse all »
    • Beverages
    • Healthy Eating
    • Recipes
  • Your Home
    • Browse all »
    • At Home
    • Organic Farming & Gardening
    • Remodeling & Design
  • Family
    • Browse all »
    • Babies & Pregnancy
    • Family Activities
    • Pets
    • Protection & Safety

Breadcrumb Navigation

MNN.COM › Earth Matters › Translating Uncle Sam
    x
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Bookmark and ShareShare
  • Earn Points
    What's this?
CFL vs. incandescent: Battle of the bulb
Compact fluorescent lamps are more efficient than traditional light bulbs, but they also contain toxic mercury. MNN sheds light on which is the brighter pick.

By

Russell McLendon
Tue, Feb 15 2011 at 2:11 PM
 51

Related Topics:

Energy Efficiency, Mercury (the element), Toxins & Chemicals
 
Compact fluorescent light bulbs are often mentioned as one of the easiest ways to shrink your power bill and your carbon footprint. They present the quintessential green-green situation: saving money and helping the environment. What's not to like?
 
There's the higher retail price — who wants to pay three bucks for a light bulb when it's sitting right next to ones that cost less than a dollar? But the CFL can last up to 10 times longer than incandescent bulbs, meaning you'd have to buy 10 of them during a single $3 CFL's lifespan. Each CFL saves about $30 during its tenure, according to the U.S. Energy Star program, and pays for itself in about six months.
 
One of the most potent threats to CFLs' superiority isn't their cost, but their contents. There's a small amount of toxic mercury in every one, which can be absorbed or inhaled, potentially causing brain damage in adults, children and especially in fetuses. Fumble a CFL while changing a light, critics warn, and you unleash a poisonous fiend in your home. Throw it out and you're dumping mercury in landfills.
 
Those are both valid concerns. You should be careful when cleaning up a broken CFL, but don't go nuts — Snopes has debunked the myth that breaking one requires calling in an environmental cleanup crew. Keep kids and pets away, open the windows and resist the urge to vacuum, since that can kick up mercury vapor into the air; see the EPA's advice on cleaning up broken fluorescent lights for a complete guide. When they do eventually burn out, make sure to dispose of them properly.
 
Why do CFLs contain mercury?
Fluorescent and incandescent lights generally work the same way: They zap certain types of atoms with energy until their electrons freak out and release photons of light. Incandescent bulbs do this by shooting electricity into a thin metal filament surrounded by inert gas and encased in a glass shell. Metal normally emits invisible infrared light when heated like this, but get the atoms worked up enough and they'll produce a visible glow, too.
 
cflMetallic atoms are also the light source in fluorescent lamps, but they use vaporized mercury instead of a solid filament. The incoming electrical current is carried through a glass tube, straight or coiled, that's filled with mercury vapor and argon gas. The electrified mercury atoms begin vibrating and releasing invisible ultraviolet light, which in turn excites a fluorescent phosphor coating on the inside of the tube, finally producing the visible light.
 
(It's this jittery relationship, combined with a jumpy magnetic ballast providing electricity, that gives fluorescent lights their infamous flicker. Electronic ballasts don't have this problem.)
 
Mercury is a crucial part of how all fluorescent bulbs work, and replacing it is a daunting task. Still, manufacturers have cut back on how much they use — CFLs' mercury content dropped by at least 20 percent from 2007 to 2008. While the bulbs contained an average of 4 milligrams a few years ago, many now use as little as 0.4 mg. By comparison, mercury thermometers contain about 500 mg of mercury, and older nondigital thermostats contain about 3,000 mg.
 
Does mercury overshadow CFLs' benefits?
Fluorescent lights only release mercury when their glass breaks. Consider how often you shatter a light bulb while changing it, and divide that number by 10 — since a single CFL requires about that many fewer replacements — and that's your immediate risk of mercury exposure.
 
An incandescent bulb doesn't contain mercury, but it still has a higher overall mercury footprint than a CFL, thanks to the coiled tube's energy efficiency. Coal-fired power plants are humans' No. 1 source of mercury pollution, and energy-intensive incandescents make those plants burn more coal than CFLs do. That extra coal burning releases more mercury than the amount inside a CFL plus the coal emissions needed to light it.
 
While most fluorescent lamps finish their lives without shattering, however, it's another story once they're thrown out. They can easily break in trash cans, Dumpsters or en route to a landfill. It's only a small amount of mercury, but it adds up as more and more people are buying them, and it also endangers sanitation workers who don't know they're carrying bags containing mercury vapor. All the more reason to read up on the EPA's guidelines for properly disposing of fluorescent lights. Many home-improvement stores and other retailers that sell CFLs also have recycling programs to collect them back from consumers.
 
incandescent bulbAre incandescent bulbs burned out?
The main downside with traditional light bulbs is that they use only 10 percent of their energy to produce light, burning off the rest as heat. They've wasted 90 percent of the electricity people have fed them for the past 130 years — electricity that was mainly generated from coal and other fossil fuels. Congress put its foot down with the 2007 energy bill, introducing tougher efficiency rules designed to phase out incandescent bulbs starting in 2012. Before long, the CFL may dominate the U.S. lighting market.
 
But don't count out Thomas Edison's original bright idea just yet. Despite the U.S. Department of Energy and EPA pushing CFLs, many people are still turned off by the light they emit, which is slightly bluer and more flickery than incandescents' warm, steady glow. In fact, many Americans admit to hoarding incandescent bulbs in anticipation of the 2012 phase-out. And while the most inefficient incandescents are likely doomed, there are newer incarnations that offer hope for CFL haters.
 
The two main alternative incandescents are tungsten halogen lamps and reflector lamps, both of which rely on reflectivity to slash energy demand. Halogen lamps have a gas filling and an interior coating that reflect light inward, using recycled heat to warm the filament more efficiently. The Energy Department says they offer "excellent color rendition," and while they are more costly, they can save money over time thanks to their efficiency. Reflector lamps employ a similar principle, reflecting their light into a focused beam, and come in two basic types: parabolic aluminized lamps, used in outdoor floodlights, and ellipsoidal lamps, used in spotlights. Several companies are also developing more efficient versions of traditional incandescents — as well as halogen lamps — some of which use 30 percent less electricity.
 
Light(s) at the end of the tunnel
The future of artificial lighting is hazy, thanks to several recent technological and regulatory upheavals. Traditional light bulbs are almost certainly doomed once the new U.S. efficiency regulations take effect in early 2012, leaving a handful of relative upstarts to fill the void.
 
One of these dark-horse light sources is the LED, or light-emitting diode. LEDs are already common in a variety of devices, ranging from the blinking red light on a camcorder to the green power button on a computer. LEDs are more efficient, versatile and long-lasting than either incandescent or fluorescent lights, emitting light in a specific direction rather than radiating it outward indiscriminately, which wastes energy. They also absorb back what little heat they produce into an internal heat sink, leaving the LED itself cool to the touch.
 
While LEDs may seem like a clear winner, they're still plagued by a few major problems. Several companies make bulbs that rely on diodes, but they aren't cheap. Plus, a recent study by researchers at the University of California-Irvine found that LEDs contain high levels of several dangerous toxins, including lead and arsenic. Although the amount in each bulb isn't a big risk on its own, the study warns LED toxins could be a "tipping point" when combined with exposure to other toxins. And, as with CFLs' mercury, LEDs may pose a collective threat as discarded bulbs accumulate in the environment.
 
Several other light sources boast long lives and high efficacy, but they all have their own unique flaws, too. High-intensity discharge lighting, for example, can save up to 90 percent of the energy required by incandescent bulbs, but HID bulbs are extremely bright and can take up to 10 minutes to produce light. They're mainly used for street lamps, stadium lights and other long-term outdoor applications. Low-pressure sodium lights are another option, providing even more energy-efficient outdoor lighting than HIDs, but their color rendition is "very poor," according to the Energy Department. Their main use is for highway and security lighting, where color isn't as important.
 
No widely available light bulb is without drawbacks, and even highly touted options like CFLs and LEDs have a dark side. But since traditional incandescents have had their time in the spotlight — and proven to be inefficient consumers of energy — the looming 2012 phase-out likely means they'll be overthrown. It's not clear what will ultimately replace them, but for now, the EPA and Energy Department are giving the green light to CFLs.
 
For more on CFLs, LEDs and other light sources, check out these links from MNN:
  • New guidelines for CFL cleanup
  • Take the CFL recycling challenge
  • CFL bulbs with built-in armor: A bright idea?
  • Last U.S. factory making incandescent light bulbs closes
  • Ceiling lights in Minnesota send coded Internet data
And for even more information, see the following links from Uncle Sam:
  • Energy Star: CFLs Buyers Guide
  • Energy Star: CFL Savings Calculator
  • Energy Star: CFLs and Mercury
  • EPA: CFL Recycling Where You Live
  • Energy Star: Commercial LED Lighting
Photos: EPA and DOE
 
Editor's note: This article has been updated since it first appeared on July 7, 2009.

You might also like:

Join the conversation

Comments: 51
Sign in with one of these accounts to add your comment.
Log in or
create an account
  • Sign in using this account:
anonymous
greg Jan 24 2013 at 11:11 PM

i just broke 1 of these damn things,vacumed it up to.now what the hell do i do?how do i clean up mercury? why do these things even get built?i didn't no the dangers til now.please help

|
  • Log in or register to post comments
  • Report This Post 
anonymous
Anders Hoveland Nov 16 2012 at 3:51 AM
I have skin sensitivity problems from those spiral CFL bulbs, and they also strain my eyes. I have also been a little dissappointed by the quality of light from LEDs. Their light is still not the same as an incandescent/halogen bulb. The light has an annoying pinkish orange tint, and makes all the colors in my room seem greyish. Nothing quite matches the warm pleasing glow of an incandescent. It also makes absolutely no sense to use "energy efficient" lighting if you are using an electric heater
.... More
at the same time. The old incandescent bulbs are 100% efficient - it is just that they give off much of their energy in the form of heat in addition to light. For people that live in colder climates, these bulbs might not offer much energy savings.
|
  • Log in or register to post comments
  • Report This Post 
anonymous
Dave Y Feb 08 2012 at 11:11 AM
Most of what you say is true, however, one item that you miss is the "interactive" effects. Optimum energy conservation is achieved when an entire building is analyzed in total. In northern climates most of the energy in a home is used to heat the home. In my region, my local utility has stated in our local newspaper that 59% of all the energy used in our typical home is to heat the home. Therefore, the heat energy from the incandescent is not "wasted" as you state. Using your numbers, the
.... More
incandescent is 90% efficient in converting electrical kwh's into thermal BTU's. By removing this amount of heat, the home's heating source has to make up the loss in BTU's if you wish to maintain your thermostat setting. If the home heating source is less than 90% efficient, which all forced air/ducted systems would be, then you will use more total energy by changing to CFL's. This is science, and has been field verified since the 1980's. In southern climates where most of the energy use is air conditioning, then removing a heat source is very desirable.
|
  • Log in or register to post comments
  • Report This Post 
anonymous
Guest Nov 05 2012 at 12:54 PM

Using that argument is like the same one I hear from my girlfriend about the $200 shoes that went on sale down to $150. Wasting money is wasting money no matter what way you put it. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say there are probably more efficient and economical ways to heat your home than leaving the lights on.

|
  • Log in or register to post comments
  • Report This Post 
anonymous
Architype Mar 16 2012 at 6:20 PM

Well, but we don't want to 'heat' your home with an incandescent lightbulb for 12 months of the year, do we? it would still be a waste of energy during spring and summer.

|
  • Log in or register to post comments
  • Report This Post 
5ewYsrrPUS's picture
Victor Godinez Feb 20 2013 at 1:42 PM
we don't want to heat our homes during the sprin-summer days, specially if you live in a place like southern arizona, where summer temps easily get to 110-120F.... in my case we replaced the incandecent bulbs in our home, even the reflector ones with CFL, and a few LED's, and yes the electric bill lowered dramatically during the months of May-august (before the change we got a $350+ bill for august, now it hardly gets to $200), while the rest presented significant savings, we also don't like to
.... More
use the heating system on winter, just grab a long sleve shirt and pants so the no-heat loss from CFL is not a bad trade.. and they last a long time... my room which is the one that requires replacement of bulbs more often has only gone through maybe 5 bulbs in the bast 10 years, was also the first to have the incandescent bulbs replaced by CFLs.... and we like more the "daylight" ones over the soft white ones so the saving from a CFL to an incandecent will vary mostly based on geografic location and where in the house they are used.. northern (cooler) climates will harly see any savings, like many have said, they had to increase the heating to compensate for the CFL cooler ligth, while southern hotter climates will defenetly see more savings since most of the year we run the air conditioning system to cool the interior of our homes, which means cooler running lights will put less strain on the A/C unit
|
  • Log in or register to post comments
  • Report This Post 
anonymous
lighthouse Feb 08 2012 at 12:28 PM
Agree with most of that: In fact the "power factor" (look it up) of common CFLs also means that they use twice the energy at the power plant to what your meter says, but user have to pay eventually (many domestic LEDs have similar issues). RE Heat, some will say that incandescents are not ideal heat sources, but the point is of course that the heat is just a side benefit of lighting use - and so should be remembered in energy saving calculations. However - it is wrong to ban incandescents also
.... More
in tropical climates: Any use with air conditioning cooling is optional. and might be preferred for light quality or other reasons.
|
  • Log in or register to post comments
  • Report This Post 
lighthouse
lighthouse Nov 26 2011 at 10:20 AM

Updates on federal and local USA/Canada state lighting regulations
http://ceolas.net/#li01inx

Legislated Texas June 2011, to allow local manufacture of the incandescents.
As seen, 2 weeks ago, Canada Government officially postponed a ban to (at least) 2014, citing further research and information is needed.

|
  • Log in or register to post comments
  • Report This Post 
anonymous
amlibpub Nov 26 2011 at 12:26 AM

See the comprehensive article published on this subject by the Science and Public Policy Institute in June 2011, at http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/cfl_fi...

|
  • Log in or register to post comments
  • Report This Post 
lighthouse
lighthouse Nov 26 2011 at 10:12 AM

Interesting document by Ed Contoski
the CFL fire, radiation and mercury safety issues are also covered extensively here,  http://ceolas.net/#li18eax  with references that include him.

|
  • Log in or register to post comments
  • Report This Post 
anonymous
Dheeraj Nov 14 2011 at 3:46 AM

Nice Article....I want to use the best CFL in my home in order to save max energy.Can anyone throw a light on the best CFLs available in the market..I had heard about havells sylvania..are they really good?????

|
  • Log in or register to post comments
  • Report This Post 
anonymous
Aditya Nov 11 2011 at 5:25 AM

Acc to my perspective the time has came to completely phase out incandescent bulbs...I had installed havells CFLs in my home which help me in saving a lot of energy.

|
  • Log in or register to post comments
  • Report This Post 
anonymous
shimnie tana Nov 09 2011 at 11:05 PM

i cant find right away the answer,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

|
  • Log in or register to post comments
  • Report This Post 
anonymous
Enter your name Nov 09 2011 at 11:02 PM

can somebody help mhe,,,,,what is the procedure in making the recycable materials?

|
  • Log in or register to post comments
  • Report This Post 
tarrant's picture
Tarrant Nov 10 2011 at 7:22 AM

I will try to help. Can you tell me more about what you want to know how is made from recycled materials? (glass? metal? plastic? paper? Something else?)

|
  • Log in or register to post comments
  • Report This Post 
heather.branch
heather.branch Oct 22 2011 at 8:33 AM
I use CFL bulbs most of the year. But because I live in Canada and already have some of the incandescent bulbs, I've been using a few in select places [near where I sit in my small living room, for instance, and 2 in my small bathroom] in the winter months because it seems to me that the heat from the incandescent will help heat the air near me and help me keep the thermostat low. I'd be very interested to know if the heat of an incandescent bulb used in a lamp which has lots of air circulation
.... More
around the bulb is an efficient use of electricity in cold months. I've heard of others in cold climates who do what I do and put the incandescent bulbs back in for the cold months only... I keep my small house quite cool in the winter and use any light sparingly, so an incandescent bulb is used only when I am within a few feet of it. Input?
|
  • Log in or register to post comments
  • Report This Post 
starbuck
Starbuck Oct 23 2011 at 10:33 PM

I guess the thing to do would be a little experiment of your own. Do you feel warmer sitting next to the incandescent bulb, or not? I live in southeast Alaska and although our temps are considered moderate, our summers are generally cool and our winters get pretty cold. I use the CFL's year round. I'd be interested what you determine if you experiment with this.

|
  • Log in or register to post comments
  • Report This Post 
starbuck
Starbuck Oct 16 2011 at 3:14 AM
Costco sells high quality CFL's in boxes of 8 for a very reasonable price. The last time I bought them they were under ten bucks. May have gone up a little in the meantime. They will last 3 years even with lots of use. They do not have a long delay before coming on. They are available in cooler and warmer light color. They will cut your electric bill by a good little chunk and you will not have to replace them every time you turn around. Only in the USA do people refuse to save on their electric
.... More
bill on the principle of the matter. There are so many much worse things our government could do and does do. This is not even worth getting in a stew over. Make a real difference; protest war and Wall Street - not light bulbs.
|
  • Log in or register to post comments
  • Report This Post 
anonymous
Klipsan Sep 04 2011 at 3:16 PM
Whether we like it or not, incandescent bulbs have a place in our society, no matter how small. Merely one example is a small water well shed that is prone to freezing during the winter. The Pump is protected by a small, well insulated shed (shack, house), about a three foot cube. I have found that the best thing to keep it from freezing and providing light at the same time is a 100 watt incandescent light bulb. Now, if I were to have to switch to the other style of light, I would have to run
.... More
wiring and a heater to my water pump to insure that it would not freeze. The heater would use much more electricity and run up the coal fired cost of my eco-friendly farm. I've done the math. Have you? There are gives and takes on everything. Let us all be careful before we draw a line in the sand. I practice in protecting Mother Earth and Father Sky, I also believe in reason and HONEST discussion. No one person can have it their way.
|
  • Log in or register to post comments
  • Report This Post 
solidapollo
solidapollo Apr 13 2011 at 6:30 PM
Hi, I work in the LED sector and I've been hearing all the problems people are having with CFLs and recycling them. We have studied CFLs and even though the cost is reasonable and it's consumption is lower that incandescent lamps, they do have some faults: 1) They take quite a long time to warm up to their full brightness, therefore are not suitable for places like bathrooms and kitchens, where you switch lights on and off all the time. 2) The color temperature they emit is awful, therefore everything
.... More
tends to look gray and unhealthy and when it comes to food it's really isn't appealing. 3) Recycling, I've hear many people complain about not knowing how to dispose and how much it;s going to cost. On the other hand LEDs don't have any of these problems. But it's more expensive. So we have come up with the idea to collect all CLFs for free and in change we will give customers a 10$ voucher towards their future purchase. More information coming soon: www.SolidApollo.com
|
  • Log in or register to post comments
  • Report This Post 
anonymous
Eileen McKendry May 24 2011 at 3:10 PM

You never touched on the HEALTH EFFECTS from Toxic Mercury Exposure when the bulb is broken: these can include neurological damage, tremors, learning disabilities, and death. Children are 100 times more susceptible to these exposures. Reports on Chinese workers in factories producing CFLs state thaat workers are suffering Mercury poisoning and death from their exposure on the job. The 2nd known Hazard from CFL bulbs is the electromagnetic field, or EMF, that is emitted from the ballast.

|
  • Log in or register to post comments
  • Report This Post 
anonymous
George Adams Mar 29 2011 at 3:21 PM

CFLs will be outdated soon but I gladly replace incandescents with CFLs until better technology emerges. Off brand CFLs do not live up to advertised lamp-life but the Sylvania CFLs I've installed are excellent. Especially for difficult to reach applications, replacing incandescents with CFLs is a no-brainer. When people complain about new technology, I suspect they'd prefer a cave dwelling. Go figure...

|
  • Log in or register to post comments
  • Report This Post 
anonymous
john Feb 25 2011 at 1:34 PM

I would love to see LED"s compared in the chart - for both energy savings and mercury emissions. I installed Cree LED can lights in my addition and they are beautiful. The light is great, they are dimmable, and they only use about 11 watts - and they last for at least 20 years. When I have all 7 lights on in the kitchen, they use less energy than one 100 watt incandescent bulb, and they are almost always dimmed at 50% for even greater energy savings.

|
  • Log in or register to post comments
  • Report This Post 
anonymous
haydoo Feb 18 2011 at 9:09 PM

look Edison had a great idea and there's some downers to it, but no ones saying we should have glass lighting peice's with mercury a filled center

|
  • Log in or register to post comments
  • Report This Post 
anonymous
William Feb 18 2011 at 2:39 PM
Use any DOE 2 based energy software and it will show you that CFL's cost consumers about $50 more per year in heat dominated areas like Pittsburgh for instance. The Electric utilities love CFL's because they reduce peak load in the cooling season which reduces their need to add capacity for peaks. Since the regular bulbs produce heat, the unknowing consumer is burning about $50 more in natural gas. The Gas utility is okay with that......CFLs are a scam in heating climates. Please don't clue-in congress.....
.... More
this is going to be fun to watch.
|
  • Log in or register to post comments
  • Report This Post 

Pages

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • next ›
  • last »

ADD YOUR COMMENT

Log in or register to post comments

EDITORS' PICKS

tease weird things

line

tease cellars

line

tease fishing

Advertisement

TODAY'S MOST POPULAR ON

  1. Student science experiment finds plants won't grow near Wi-Fi router
  2. How to get a second crop of tomatoes -- for free
  3. 15 famous people who mysteriously disappeared
  4. 9 habits that may do more harm than good
  5. Archaeologists unearth 5,000-year-old 'third-gender' caveman
  6. 10 false facts most people think are true
  7. Why you should not plant bamboo in your yard
  8. Best air-filtering houseplants, according to NASA
  9. 8 hair care treatments you can make yourself
  10. 15 houseplants for improving indoor air quality - A breath of fresh air
+ Add this to my site

NEWSLETTER

Mother Nature. Delivered
Advertisement
Advertisement
Google Profile

Footer menu

  • Quick Links
    • Joy of Less
    • About Us
    • Advisory Board
    • Editors' Blog
    • Press
    • Privacy
    • Sitemap
    • Terms of Service
  • MNN Tools
    • Advice
    • Blogs
    • Day in History
    • Eco-glossary
    • Infographics
    • Lists
    • Photos
    • Videos
  • Connect
    • The Nest
    • Contact Us
    • Mixed Greens
    • Newsletters
    • RSS
    • Social
    • TreeHugger
    • Mobile
  • Channels
    • Earth Matters
    • Health
    • Lifestyle
    • Green Tech
    • Eco-Biz & Money
    • Your Home
    • Family
    • State Reports
  • Follow MNN
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Pinterest
    • Tumblr
    • Google+
    • StumbleUpon

Copyright © 2013 MNN Holdings, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Website by GLICK INTERACTIVE | Powered by CIRRACORE

SPONSORS