Reflections on Illumination
by Richard T. Stuebi
While grocery shopping yesterday, I found that our local store has finally started stocking GE (NYSE: GE) compact flourescent lightbulbs (CFLs).
Candidly, my experience to date with CFLs has not been positive. Last year, I went to Home Depot (NYSE: HD), where I tend to buy household gadgets, thinking they would have the best selection of CFLs. At least back then, Home Depot didn't carry GE CFLs (some say this was because of ex-CEO Bob Nardelli's lingering resentment of having been passed over for Jeff Immelt when Jack Welch stepped down as CEO of GE), so I bought what Home Depot had in stock: a carton of private-label CFLs, for about $10 for a 5-pack.
I wish I could say that I was blown away by the CFLs, but regrettably, I wasn't. In my assessment, the light quality provided by the CFLs was too pale, and it took far too long (10-20 seconds) to reach even a minimally acceptable "warm" color. Furthermore, the CFLs were not usable in many of the applications in my home: they don't fit into lamps with tight covers/shades, and when installed to a fixture with dimmers, they emit an annoying loud buzzing sound -- and an awful Snap-Crackle-Pop (and I don't mean Rice Krispies) when the dimmer is turned down.
My initial foray into CFLs thus resulted in considerable disappointment. Although I don't feel good about it at all, so far I've generally stuck with the old horribly inefficient incandescents -- they at least produce a quality of light that I've come to expect.
I've been told that CFL quality varies, and that GE's CFL products are quite a bit better -- albeit more expensive -- than the generic brands of the kind I had bought. I didn't search all over town for GE CFLs, but I never saw them anywhere I happened to be shopping. Until this weekend.
Now, here in front of me finally were individually-packaged GE CFLs, the 15 watt (60 watt incandescent equivalent) priced at $4.49. Two shelves below were the standard GE incandescent 60 watt soft white lightbulbs, priced at $1.59 for a 4-pack, or about $0.40 per bulb. The CFL is thus 11 times more expensive, on a first-cost basis, than the incandescent. For the average customer, who is typically very conscious of the initial cost and pretty clueless about life-cycle economics, this is a really big spread.
In small print on the CFL packaging, GE claims that the 15 watt CFL bulb will save over its 3000-hour lifetime $13 worth of electricity (at $0.10/kwh) relative to 60 watt incandescents offering the same lumination.
$13 worth of electricity savings for an extra $4 up-front sounds like a pretty good deal. However, of course, it all depends on how many years it will take the user to generate the $13 of electricity savings -- which in turn depends on how much the user uses the lightbulb.
A year is comprised of 8760 hours, so if the CFL operates 24/7, it will only take a few months to generate $13 in savings. Perhaps more importantly, it will only take a few weeks to pay back the extra $4 for the CFL instead of the incandescent. But, few of us use any lights anywhere near that much.
For a lamp used an hour a day, or about 300 hours a year, it will take 10 years to achieve the $13 in savings -- or about 3 years to recover the $4 extra premium for buying the CFL instead of incandescents. A 3-year payback represents a good internal rate of return, on the order of 20%, which is far better than the long-term returns historically offered by the stock market.
So why don't I pursue a 20% financial return? On further consideration, I am put off for two reasons.
First, I can see for sure the $4 extra leaving my hands today to buy the CFL -- but I don't have anywhere near the same degree of confidence that I'll actually generate the economic savings at the desired pace. Will I really use the CFL about an hour a day? It might be more like 15 minutes a day, leading instead to a 12 year payback period -- an outright unattractive financial return.
Second, I am strongly influenced my past negative experience with CFLs. If I buy this expensive lightbulb today, will I like its light? Will I be annoyed every time I turn it on and wait for it to have a color I can barely tolerate? Will I swap it out for a regular incandescent after a few weeks?
When I reflect upon it further, it's the second set of considerations that put me off from buying that GE CFL. I bought CFLs in the past that I disliked, and don't use. They were a bad investment. Even though it's relatively small dollars involved, I don't like making mistakes -- and I really hate making the same mistake twice.
I speculate that I might not be alone in having a poor first impression of CFLs. Such a bias will probably need to be overcome by a no-cost favorable experience with a good CFL. If they really want to build the market, players like GE might consider an investment in a mass-scale public free trial -- a mailbox stuffer? -- of CFLs. I know that if I got a GE CFL for free, I'd give it a go -- and assuming I liked the product, maybe then I'd consider buying some at $4.49 per.
Richard T. Stuebi is the BP Fellow for Energy and Environmental Advancement at The Cleveland Foundation, and is also the Founder and President of NextWave Energy, Inc.
Labels: alternative energy, cleantech, Cleantech Blog, compact flourescents, efficient lighting, energy, energy efficiency, green tech, greentech
Check it Out on Cleantech.org
posted by Richard T. Stuebi @ 6:11 AM
18 comments
18 Comments:
I question the purpose and honesty of this article on the basis that the payback criteria calculations are nonsense.
Stubei states .. "Will I really use the CFL about an hour a day? It might be more like 15 minutes a day, leading instead to a 12 year payback period -- an outright unattractive financial return."
Does he migrate between the North and South Pole to gain 24 hours daylight time?
Who in the world switches a lamp on for only 15 minutes.
I have replaced all my lighting with Philips CFL's; my calculated payback is less than 2 years; I am saving 1 Kw of energy each month; and the wife is more than happy with the color tones and performance.
Stubei makes absolutely no mention of the CO2 reduction of using CFL's having to burn less fossil fuels.
I would note that Stubei's company mentions energy companies as clients, does this include power companies, Big Oil, etc?
We should be told to ensure there is no alternative agenda and Cleantech Blog should reassess Stubei's suitability for this forum.
What about incandescent bulbs life? Is shorter than CFL's... Is possible save money on that.
And as Energy_saver said, what about CO2 emission reduction?
Sustainable actions, generally, are more expensive. Does our world worth the trouble?
Latin Bodo
I suppose the author substantiated his arguments using his experience and not research. TCP for example, when turned on come up to 80% of full power. That's almost full light capacity instantly. Almost all manufactures sell a variety of kelvins from 2700 (Incandescent range) to 6000 Kelvin. They also come in a variety of sizes. No mention was made of the heat factor either. CFL's generate much less heat.
Most consumers don't buy with an HP12C in their hand.
People feel that energy costs are going up, the environment needs attention and then they change behavior and buying patterns. The Toyota Prius, hybrids and all that help people feel good even if they are dubious financial ideas.
I use CFL bulbs in many applications and they work fine. There are still places for other light types from halogen to LED but CFL has a clear position, especially in the many lights that do tend to stay on all the time for ambient light.
When CFL bulbs were expensive and huge they were unattractive but at these prices it's a tiny price to pay for a consumer who feels that energy bills have gone up and they want to economize.
right on about CFLs. I wasn't happy with them either until I figured out that the wattage replacement values are not equivalent. All my CFLs are 23 watt versions that to my 55 year old eyes become the equivalent of a 60 watt incandecent when reading the paper in the living room.
I’m going to defend, not only Richard, but his stance.
First of all, Richard works at a non-profit organization that is working very hard in the Cleveland Area to bring real renewable power to a reality. I do not question his sincerity, integrity, or honesty.
Secondly, I think the previous posters are missing an important point. Or, should I say, they are missing an important point of view; that of Joe Consumer. It is very hard, indeed, to expect that people living paycheck to paycheck (regrettably, most of the US, these days) to look at spending $4.49 per bulb, vs. $1.59 per four pack with no expectation of what they are getting. Additionally, these bulbs LOOK strange. People, generally, do not LIKE strange. They are comforted by what looks familiar.
The two biggest selling points for CFB’s are cost savings and life. Richard hit it right on the head. How many people, standing in the aisle at WalMart, Home Depot, etc, are seriously going to sit there and appreciate saving $13 over the lifetime of the bulb? They just do not think that long. Even the argument of longer life has a limited affect. That is to say, how often do you think people have to change bulbs? Even with the old bulbs, I find it hard to imagine I changed a bulb more than once per month.
Yes, we should all be concerned about CO2. But, once again, this is something that is just too intangible to Joe Consumer. How much are you telling them they can reduce CO2 emissions by switching to CFB’s? Boy, that doesn’t seem like much. Of course, if you are reading the Cleantech Blog, you understand the combined impact of the masses doing this. They do not. They understand that, buy spending more money now, I will not be able to buy something else.
All this being said, I HAVE begun my switch to CFB’s. First of all, I, luckily, am not living paycheck to paycheck, and can afford the additional upfront cost. Secondly, I do have some bulbs that are a pain in rear to change (high, hanging lamps). If I can do it less often, that would be great. I am also someone working in the area of renewable energy system architectures for an engineering doctorate. So, I do understand the big picture.
All this points to something that I do not think most of our community wants to accept: You cannot force, nor expect wholesale, changes to people’s standard of living and lifestyles unless it has financial payback. This payback must be obvious, and provable. It must be tangible and understood by the masses. Again, Richard hit the nail on the head. GE and others should give away one free bulb through coupon, etc. People generally like free stuff. A good many will try it, and hopefully, have a better experience than we did at first. Also, do not expect them to switch over wholesale at first. They will use this first one, and, most likely, still buy the cheap bulbs. At some point, however, they will realize, hey, I haven’t changed THAT bulb in a long time. Maybe there IS something to these bulbs. I guess I’ll buy some more.
I’m going to borrow a phrase from Neil Peart, and my high school English teacher: GE, Phillips & Others, SHOW, DON’T TELL.
CFL's can be cheap if you know where to shop. For instance, our local electric company sells subsidized CFLs for $0.25/ea.
"they emit...an awful Snap-Crackle-Pop (and I don't mean Rice Krispies) when the dimmer is turned down."
That might be because you're not supposed to use CFL bulbs with a dimmer.
Unless it's one of those more expensive ones that are made specifically for dimmer switches.
very noble, if somewhat naive of scott (darpel) to defend the author on the basis of his non-profit work.
perhaps i'm just a battle weary, hardened, paranoid skeptic (i am a member of an NGO in Hong Kong - http://www.cleartheair.org.hk/index.htm ) but i have learned that when it comes to big oil, they will do anything to maintain their profits.
stuebi's article was an immediate red flag because here is a guy who purports to be in to clean energy, RE, etc and yet he produces a scathing report on a widely accepted 'green' technology.
beware the stalking horse.
ps. i note stuebi has removed his bio and hence the linkage to big oil although the BP Fellow is a bit of a giveaway.
This article appears to be written by someone trying to curb the purchase of CFL bulbs. Crazy. I use them all over, I am willing to sacrifice a few seconds of light to save some electricity and not just produce heat for my AC to remove.
I get 6 of these at Costco for about $9. They work great indoors.
why does it seem that there has to be an instant light color when the light is turned on? America has gotten spoiled with I want it now! We need to save energy. And start now! Have you ever thought how much energy it takes just to use the internet?
I rarely post comments, but this article is so silly that I can't resist.
We've replaced almost every single bulb in our house with CFL's. Within reason, my wife and I could care less how quickly the bulbs come up to 100% brightness. At this point, we are so familiar with CFL provided light that we can't imagine ever going back to incandescent bulbs.
Not mentioned in this article is the large amount of heat produced by incandescents. Our smaller bathroom has three bulbs, and before switching to CFL's the room became noticeably warmer after a few minutes. This heat has to go somewhere, and anything we can do to run our AC less is a good thing. (Heat is not a trivial matter in Texas!)
I too have used CFLs for a number of years, and find they do also fail prematurely fron time to time, especially in bathrooms and other high condensing humidity areas. Run continuously I am sure they will prove their stated lifetime figures side-by-side against incandescants. CFLs contain electronics and electronics normally fail on power-up when hit with the current surge ... similar problem with incandescants but not quite so marked, from my life-experience.
Another point that seems to escape the masses is the mercury content in these devices. As more and more get out into the world the environmentalists will find a whole new stage for building such wonderful things as legislated hazardous disposal requirements and surcharges to cover collection, etc. etc.
As has already been suggested, nobody will successfully interfere with profits of big-business, they will just get shfted from pillar to post, but always paid from the consumers' pocket.
Regards/Roger, in Bangkok
Number one the damn government should outlaw those damn incandescent light bulbs because they waste SOOOOOOOOOO much energy. Two he is only looking at one bulb I counted bulbs in my house one time, there was around 40 bulbs WOW now that $13 in that 7-8 years (life of CFL bulb) now becomes $520.00 which is $74.28 a year! Thats huge! Just for switching to CFLs!!!! Also 10-20 secs to become fully bright, so he is telling us that he will not put up with 10-20 secs to become bright for almost $75.00 a year? I do not agree him on these things.
Visit me at www.2thegreenway.com!
Thanks!
肝病
甲肝
乙肝
乙肝小三阳
乙肝大三阳
乙肝二对半
丙肝
肝癌
脂肪肝
肝硬化
纤维肝
肝腹水
乙肝五项
肝病症状
甲肝症状
乙肝症状
乙肝小三阳症状
乙肝二对半症状 丙肝症状 肝癌症状 脂肪肝症状 肝硬化症状 纤维肝症状 肝腹水症状 乙肝五项症状
货架
钢托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木托盘
仓储笼
仓储笼
仓储笼
仓储笼
登高车
登高车
登高车
登高车
登高车
料箱
料箱
料箱
手推车
手推车
手推车
物流台车
贯通货架
悬臂货架
货架
货位货架
阁楼货架
静音手推车
静音手推车
物流台车
物流台车
堆垛架
置物架
轻型货架
轻型货架
轻型货架
轻型货架
轻型货架
轻型货架
货架
轻型货架
角钢货架
货架
中型货架
中型货架
重型货架
线棒货架
线棒货架
线棒货架
线棒货架
线棒
阁楼货架
阁楼货架
阁楼货架
阁楼货架
模具货架
模具货架
抽屉货架
抽屉货架
滚轮货架
货架
悬臂货架
悬臂货架
悬臂货架
悬臂货架
通廊货架
通廊货架
通廊货架
通廊货架
托盘货架
横梁货架
横梁货架
横梁货架
南京货架
南京货架
南京货架
南京货架
南京货架
南京货架
南京货架
货架厂
货架厂
货架厂
仓储货架
仓储货架
仓储货架
仓储货架
仓储货架
仓库货架
仓库货架
仓库货架
仓库货架
货架公司
货架公司
货架公司
仓储设备
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
登高车
手推车
仓储笼
物流台车
钢制料箱
网片
工具柜
工作台
货架厂
货架公司
仓库货架
仓储货架
货架
钢制托盘
钢托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
料箱
刚制料箱
工作桌
手推车
仓储笼
工作台
工具车
工具柜
物流台车
货架
货架
轻型货架
托盘
角钢货架
中型货架
重型货架
仓储货架
仓库货架
货架公司
货架厂
货架
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
仓储笼
仓储设备
工作台
工具柜
货架
南京货架
仓储货架
货架公司
货架厂
宁波货架
北京货架
广州货架
仓库货架
仓储设备
重型货架
货架制造
托盘
仓储笼
物流设备
上海货架
货架
钢制托盘
角钢货架
货架
货架
货架
轻型货架
重型货架
托盘
钢托盘
仓储笼
手推车
登高车
货架厂
仓储货架
货架
货架
仓储货架
货架厂
仓储设备
浙江货架
宁波货架
台州货架
温州货架
北京货架
上海货架
托盘
钢托盘
塑料托盘
轻型货架
重型货架
角钢货架
手推车
杭州货架
娱乐新闻
货架
货架
托盘
仓储笼
青岛货架
济南货架
沈阳货架
天津货架
上海货架
北京货架
台州货架
温州货架
宁波货架
杭州货架
浙江货架
仓储笼
钢托盘
物流设备
塑料托盘
南京货架
货架公司
货架厂
仓库货架
仓储设备
仓储货架
手推车
托盘
货架
塑料托盘
重型货架
中型货架
角钢货架
轻型货架
托盘
塑料托盘
物流台车
工作台
工具柜
仓储笼
重型货架
阁楼货架
悬臂货架
抽屉货架
物流台车
登高车
静音手推车
手推车
塑料托盘
钢制托盘
工具柜
工作台
角钢货架
仓储笼
仓储笼
钢托盘
货架
角钢货架
中型货架
中型货架
流利式货架
线棒货架
悬臂货架
阁楼货架
4S店货架
贯通货架
仓储笼
登高车
物流台车
钢托盘
轻型货架
中型货架
仓储笼
物流台车
手推车
托盘
托盘
料箱
堆垛架
悬臂货架
横梁货架
中型货架
阁楼货架
线棒货架
工具柜
货架
货架
货架
木托盘
托盘
塑料托盘
钢制托盘
托盘
仓储笼
物流台车
工作台
工具柜
托盘
中型货架
货架
线棒货架
抽屉货架
悬臂货架
阁楼货架
货位货架
中型货架
轻型货架
中型货架
仓储笼
登高车
堆垛架
钢托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
工具柜
工作台
手推车
物流台车
钢制料箱
堆高车
油桶搬运车
托盘搬运车
轻型货架
托盘
塑料托盘
仓储笼
中型货架
悬臂货架
阁楼货架
货位货架
仓储货架
仓储货架
仓储设备
悬臂式货架
悬臂货架
货架
搁板式货架
货架
货架
工作台
工具柜
塑料托盘
钢制托盘
仓储笼
重型货架
中型货架
轻型货架
角钢货架
工作台
工具柜
塑料托盘
钢制托盘
仓储笼
重型货架
中型货架
轻型货架
角钢货架
货架
中量型货架
模具货架
贯通货架
悬臂货架
轻型货架
中型货架
货位货架
阁楼货架
汽配库货架
搬运车
货架
工具柜
工作台
塑料托盘
中型货架
角钢货架
轻型货架
重型货架
托盘
仓储笼
塑料托盘
货位货架
钢托盘
中型货架
中型货架
悬臂货架
抽屉货架
登高车
料箱
堆垛架
轻型货架
钢制托盘
4S店货架
模具架
贯通货架
辊轮货架
悬臂货架
阁楼货架
横梁货架
工具柜
仓储笼
角钢货架
中型货架
中量A型货架
流利式货架
线棒货架
悬臂货架
阁楼货架
登高车
物流台车
置物架
钢托盘
线棒货架
轻型货架
中型货架
仓储笼
物流台车
手推车
托盘
钢托盘
钢制料箱
堆垛架
悬臂货架
横梁货架
中型货架
轻型货架
贯通货架
纸托盘
货架
货架
货架
货架
货架
工具柜
角钢货架
塑料托盘
轻型货架
料箱
中型货架
中型货架
钢托盘
工作台
重型货架
仓储笼
货架
货架
货架
塑料托盘
钢托盘
仓储笼
重型货架
中型货架
轻型货架
手推车
堆垛架
物流台车
料箱
工作台
工具柜
货架
托盘
仓储笼
工具柜
工作台
塑料托盘
登高车
货架
货架
货架
货架
货架
货架
货架
货架
货架
轻型货架
悬臂货架
钢托盘
仓储笼
物流台车
工作台
工具柜
塑料托盘
轻型货架
悬臂货架
塑料托盘
仓储笼
物流台车
工作台
工具车
钢托盘
轻型货架
重型货架
仓储笼
钢制托盘
工作台
货架
轻型货架
中型货架
仓储笼
钢托盘
工具柜
角钢货架
悬臂货架
工作台
塑料托盘
货架
重型货架
角钢货架
托盘
仓储笼
料箱
工具柜
工作台
物流台车
堆垛架
登高车
货架
托盘货架
角钢货架
钢托盘
仓储笼
料箱
货架
工具柜
手推车
木托盘
货架
中型货架
重型货架
悬臂货架
工作台
塑料托盘
钢托盘
仓储笼
Note to energy_saver:
You may disagree with my statements, but it is not because I represent so-called "Big Oil" in any way.
I am not employed by BP, nor ever have been, nor do I have any relationship with them whatsoever.
My fellowship at The Cleveland Foundation was funded by BP as a philanthropic gift long before my tenure there.
I heartily encourage comments to my blog postings, even opposing views. However, I prefer that dissenting opinions be kept at a professional level, debating on the substance of the issues and premises/assumptions that are used, rather than assuming any hidden agenda or evil intent on my part.
Post a Comment
<< Home