Does replacing incandescant light bulbs with energy saver bulbs actually reduce CO2 and save money?

Question

Does replacing incandescant light bulbs with energy saver bulbs actually reduce CO2 and save money?

Answer 1

~~~~

Don't drop them. Hazardous material. Idiotic to put them in homes.

Answer 2

Yes.  It only takes about 1/2 the wattage to give a comparable number of lumen's.  Over half of an incandescent bulbs output is heat!  They are very inefficient.  They also have a much shorter lifetime.

Answer 3

Yes it will save you money and last alot longer.

CFLs save up to 75% less energy because they operate at lower temperatures and they last up to 10 times longer than incandescent light bulbs. To me this sounds like a no brainier. I save money on my electric bill and they last a lot longer. I know they cost more upfront, but in the life span of the bulb it is a lot cheaper to use CFL's and recycle it than use the halogen bulbs.

Everyone is right they do contain Mercury, but for a few dollars you can recycle them through the mail. It is still cheaper to buy and recycle a CFL. Than to use a halogen light bulb.

I go to https://veoliaes-ts.com/RecyclePak/Recyc... to recycle my light bulbs. It is fastest and easiest way I have found.

Answer 4

They'll save a little bit of money but they'll make virtually no difference in CO2 emissions because the manufacturing process uses a lot more energy than for incandescent bulbs.

Answer 5

incandescant light bulbs give u  about 3% light and 97% heat. Replacing that light with energy saver, 10%/90%, lights will give more light and less heat, and will make your electric furnace run more if its cold outside. I assume your room temperature is set by thermostat. Energy saver give most payback in savings if used indoors when its hot outside and you run your AC system in the house. And/or you use energy saver on lights outdoors. About the CO2, it will matter, (less CO2 with energy saver) if you heat your house with bio fuel (firewood etc)  The instead of electricity. CO2 from burning biofuel doesnt count because it's already in the CO2 system. I think an extra blanket in your bed and a lower room temperature will save more energy than energy saving light bulbs.

BTW try LED light bulbs, about 50%/50% light/heat. Last forever and give 10-15 times more light for the money. They are still very expensive, and do not really give all the light the manufacturer promise. I put 8 (8x35$) recessed "50w" in my ceiling and I had to replace them with Halogen 5%/95%, because they didnt meet promised light efficiancy. I still think LED's are the way to go in the future. In a couple of years  prizes will be a fraction of today's.

Answer 6

Indeed they do. The energy saver compact flourescent bulbs (CFLs) will last longer and consume way less energy. They indirectly reduce CO2 by reducing the energy that is needed for the bulbs to produce light. You won't have enough money to buy a new car, but you shouldn't have to change the bulbs as often and your energy bill might be a few bucks lower each month.

Answer 7

They do reduce the power needed to run that light source which will lower the CO2 emissions by half, but the truth is your light use very very light power. You fridge and freezer use the most on a whole. A stove and dryer at anytime it's on followed by a computer and a TV. The amount of CO2 saved is not enough to offset the CO2 meter. The money saved is totally BS as the cost of energy has risen to world record highs, countering any saves you dreamt of or the package claimed. Energy cost has gone up simply because people turn down the furnaces and use the electric appliances less, this call for less demand and then the price rises to ensure the same profit margin as the year earlier. You need energy and can only get it from at most 3 places but usually just one. It's called a monopoly or a cartel. One incandescent light at 60watts only costs about 15 cents per month if on 24 hours each day, so you do the math on savings of 50% on 15 cents, not enough to get a trip from Vancouver centre to Surrey even after a decade. The CO2 savings is about the itty bitty same as the money. Those bulbs actually have more harmful stuff in them. They are flourescent bulbs that NEED mercury in each one. You've heard of mercury poison haven't you all? The bulbs do burn out as regulations and company desires it to be right? So what landfill will we find that mercury in for that tiny little savings in CO2 and money?

PS: you might want to run a spell checker on your question, as incandescant is spelt incandescent and as that is the entire basis of your question, so it should be spelt correctly!