C3 Energy Alternate Energy Update

Hello all,

Well, I’ve been away from the blog for quite a while, and I appologize for that.  I’ve had about a million things keeping me busy.  And, I’ve also had some technical problems with the WordPress software.  I hope to be publishing more regularly.

I thought you might find this of interest. It comes from the US Govt
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Division.

http://www.eere.energy.gov/news/news_detail.cfm/news_id=11500

You can get their RSS news feed at: http://www.eere.energy.gov/news/rss/enn.xml

Here’s a 2002 article about lighting I found after a Google search:

http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/info/documents/pdfs/lmc_vol1_final.pdf

Here’s a quote from the 1st article:

“The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, signed into law on
December 19th, phases out the use of inefficient incandescent lights and
imposes improved energy efficiency standards on a wide variety of products.
According to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE),
the new standards for light bulbs require them to use about 20%-30% less
energy by 2014, while requiring DOE to set standards for light bulbs to cut
their energy use at least 35% by 2020. The ACEEE notes that the initial
targets could be met with compact fluorescent lamps and advanced
incandescent lamps that combine halogen capsules with infrared-reflective
coatings, while the 2020 standards will encourage the use of LEDs
(light-emitting diodes) and other advanced lighting technologies.”

Now, I don’t have a problem with this concept, I think it’s a great
idea. However, I do have a problem with the implications based on the
current state of technology. Based on the 2nd article I quoted above,
lighting accounts for about 8% of our total electricity usage. Now, my
house is a late 80’s vintage, inexpensive, all electric, and very
inefficient model. Now, that’s not the way I want it, but it’s what I’ve
got. I spend about $240 / month on electricity, which is $2880 / year. If
my lighting is 8% of that, then it costs me $230 / year to light the
home. Now, if I were to save 60% of that, I would save $138 / year.

So, let’s see if it’s worth it to do the retrofits. The most viable option
is compact fluorescent. Now, I’ll admit that I got all excited about 2
years ago about these things, and have even considered selling them. I’m
not so excited any more, for reasons I’ll discuss. They cost about $1.65 /
bulb (compared to Edison bulbs at $0.40 / bulb.) Now, the lighting report
says the average home has about 39 bulbs. I think mine has about 25
bulbs. I’ve already replaced some of my fixtures with circular fluorescent
ones. So, it will cost me about $44 (including tax) to replace all the
Edison bulbs which are left. This is much better than the $5-6 / bulb
these were only recently. So, from a simple economics point of view, I
could save about $94 / year by replacing the bulbs. That doesn’t get me
too excited, but it’s still a reasonable deal. Now, for the problems.

A) First, I simply don’t believe the lifetime claims they put on these
bulbs. They say 10 times a standard bulb. Based on my experience with a
number of these bulbs, I say rubbish. I figure they may last 2-3 times
what an incandescent bulb does (for 4 times the cost), but not 10
times. So, I would anticipate replacing these CFL’s every year. Not only
that, they may all start failing at once, requiring a lump sum investment.

B) They don’t like control circuits, like photocells and motion activated
fixtures. This type of use burns these bulbs out rapidly.

C) They don’t like dimmers. There have been some “dimmable” fluorescent
bulbs on the market. They were much more expensive and much less
reliable. Also, their dimming range usually cuts off at 20-30% of maximum
brightness. Most manufacturers are no longer making them due to
problems. So, in my living room, my dining room, and my bathroom, I cannot
use CFL’s or I have to give up the ability to dim the lights.

D) Finally, what may be the biggest problem of all. That is
disposal. CFL bulbs are a complex combination of plastic, glass, metals,
chemicals, and electronic components. None of these things are
biodegradable (neither are Edison bulbs), and some are hazardous. The most
problematic is mercury. As far as I know, all fluorescent bulbs have
mercury, and CFL’s are no exception. Did you know that there are about 14
steps to clean up the mess of a CFL if you break one? Do you know what the
steps are? Me neither. Not only that, if we have 100 million homes
replacing 30 light bulbs per year, then we’ll have 3 BILLION light bulbs,
containing mercury, going into the waste stream every year. Do you REALLY
think those are going to be recycled? I don’t think that converting the
country to CFL’s is a good idea.

There you have it. The lowdown on the not quite so attractive compact
fluorescent light bulb. Now, what about the other alternatives? Well,
there are enhanced halogen bulbs, which I haven’t studied to any great
degree. However, when was the last time you replaced the “bulb module” in
your car’s headlights? They usually run $10 - $20 / bulb. In most
applications I’ve dealt with, halogen bulbs seem to last for LESS time than
Edison bulbs. Doesn’t sound like a great alternative.

Finally, there are LED’s. These hold great promise, and I’m quite
fascinated by them. But, I’m not buying them just yet. I think CCrane
company sells a 60 W equivalent bulb for $100. Ouch! Of course, the
prices will come down.

For the moment, I may just continue buying Edison bulbs. Does anybody know
of a solution that actually works and is practical?

Sincerely,

Ron Frazier

The permalink for this article is: http://www.c3energy.com/blog/wordpress/2008/05/01/say-good-bye-to-your-edison-incandescent-bulbs/

You can follow comments for this article with the RSS feed.