15

I just moved into my own apartment, and I've taken quite an interest in being as energy-efficient as possible (simply because, hey - I'm paying the electricity bill now!).

I've been wondering - are Compact fluorescent lamp (CFLs) as efficient as they claim to be? I detest the light that they give off, but if they're significantly cheaper to use (especially in contrast to how expensive they are in comparison to normal bulbs), then I might be persuaded to pick up a few.

I work almost constantly, so I probably don't use more than 3 or 4 hours of electric light daily, anyway.

So, is it worth the investment (and inconvenience)? I'm just a bit skeptical of something that claims to save me money by being 4-6 times the cost of the alternative.

Sklivvz
  • 78,578
  • 29
  • 321
  • 428
eckza
  • 253
  • 1
  • 5
  • 1
    New generation CFLs have much more cozy light than the old ones. Be sure to get a [“warm” glowing bulb](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CFBulbs.jpg). They are more expensive though. – Konrad Rudolph Apr 12 '11 at 11:48
  • 1
    I actually did a test of this with my father when they were first becoming widely available. The answer was, yes. And I suspect even more so today. However, the reality is that other bulbs give off heat, so if you are in a cold climate where you always have the heat on, your heater will have to work that much harder, offsetting the cost. Also, Nice avatar. – DampeS8N Apr 12 '11 at 12:09
  • They will last longer and use less electricity. The electricity is quantifiable, given your electricity rate. The lasting longer is going to be more difficult to measure. – David Thornley Apr 12 '11 at 12:20
  • 3
    It will make a difference on your *light* bill yes. But if you have electric heating, it may not make a big difference on your *electricity* bill as you may have to heat more instead. If you live in a hot climate and use air conditioners a lot, low energy lightbulbs of any sort should be a good investment (although I prefer LED, as they are less full of poisons). – Lennart Regebro Apr 12 '11 at 12:32
  • @Lennart, you should really make that an answer instead of a comment. – Kevin Apr 12 '11 at 20:36
  • I believe i have seen studies that show that CFLs also dim over time. Each cycle reduces both their brightness and lifespan, so a simple test of "I bought a new one, it produces X lumens on Y watts, therefore it saves me $Z over its lifetime as compared to an incandescent with the same lumen rating" are too simplistic. After a period of time shorter than the advertised life, the bulb may be too dim to be practical, and would then need to be replaced. – fred Apr 12 '11 at 20:48
  • @Kevin: Then I would get spanked by the moderators for not including references to scientific papers showing that. Facts and logic are not reliable sources on this site. – Lennart Regebro Apr 13 '11 at 07:26
  • @Lennart Regebro Regarding heating: I got an extremely awesome deal on my apartment, and heat is rolled in to my (extremely low) rent, so that's not an issue. – eckza Apr 13 '11 at 13:22
  • @kivetros: Then low energy lamps will save you money, and Rusty's answer is relevant for you. At least if you bring the lamps with you when you move. :) – Lennart Regebro Apr 13 '11 at 13:25

1 Answers1

12

If saving ~$500usd/year is significant then yes.

CFL v LED v INC

Source: Las Vegas Strip: An Energy Consumption Nightmare

Other tips:

  1. Smarter Switches
    Install motion-detecting switches that turn off lights when a room is empty.
  2. CPU Myth
    Shut down your PC if it will be idle more than 2 hours. The idea that turning a computer off and on shortens its life is a relic of the mainframe era.
  3. Bright Idea
    Use compact fluorescent bulbs. New models illuminate just as well as incandescents -- and operate on just over one quarter of the power.
  4. Cold Truth
    Keep your refrigerator or freezer full; it operates more efficiently that way. Low on food? Keep a container of ice in the freezer.

Source: Popular Mechanics

Rusty
  • 14,877
  • 4
  • 55
  • 49
  • 2
    Keep in mind that CFL lifetimes are *greatly* reduced when used for brief periods of time, but often. While constant evening-time lighting is generally on for the duration of evening activities, in places like the bathroom, where the bulb is on for 1-10 minutes at a time (but can turn on 10-20 times a day depending on the number of tenants), the energy benefit of switching to CFL is offset by the shortened lifespan. – crasic Apr 13 '11 at 02:03
  • 1
    Huh? For incandescent they quote 3285 KWh per year is about 9 KWh per day or 400W of lights turned on for 24 hours (or more lights for a shorter time). If you simply turn lights out when not in the room, doesn't that seem like a bit much? – Paul Apr 13 '11 at 04:06
  • @Paul: Yeah, that's a bit high. They also forgot to lower the heating bill by 9 KWh per day. :) – Lennart Regebro Apr 13 '11 at 07:31
  • Just the kind of answer I was looking for. Thank you very much - you've made up my mind. – eckza Apr 13 '11 at 13:22
  • @Lennart: Yeah, because you pay for heating in the summertime... – Ernie Jul 26 '11 at 23:49
  • 1
    @Ernie: In some places you do, yeah. The point being that this chart is only valid in places where you never heat (and for that matter, never use air conditioning). – Lennart Regebro Jul 27 '11 at 03:26
  • 1
    This answer is highly misleading: The chart assumes 150 bulb hours per day, while the question suggests 3 to 4 bulb hours per day. So the electricity savings will be closer to $10/year than $500 – eigensheep Mar 22 '17 at 11:25
  • @eigensheep: That answer is also six years old -- we should be looking at LED's today, which are even more efficient... – DevSolar May 05 '17 at 09:16