Those Lightbulbs again

[malchior]

Here's what an environmental health expert from Harvard has to say about CFL breakage in the home. Link.

Your source is as biased as junkscience.com and Mr Milloy. So I will ignore it as usless, as you claim Milloys opinions are.

How is it biased? Can you show that she takes money from Greenpeace or Al Gore? Unlike Mr. Milloy who has among his contributors ExxonMobil and other energy concerns.

[The Meal]

Here's what an environmental health expert from Harvard has to say about CFL breakage in the home. Link.

Your source is as biased as junkscience.com and Mr Milloy. So I will ignore it as usless, as you claim Milloys opinions are.

Leaving behind the validity of the source for a moment, I don't see what's wrong with the "back of the envelope calculation:"

A CFL containing 5 mg of mercury breaks in your child’s bedroom that has a volume of about 25 m3 (which corresponds to a medium sized bedroom). The entire 5 mg of mercury vaporizes immediately (an unlikely occurrence), resulting in an airborne mercury concentration in this room of 0.2 mg/m3. This concentration will decrease with time, as air in the room leaves and is replaced by air from outside or from a different room. As a result, concentrations of mercury in the room will likely approach zero after about an hour or so.

Under these relatively conservative assumptions, this level and duration of mercury exposure is not likely to be dangerous, as it is lower than the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standard of 0.05 mg/m3 of metallic mercury vapor averaged over eight hours. [To equate these values, we could estimate the average indoor airborne mercury concentration for 8 hours, beginning post-spill at an estimated starting value of 0.2 mg/m3 and decreasing from there. If one assumes the the air exchanges completely in one hour (a fairly standard assumption), then the 8-hour average concentration would be 0.025 mg/m3.]

Can you help me determine where this math has gone wrong?

Returning to the issue of the validity of the source, what prompts you to say that this is a useless link? I'm not following.

~Neal

[malchior]

Returning to the issue of the validity of the source, what prompts you to say that this is a useless link? I'm not following.

~Neal

Don't bother with logic...he's just upset with me.

[The Meal]

His being upset with you shouldn't hamper his ability to hold a conversation with me, I wouldn't think.

~Neal

[brettmcd]

Here's what an environmental health expert from Harvard has to say about CFL breakage in the home. Link.

Your source is as biased as junkscience.com and Mr Milloy. So I will ignore it as usless, as you claim Milloys opinions are.

Leaving behind the validity of the source for a moment, I don't see what's wrong with the "back of the envelope calculation:"

A CFL containing 5 mg of mercury breaks in your child’s bedroom that has a volume of about 25 m3 (which corresponds to a medium sized bedroom). The entire 5 mg of mercury vaporizes immediately (an unlikely occurrence), resulting in an airborne mercury concentration in this room of 0.2 mg/m3. This concentration will decrease with time, as air in the room leaves and is replaced by air from outside or from a different room. As a result, concentrations of mercury in the room will likely approach zero after about an hour or so.

Under these relatively conservative assumptions, this level and duration of mercury exposure is not likely to be dangerous, as it is lower than the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standard of 0.05 mg/m3 of metallic mercury vapor averaged over eight hours. [To equate these values, we could estimate the average indoor airborne mercury concentration for 8 hours, beginning post-spill at an estimated starting value of 0.2 mg/m3 and decreasing from there. If one assumes the the air exchanges completely in one hour (a fairly standard assumption), then the 8-hour average concentration would be 0.025 mg/m3.]

Can you help me determine where this math has gone wrong?

Returning to the issue of the validity of the source, what prompts you to say that this is a useless link? I'm not following.

~Neal

The same type of reasons that Malichor claims Milloy must be biased and useless. Malichor thinks that just because someone has energy concerns and exxon mobile as contributors they are somehow automatically incapable of being believed on a subject. This link is so obviously an environmentally themed web site that the same logic would dictate that they would also be biased to the other side, and incapable of being believed on this subject.

[Eightball]

Here's what an environmental health expert from Harvard has to say about CFL breakage in the home. Link.

Your source is as biased as junkscience.com and Mr Milloy. So I will ignore it as usless, as you claim Milloys opinions are.

Leaving behind the validity of the source for a moment, I don't see what's wrong with the "back of the envelope calculation:"

A CFL containing 5 mg of mercury breaks in your child’s bedroom that has a volume of about 25 m3 (which corresponds to a medium sized bedroom). The entire 5 mg of mercury vaporizes immediately (an unlikely occurrence), resulting in an airborne mercury concentration in this room of 0.2 mg/m3. This concentration will decrease with time, as air in the room leaves and is replaced by air from outside or from a different room. As a result, concentrations of mercury in the room will likely approach zero after about an hour or so.

Under these relatively conservative assumptions, this level and duration of mercury exposure is not likely to be dangerous, as it is lower than the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standard of 0.05 mg/m3 of metallic mercury vapor averaged over eight hours. [To equate these values, we could estimate the average indoor airborne mercury concentration for 8 hours, beginning post-spill at an estimated starting value of 0.2 mg/m3 and decreasing from there. If one assumes the the air exchanges completely in one hour (a fairly standard assumption), then the 8-hour average concentration would be 0.025 mg/m3.]

Can you help me determine where this math has gone wrong?

Returning to the issue of the validity of the source, what prompts you to say that this is a useless link? I'm not following.

~Neal

The same type of reasons that Malichor claims Milloy must be biased and useless. Malichor thinks that just because someone has energy concerns and exxon mobile as contributors they are somehow automatically incapable of being believed on a subject. This link is so obviously an environmentally themed web site that the same logic would dictate that they would also be biased to the other side, and incapable of being believed on this subject.

Wait one second brett. Wouldn't an environmental site be even more concerned over the potential mercury issue you've brought up? Wouldn't that environmental issue be subjected to even more scrutiny?

[brettmcd]

Here's what an environmental health expert from Harvard has to say about CFL breakage in the home. Link.

Your source is as biased as junkscience.com and Mr Milloy. So I will ignore it as usless, as you claim Milloys opinions are.

Leaving behind the validity of the source for a moment, I don't see what's wrong with the "back of the envelope calculation:"

A CFL containing 5 mg of mercury breaks in your child’s bedroom that has a volume of about 25 m3 (which corresponds to a medium sized bedroom). The entire 5 mg of mercury vaporizes immediately (an unlikely occurrence), resulting in an airborne mercury concentration in this room of 0.2 mg/m3. This concentration will decrease with time, as air in the room leaves and is replaced by air from outside or from a different room. As a result, concentrations of mercury in the room will likely approach zero after about an hour or so.

Under these relatively conservative assumptions, this level and duration of mercury exposure is not likely to be dangerous, as it is lower than the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standard of 0.05 mg/m3 of metallic mercury vapor averaged over eight hours. [To equate these values, we could estimate the average indoor airborne mercury concentration for 8 hours, beginning post-spill at an estimated starting value of 0.2 mg/m3 and decreasing from there. If one assumes the the air exchanges completely in one hour (a fairly standard assumption), then the 8-hour average concentration would be 0.025 mg/m3.]

Can you help me determine where this math has gone wrong?

Returning to the issue of the validity of the source, what prompts you to say that this is a useless link? I'm not following.

~Neal

The same type of reasons that Malichor claims Milloy must be biased and useless. Malichor thinks that just because someone has energy concerns and exxon mobile as contributors they are somehow automatically incapable of being believed on a subject. This link is so obviously an environmentally themed web site that the same logic would dictate that they would also be biased to the other side, and incapable of being believed on this subject.

Wait one second brett. Wouldn't an environmental site be even more concerned over the potential mercury issue you've brought up? Wouldn't that environmental issue be subjected to even more scrutiny?

No.

[ChrisGwinn]

Environmentalists love toxic chemicals in the home. It's a well-known fact.

[Mr. Fed]

Don't environmentalists routinely oppose ostensibly green measures like solar or wind installations when they have negative effects? I can see an argument that they would exaggerate the environmental impact of a lightbulb, or have a hare-brained cost-benefit analysis about the need to buy one. But under what logic would environmentalists conceal that a bulb is an environmental hazard?

[brettmcd]

Environmentalists love toxic chemicals in the home. It's a well-known fact.

Dont think that was ever said by anyone here Chris.

[ChrisGwinn]

Environmentalists love toxic chemicals in the home. It's a well-known fact.

Dont think that was ever said by anyone here Chris.

That made me laugh out loud.

[brettmcd]

Don't environmentalists routinely oppose ostensibly green measures like solar or wind installations when they have negative effects? I can see an argument that they would exaggerate the environmental impact of a lightbulb, or have a hare-brained cost-benefit analysis about the need to buy one. But under what logic would environmentalists conceal that a bulb is an environmental hazard?

To fit into the current environmental idea that global warming is the only environmental hazard they want to consider. Other health and environmental impacts will be ignored to fit into that narrow view.

[brettmcd]

Environmentalists love toxic chemicals in the home. It's a well-known fact.

Dont think that was ever said by anyone here Chris.

That made me laugh out loud.

Well still wondering why you want to claim something that had not been said by anyone in this arguement. Or do you have no point again?

[Mr. Fed]

Don't environmentalists routinely oppose ostensibly green measures like solar or wind installations when they have negative effects? I can see an argument that they would exaggerate the environmental impact of a lightbulb, or have a hare-brained cost-benefit analysis about the need to buy one. But under what logic would environmentalists conceal that a bulb is an environmental hazard?

To fit into the current environmental idea that global warming is the only environmental hazard they want to consider. Other health and environmental impacts will be ignored to fit into that narrow view.

Examples? Citations?

[brettmcd]

Don't environmentalists routinely oppose ostensibly green measures like solar or wind installations when they have negative effects? I can see an argument that they would exaggerate the environmental impact of a lightbulb, or have a hare-brained cost-benefit analysis about the need to buy one. But under what logic would environmentalists conceal that a bulb is an environmental hazard?

To fit into the current environmental idea that global warming is the only environmental hazard they want to consider. Other health and environmental impacts will be ignored to fit into that narrow view.

Examples? Citations?

Of what? That people and researchers will ignore things that dont fit into their own view or study? You dont need citations to know that happens all the time. The point I was making is that using the same reasons that were used to Milloys article useless can be used to call this article useless in the same way.

[ChrisGwinn]

Environmentalists love toxic chemicals in the home. It's a well-known fact.

Dont think that was ever said by anyone here Chris.

That made me laugh out loud.

Well still wondering why you want to claim something that had not been said by anyone in this arguement. Or do you have no point again?

When you quote someone as saying something, and then say nobody said it, it's funny.

[The Meal]

Don't environmentalists routinely oppose ostensibly green measures like solar or wind installations when they have negative effects?

Definitely. When I worked in the wind-energy field, the enviornmentalists were the *worst* when it came to things like the occassional California Condor nesting in the towers (and ending up getting brained because they couldn't successfully navigate the spinning turbine blades). I don't recall the figures any longer, but my recollection was that birds were getting KOed by wind turbines by the tens every year. I'm sure Enough has a better grasp for that situation, but for a niave 23-year old (me) it was eye-opening that no matter what you're doing for the world, there will be a community of people out there to bitch and complain about it.

I can see an argument that they would exaggerate the environmental impact of a lightbulb, or have a hare-brained cost-benefit analysis about the need to buy one. But under what logic would environmentalists conceal that a bulb is an environmental hazard?

To fit into the current environmental idea that global warming is the only environmental hazard they want to consider. Other health and environmental impacts will be ignored to fit into that narrow view.

First, is there evidence that that's the MO behind the site that malchior linked? (It's an honest question — I didn't get that vibe when I surfed it for a little bit, but I'm open to evidence presented to the opposite conclusion.) Second, is there evidence to this Harvard professor being inclined to only think of the energy considerations to the detriment of the other enviornmental impacts (I will fully admit that I don't know this professors' biases). Third, I'm still not seeing a rebuttal to the specific "back of the envelope" scenario. The scenario seems unbiased in that it's a pretty simple "textbook" solution to the issue (i.e., I don't see any bias in the solution as presented).

This is an interesting topic to me, as I'm trying to decide on which side of the issue I fall so that I may have an intelligent discussion with the rest of my family.

Thanks, OO.

~Neal

[noxiousdog]

Don't environmentalists routinely oppose ostensibly green measures like solar or wind installations when they have negative effects? I can see an argument that they would exaggerate the environmental impact of a lightbulb, or have a hare-brained cost-benefit analysis about the need to buy one. But under what logic would environmentalists conceal that a bulb is an environmental hazard?

To fit into the current environmental idea that global warming is the only environmental hazard they want to consider. Other health and environmental impacts will be ignored to fit into that narrow view.

Like nuke plants?

[Eightball]

Don't environmentalists routinely oppose ostensibly green measures like solar or wind installations when they have negative effects? I can see an argument that they would exaggerate the environmental impact of a lightbulb, or have a hare-brained cost-benefit analysis about the need to buy one. But under what logic would environmentalists conceal that a bulb is an environmental hazard?

To fit into the current environmental idea that global warming is the only environmental hazard they want to consider. Other health and environmental impacts will be ignored to fit into that narrow view.

Like nuke plants?

Or deforestation, overfishing, toxins and genetic engineering in addition to global warming and nuclear concerns?

Oh wait. I'm just quoting the front page of Greenpeace, in their issues section.

I guess they're not real environmentalists, eh Brett?

[The Meal]

Don't environmentalists routinely oppose ostensibly green measures like solar or wind installations when they have negative effects? I can see an argument that they would exaggerate the environmental impact of a lightbulb, or have a hare-brained cost-benefit analysis about the need to buy one. But under what logic would environmentalists conceal that a bulb is an environmental hazard?

To fit into the current environmental idea that global warming is the only environmental hazard they want to consider. Other health and environmental impacts will be ignored to fit into that narrow view.

Like nuke plants?

I almost brought this up as well (as my background also encompasses a few years at a nuclear power plant), but I didn't want to derail the thread with a different heated topic.

~Neal

[malchior]

His being upset with you shouldn't hamper his ability to hold a conversation with me, I wouldn't think.

~Neal

It was more a prediction that no actual conversation would happen, since his position wasn't couched in logic or any demonstrable fact and was more a transparently feeble attack on the poster of the link.

[brettmcd]

His being upset with you shouldn't hamper his ability to hold a conversation with me, I wouldn't think.

~Neal

It was more a prediction that no actual conversation would happen, since his position wasn't couched in logic or any demonstrable fact and was more a transparently feeble attack on the poster of the link.

It was much more about your feeble dismissal of an article just because you didnt like or agree with the person who wrote it. But I wouldnt expect you to understand that.

[The Meal]

His being upset with you shouldn't hamper his ability to hold a conversation with me, I wouldn't think.

~Neal

It was more a prediction that no actual conversation would happen, since his position wasn't couched in logic or any demonstrable fact and was more a transparently feeble attack on the poster of the link.

Right, but continued comments about brettmcd keep him from addressing the actual issues being discussed in the thread. Talking about the diversion is much easier than talking about the meat. I'd like to focus on the meat.

~Neal

[malchior]

I personally find the Professor's calculations to be persuasive. The only thing to really argue about there is whether you accept the OSHA industrial standard for your own home, which is a perfectly fair debate. I'm completely CFL'ed now, and really the mercury aspect really doesn't faze me. Also, this thread gave me some awareness how to deal with a broken CFL. Another reason to love the OO.

[Enough]

Don't environmentalists routinely oppose ostensibly green measures like solar or wind installations when they have negative effects? I can see an argument that they would exaggerate the environmental impact of a lightbulb, or have a hare-brained cost-benefit analysis about the need to buy one. But under what logic would environmentalists conceal that a bulb is an environmental hazard?

To fit into the current environmental idea that global warming is the only environmental hazard they want to consider. Other health and environmental impacts will be ignored to fit into that narrow view.

Examples? Citations?

Of what? That people and researchers will ignore things that dont fit into their own view or study? You dont need citations to know that happens all the time. The point I was making is that using the same reasons that were used to Milloys article useless can be used to call this article useless in the same way.

But you have not done that yet. All you have done is raise the possibility they may be biased due to the name of the blog and your quick read. You have yet to detail any actual bias of the blog or the professor. In the OP article's case there has been specific debunking in this thread that has included everything from a much less biased article being offered detailing the situation in the local paper and a link provided to sourcewatch that detailed Milloy's very well known bias. I see no proof presented that Treehugger or the professor is biased to the same extent. If you read the comments posted on the TH article you would see there is also a healthy debate going on in the comments over safety issues of mercury in CFLs. It's not the group think exercise you claim it to be.

[Freezer-TPF-]

I personally find the Professor's calculations to be persuasive. The only thing to really argue about there is whether you accept the OSHA industrial standard for your own home, which is a perfectly fair debate. I'm completely CFL'ed now, and really the mercury aspect really doesn't faze me. Also, this thread gave me some awareness how to deal with a broken CFL. Another reason to love the OO.

Yep, well said.

[The Meal]

Here's how I see this issue, FWIW. In an era of superior illumination technologies, the use of incandescent bulbs is stupid. I oppose stupidity in its many and varied forms and applications.

I would prefer to see this issue addressed through education and effective marketing, so that in greater measure people will simply choose the better technological solution and render incandescence obsolete except for those uses that require heat and ugly, eye-searing light.

I see no value in spending on a governmental regulatory bureaucracy more than the program itself would save through forced conversion, and suspect that that's how prohibition would cash out. ( Also, you don't want a black market on off-white light. )

So it seems to me that this is a textbook case in which market-based solutions would be better, cheaper, more effective. Such solutions would have the added advantage of inculcating values conducive to voluntarily greener behavior on the part of people whose incandescent bulbs were not, finally, prised from their cold, dead fingers. Why change a law, when you can change a culture by adjusting the rudder of its values?

This is an interesting point of view conveyed in a manner which is open to debate. With a nod towards Grund's and nox's discussion later in the thread — folks won't pay the upfront costs without incentives — I do wonder the right way to get people to willingly convert. Some people are short-term thinkers and refuse to balance the full equation.

I have a related pet-issue associated with lighting efficiency. And while the main perpetrators of the dastardly behavior are governments and industries, the individuals are also to blame. And that's non-directed outdoor lighting. Very few light fixtures on the market right now do a good job of directing outdoor lighting to the areas where it is meant to be used, and for many light fixtures up to 75% of the light emitted becomes wasted (only used to "light up the undersides of airplanes and birds"). Can you imagine allowing those levels of inefficiency, especially when adjusting the geometry of the light housing can make such a huge difference?

The fact that certain governments (those listed in the subject line) are becoming aware of the inefficiencies in their lights makes me warm to the idea that eventually the International Dark-Sky Association can gain some worldwide traction. Some folks look at a photo such as this one and think to themselves what a wonder the world is in which they live, but I think about all the poor individuals whose imaginations won't ever be tickled by the wonder of the night sky, of all the energy and dollars wasted world-wide, of the animals affected by inefficient man-made light sources (the sea turtles are but one of many many examples), of the glare from improperly directed light causing night-time accidents, etc. Light pollution is a problem with solutions that only create winners all the way around. But were the solution most efficiently brought about due to government action, I'm sure some folks would complain about a more intrusive government. Yet, this change is best (most quickly, at least) brought about within our local, state, and national agencies.

Folks interested in making this change within the borders are their own homes or apartments would do themselves well to visit http://www.darksky.org There are pages devoted to efficient lighting fixtures (thousands of them), a detailed FAQ, and many other resources.

Don't neglect the outdoors when you're improving the efficiency of your personal lighting.

Today's APOD is breathtaking:

A Dark Sky Over Death Valley
Credit: Dan Duriscoe, U.S. National Park Service

Explanation: This eerie glow over Death Valley is in danger. Scrolling right will show a spectacular view from one of the darkest places left in the continental USA: Death Valley, California. The above 360-degree full-sky panorama is a composite of 30 images taken two years ago in Racetrack Playa. The image has been digitally processed and increasingly stretched at high altitudes to make it rectangular. In the foreground on the image right is an unusually placed rock that was pushed by high winds onto Racetrack Playa after a slick rain. In the background is a majestic night sky, featuring thousands of stars and many constellations. The arch across the middle is the central band of our Milky Way Galaxy. Light pollution is threatening dark skies like this all across the US, and therefore the International Dark-Sky Association and the US National Parks Service are suggesting methods that can protect them.

Photo (large) here:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070508.html

~Neal

[FTWalker]

I agree with you on light pollution, Meal...
I live within the city limits here, and if the night is at all overcast, I can actually read newspaper-size type without any extra light. That's a bit too much.
If I want to do any stargazing, I have to travel at least 20 minutes out to get a decently viewable sky
More efficient fixtures would cure a lot of problems - more light where needed, less wasted -> lower wattage bulbs used to obtain said light -> lower energy usage w/ all resultant benefits = everybody comes out ahead.

[ChrisGwinn]

Two interesting things I ran into when working on replacing my incandescent bulbs with CFL:

In cold climates, in winter, in homes that heat with electricity, switching to CFLs is mostly a wash when talking about saving electricity. The wasted power is wasted as heat, which you need to produce anyway.

Those light fixtures with multiple small flame-shaped bulbs - the ones that look like (or are) the old gas light fixtures converted to use electric bulbs - are going to be a royal pain to convert to CFLs.

[Eightball]

Update on my CFL experience. I purchased a 4 pack from Costco of the bulbs that look more normal, and replaced the old lightbulbs in my kitchen fan lights with them.

The light is good, not fluorescent like you might expect. More natural. They also (unsurprisingly) emit literally no heat.

There is a spool up time of a few seconds to reach full brightness, but it's not bad. The lights start dim and gradually get brighter. And that only happens if you haven't turned the lights on in a few hours.

I really wish I could replace the lights in my living room, but they're decorative sconces, and I rent. Not willing to go there.

[LawBeefaroni]

Two interesting things I ran into when working on replacing my incandescent bulbs with CFL:

In cold climates, in winter, in homes that heat with electricity, switching to CFLs is mostly a wash when talking about saving electricity. The wasted power is wasted as heat, which you need to produce anyway.

Incandescent bulbs are not efficient at producing heat, either. Imagine heating your house with a bunch of toasters. Any heat lost by using CFLs is more than made up with their lower wattage combined with whatever more-efficient-than-incandescent method you use to heat your home.

The light is good, not fluorescent like you might expect. More natural. They also (unsurprisingly) emit literally no heat.

The light isn't bad at all. Different brands vary slightly though, so you probably want to buy in bulk. It can be pretty obvious if you have two different brands next to each other, even if individually they both put out fairly natural looking light.

I'm still waiting on our Condo meeting to get approval to buy the LED bulbs for testing. I think I'll start the back stairwell (the ugly one) and the roof deck.

[ChrisGwinn]

Two interesting things I ran into when working on replacing my incandescent bulbs with CFL:

In cold climates, in winter, in homes that heat with electricity, switching to CFLs is mostly a wash when talking about saving electricity. The wasted power is wasted as heat, which you need to produce anyway.

Incandescent bulbs are not efficient at producing heat, either. Imagine heating your house with a bunch of toasters. Any heat lost by using CFLs is more than made up with their lower wattage combined with whatever more-efficient-than-incandescent method you use to heat your home.

I think you're wrong here. If there are two lightbulbs that output the same amount of visible light, but use different amounts of electricity to do so, the less-efficient one necessarily creates either heat, light outside the visible spectrum, or some other form of energy. Energy doesn't just go away, and inefficient systems nearly always produce extra heat or sound.

[LawBeefaroni]

Two interesting things I ran into when working on replacing my incandescent bulbs with CFL:

In cold climates, in winter, in homes that heat with electricity, switching to CFLs is mostly a wash when talking about saving electricity. The wasted power is wasted as heat, which you need to produce anyway.

Incandescent bulbs are not efficient at producing heat, either. Imagine heating your house with a bunch of toasters. Any heat lost by using CFLs is more than made up with their lower wattage combined with whatever more-efficient-than-incandescent method you use to heat your home.

I think you're wrong here. If there are two lightbulbs that output the same amount of visible light, but use different amounts of electricity to do so, the less-efficient one necessarily creates either heat, light outside the visible spectrum, or some other form of energy. Energy doesn't just go away, and inefficient systems nearly always produce extra heat or sound.

A spot heat source such as a light bulb isn't an efficient way to heat a room/house. You're better off using less energy in your bulbs (with CFLs) and more in your more efficient heating system to heat your house.

[ChrisGwinn]

Two interesting things I ran into when working on replacing my incandescent bulbs with CFL:

In cold climates, in winter, in homes that heat with electricity, switching to CFLs is mostly a wash when talking about saving electricity. The wasted power is wasted as heat, which you need to produce anyway.

Incandescent bulbs are not efficient at producing heat, either. Imagine heating your house with a bunch of toasters. Any heat lost by using CFLs is more than made up with their lower wattage combined with whatever more-efficient-than-incandescent method you use to heat your home.

I think you're wrong here. If there are two lightbulbs that output the same amount of visible light, but use different amounts of electricity to do so, the less-efficient one necessarily creates either heat, light outside the visible spectrum, or some other form of energy. Energy doesn't just go away, and inefficient systems nearly always produce extra heat or sound.

A spot heat source such as a light bulb isn't an efficient way to heat a room/house. You're better off using less energy in your bulbs (with CFLs) and more in your more efficient heating system to heat your house.

CFLs are necessarily a less efficient producer of heat than an electric heater, since they're also producing light. But that's the wrong comparison -- I'm not suggesting that you would use incandescent lights to heat your house. CFLs are more efficient than incandescent lights, in part, because they use a much smaller portion of their input energy to produce heat. Situationally, that heat becomes important when evaluating the overall energy use of an insulated house.

In cold weather/winter situations, switching to CFL will reduce the amount of heat entering your house from lightbulbs, requiring the main source of heat for your house to produce more heat in order to keep your house at the same light/heat level it was at before you replaced your incandescent lights with CFLs. If you're heating with electricity, this will reduce or eliminate the electricity saved by going with CFLs.

Conversely, if you're using AC, the switch to CFLs will cause more electricity savings than you would normally see, since you'll be reducing the amount of heat you need to remove from the system.

[Hiccup]

Two interesting things I ran into when working on replacing my incandescent bulbs with CFL:

In cold climates, in winter, in homes that heat with electricity, switching to CFLs is mostly a wash when talking about saving electricity. The wasted power is wasted as heat, which you need to produce anyway.

Incandescent bulbs are not efficient at producing heat, either. Imagine heating your house with a bunch of toasters. Any heat lost by using CFLs is more than made up with their lower wattage combined with whatever more-efficient-than-incandescent method you use to heat your home.

I think you're wrong here. If there are two lightbulbs that output the same amount of visible light, but use different amounts of electricity to do so, the less-efficient one necessarily creates either heat, light outside the visible spectrum, or some other form of energy. Energy doesn't just go away, and inefficient systems nearly always produce extra heat or sound.

A spot heat source such as a light bulb isn't an efficient way to heat a room/house. You're better off using less energy in your bulbs (with CFLs) and more in your more efficient heating system to heat your house.

CFLs are necessarily a less efficient producer of heat than an electric heater, since they're also producing light. But that's the wrong comparison -- I'm not suggesting that you would use incandescent lights to heat your house. CFLs are more efficient than incandescent lights, in part, because they use a much smaller portion of their input energy to produce heat. Situationally, that heat becomes important when evaluating the overall energy use of an insulated house.

In cold weather/winter situations, switching to CFL will reduce the amount of heat entering your house from lightbulbs, requiring the main source of heat for your house to produce more heat in order to keep your house at the same light/heat level it was at before you replaced your incandescent lights with CFLs. If you're heating with electricity, this will reduce or eliminate the electricity saved by going with CFLs.

Conversely, if you're using AC, the switch to CFLs will cause more electricity savings than you would normally see, since you'll be reducing the amount of heat you need to remove from the system.

Say you replace 4 75w Standard bulbs with 4 20w CFLs. That change out saves roughly 496 kWh per year. The question is now, does it take your electric heating system more or less than 496 kWh per year to compensate for the lack of heat given off by those 4 75w bulbs?

[LawBeefaroni]

Two interesting things I ran into when working on replacing my incandescent bulbs with CFL:

In cold climates, in winter, in homes that heat with electricity, switching to CFLs is mostly a wash when talking about saving electricity. The wasted power is wasted as heat, which you need to produce anyway.

Incandescent bulbs are not efficient at producing heat, either. Imagine heating your house with a bunch of toasters. Any heat lost by using CFLs is more than made up with their lower wattage combined with whatever more-efficient-than-incandescent method you use to heat your home.

I think you're wrong here. If there are two lightbulbs that output the same amount of visible light, but use different amounts of electricity to do so, the less-efficient one necessarily creates either heat, light outside the visible spectrum, or some other form of energy. Energy doesn't just go away, and inefficient systems nearly always produce extra heat or sound.

A spot heat source such as a light bulb isn't an efficient way to heat a room/house. You're better off using less energy in your bulbs (with CFLs) and more in your more efficient heating system to heat your house.

CFLs are necessarily a less efficient producer of heat than an electric heater, since they're also producing light. But that's the wrong comparison -- I'm not suggesting that you would use incandescent lights to heat your house. CFLs are more efficient than incandescent lights, in part, because they use a much smaller portion of their input energy to produce heat. Situationally, that heat becomes important when evaluating the overall energy use of an insulated house.

In cold weather/winter situations, switching to CFL will reduce the amount of heat entering your house from lightbulbs, requiring the main source of heat for your house to produce more heat in order to keep your house at the same light/heat level it was at before you replaced your incandescent lights with CFLs. If you're heating with electricity, this will reduce or eliminate the electricity saved by going with CFLs.

Conversely, if you're using AC, the switch to CFLs will cause more electricity savings than you would normally see, since you'll be reducing the amount of heat you need to remove from the system.

What I'm saying is that any energy savings you get from incandescent bulb kicking out extra heat is lost when you compare the efficiency of a bulb generating heat versus your heating system (which is in use anyway).


No house is a closed system. There will be other factors that make the relative contribution of incandescent bulbs to heating the home insignificant. If your house is insulated well enough that heat from incandescent bulbs is not lost, you ought to worry about suffocating rather than your electric bill. Bulbs do not heat as well as a halfway decent heating system. And I realize you aren't proposing to heat your house with bulbs alone.


This is the main part I disagree with:

Situationally, that heat [from incandescent bulbs that is not generated by CFLs] becomes important when evaluating the overall energy use of an insulated house.

Like I said, the home isn't a closed system. But let's suppose it is, or was close enough. If that were the case, it would be a wash in energy use. CFLs would still be preferable because you could light without heat and vice versa as needed.


I won't even get into analyzing (lumens + heat) / watt though I suspect CFLs would win.

[ChrisGwinn]

I snipped because it was getting bulky... And I'm going to address the individual bits because I'm having a hard time writing multiple paragraphs these days.

What I'm saying is that any energy savings you get from incandescent bulb kicking out extra heat is lost when you compare the efficiency of a bulb generating heat versus your heating system (which is in use anyway).

You don't see any energy savings from using an incandescent bulb. I certainly never meant to claim that.

No house is a closed system. There will be other factors that make the relative contribution of incandescent bulbs to heating the home insignificant. If your house is insulated well enough that heat from incandescent bulbs is not lost, you ought to worry about suffocating rather than your electric bill. Bulbs do not heat as well as a halfway decent heating system. And I realize you aren't proposing to heat your house with bulbs alone.

Well, it depends on how many lights you have (and their wattage), the size of your house, and the amount of insulation you have. My bedroom got hot very quickly when I had 4x100 incandescent lights on.

Your house is going to bleed the same amount of heat regardless of the source of that heat. Keeping a given house a X degrees when the outside temperature is Y degrees is going to require N thermal units/time period. If not-heaters make less, the heater needs to make more. Installing lights that make less waste heat (or appliances, or having fewer people in the house) will increase the load on your furnace, which will reduce electrical savings if you heat with electricity.

I'm tempted to ping Two Sheds and see if he figured out the math from the last time we had this conversation.

This is the main part I disagree with:

Situationally, that heat [from incandescent bulbs that is not generated by CFLs] becomes important when evaluating the overall energy use of an insulated house.

Like I said, the home isn't a closed system. But let's suppose it is, or was close enough. If that were the case, it would be a wash in energy use. CFLs would still be preferable because you could light without heat and vice versa as needed.

It would be mostly a wash in terms of energy use if you are heating your home. Gains would be compounded if you are cooling your home, which I'll have to start doing in a few months.

I'm not trying to argue that you shouldn't use CFLs. Perhaps you missed the part where I mentioned how I ran into this while replacing all my incandescent bulbs with CFLs? It's clearly a win. It's just a bigger win in summer/warm climates than in the winter/cold climates.

I won't even get into analyzing (lumens + heat) / watt though I suspect CFLs would win.

I don't see how they could, unless we're talking about completely different things. Are they emitting less noise? Less light outside the visible spectrum?

Lightbulbs take electricity and turn it into light and heat. If they use less electricity, they need to either emit less light or less heat. CFLs emit less heat, which makes them more efficient producers of light. This is why people buy them. The reduction in heat emission can have an effect on the overall system.

[LawBeefaroni]

A light bulb doesn't heat the same way an electric furnace does. It is less efficient at distributing heat than an electric furnace is. That alone enough. Perfect laws of thermodynamics only work in a closed system.

Bulbs heat fixtures, wires, walls. That heat might be turned into kinetic energy as material expand/contract. It might radiate outside quicker. Who knows. I ran a thought experiment just now and results conclusively prove I'm right.

But the bottom line is that the difference is negligible over the course of a heating season. Hiccup hit it pretty much on the head.

My bedroom got hot very quickly when I had 4x100 incandescent lights on.

Must be nice to sleep in a casino/NASA control center.

Even if you had 4x 100W bulbs, that seems like a lot. One fixture? Would 10x14W CFLs do the job as well? Because that hot bedroom isn't heating the rest of the house.

[The Meal]

Energy use in the two situations would be:

E_incandescent lightbulbs + E_heater vs. E_CF bulbs + E_heater + E_difference required.

If the total energy expended in those two situations was the same, then you'd have this equality:
E_incand bulbs + E_heater = E_CF bulbs + E_heater + E_heater's extra effort, or just
(1- ) E_incand bulbs - E_CF bulbs = E_heater's extra effort

An incandescent bulb generates heat with efficiency = e_bulb. A CF bulb generates heat with efficiency = 0. Your heater generates heat with an efficiency = e_heater.

The total heat generated by any one component = energy used multiplied with efficiency. I.e., h_heater = E_heater * e_heater.

We're trying to get to a situation where the total heat with incandescent bulbs in the house is the same as the total heat with CF bulbs in the house, i.e.,

h_incandescent lightbulbs + h_heater = h_CF bulbs + h_heater + h_heater's extra effort

This is then:
(E_incand bulbs * e_incand bulbs) + (E_heater * e_heater) = (0) + (E_heater + E_heater's extra effort) * e_heater.
(2- ) E_incand bulbs * e_incand bulbs = E_heater's extra effort * e_heater

Put equations 1 & 2 together to get:
( E_CF bulbs + E_extra effort ) * e_incand bulbs = E_extra effort * e_heater, or
E_CF bulbs * e_incand bulbs = E_extra effort * (e_heater - e_incand bulbs), which can be written:

e_incand bulbs = ( E_incand bulbs - E_CF bulbs) / E_incand bulbs * e_heater

In other words, a incandescent light bulb must be less effecient at converting energy into heat than your home furnace by the ratio of your energy savings by switching to the CF bulb divided by the original amount of energy you were putting into incandescent bulbs.

Using hiccup's numbers, if you went from 4 75W bulbs to 4 20W CF's, your furnace would have to be 400/(400-80) = 400/320 = 1.25 more effective at converting energy in to home heating than heating your home through light bulbs.

I'm not buying that. I'm guessing that furnices turn energy in into home heating much better than twice as effectively as light bulbs do the same.

~Neal

[ChrisGwinn]

Say you replace 4 75w Standard bulbs with 4 20w CFLs. That change out saves roughly 496 kWh per year. The question is now, does it take your electric heating system more or less than 496 kWh per year to compensate for the lack of heat given off by those 4 75w bulbs?

Far less. That's not my point.

*edit: I'm just expecting that the energy savings for someone who both heats and cools with electricity would not be evenly distributed throughout the year.