Energy Efficient Lighting
Two of our close friends have ‘encouraged’ us to switch to energy efficient lighting. For a long time I’ve been reluctant for two reasons:
1. I’m stubborn. I like my incandescent lighting and I don’t want anyone (including the Government) telling me I can’t have it.
2. The few examples I had seen of these new bulbs left me wanting more. The first was a 75-watt “equivalent” compact flourescent (CFL) I had installed at our prior house. That bulb emitted a strange white-ish glow, flickered, and surely was dimmer than a standard 75 watt incandescent. The second was a series of lights installed in a fixture at our friend’s house. Those were 30-watt “equivalent” bulbs. All I’ll say is that they reminded me of prison lighting - a term that I have frequently used to describe these types of lights.
While I have disagreements with the Government mandating energy efficient lighting - it is nonetheless a reality. By 2012, nearly all bulbs will have to use 70% less energy. So, I figured I better read up a bit.
A simple Google search on energy efficient bulbs yields more information than I can digest. In the abundance of information, I found two articles worth reading.
The first is Earth Easy’s article on efficient lighting. In that article, they provide a buyers guide for efficient lighting and some additional interesting facts. They note that CFLs use 50-80% less energy than incandescents, and that vendors are beginning to overcome some of the initial limitations of these bulbs. For instance, Phillips has introduced a dimmable CFL, previously a major gripe about this technology.
The second is Julie Scelfo’s article in the New York Times. Her article gives an overview of the Government’s lighting efficiency laws, the general gripes from lighting designers, and an honest review of several compact flourescent lights.
We are going to make the switch to CFLs soon. I’m going to take some before and after pictures and post them here.
What do you think? Have you made the switch to energy efficient lighting? If so, what type of lighting do you use?
New Poll: This week’s poll is about energy efficient lighting. Vote!
January 17th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
The problem I have is that many of my bulbs are visible, such as in ceiling fans and on the vanity in my bathrooms. The new bulbs aren’t appealing if they’re in plain sight.
If I could overcome that, I’d convert.
January 18th, 2008 at 6:13 am
I have CFLs in my living room chandelier. I probably should’ve bought brighter bulbs; these don’t seem as bright as the incandescents they replaced. It’s a little annoying that the CFLs come on dim and get brighter as they “warm up”. In spite of that, I plan to replace my regular light bulbs with CFLs as they burn out or the fixtures are replaced.
January 18th, 2008 at 8:34 am
i’m all about being energy efficient but i still feel like i’m giving up way to much to accommodate these bulbs. i have several installed in my house but use incandescent when i really need the light. i hope most of our complaints will be address in the next few generations of CFLs.
January 18th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Jon,
I definitely agree that the circular tubes of compacts are not appealing. They have made some CFLs that are encased in a bulb, but those tend to be very, very dim (at least the last ones I saw were). Hopefully as the new law takes effect, we’ll see some new technologies. I’ll try to keep up on new developments and post updates here as they come along.
January 18th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Jayne,
My experience is that you have to buy a higher “equivalent” wattage to get the same amount of light — and I’m not really sure why, since the lumens measurements are supposed to be the same. The nice thing is that fixtures that are rated for 60 watt bulbs can handle a “150 watt equivalent” CFL.
Ethan,
Given the rate technology in the bulb department is moving, my guess is many of these problems will be solved. I think alot of people feel like they’re giving a lot up.
January 19th, 2008 at 7:50 am
I agree with jayne. We also have a CFL in our living room that tends to take a couple minutes to warm-up. If the bulb needs higher equivalent wattage, AND requires annoying time prep for the needed light emissions, can it still really be energy efficient? I don’t really know the stats but just thought I’d chuck that out there.
January 19th, 2008 at 7:58 am
Bryan,
The raw numbers would suggest that even with a slightly longer warm-up time and buying a higher equivalent wattage, there is still tremendous savings from CFLs. For instance, a 150-watt equivalent bulb runs around 40-50 watts, and is *really* as bright as a 100-watt bulb, IMO.
There are some folks who have said that certain locations don’t make sense for CFLs, particularly closets, because they take time to warm-up, and you only use them for a very short period of time. Plus, CFLs have shorter lives when they are turned off and on frequently.
January 25th, 2008 at 5:08 am
I have recently repaired our driveway floodlights and decided to go with dual 150 watt rated CFLs. They are just as big as their regular counterparts and use less than half the wattage as running true 150 watt bulbs. The warmup time certainly is a downside for CFLs used as exterior lighting. The warmup time is considerably longer in colder weather. However, once they are fully lit, the lights are very bright, illuminating the driveway well.