Flourescent bulb fallacy?

Question

How many people are falling for the partial fallacy that flourescent bulbs are safer and more energy efficient than incandescent?

Keep in mind that flourescents take a whopping 15 minutes worth of incandescent operating energy to start, but then operate with very little usage, while incandescents use about 2 minute of energy to start, then of course maintain a continued (higher) energy usage.

Wouldn't it make better sense to use incandescents when you are in the area for LESS than 15 minutes and flourescents when you are in the area MORE than 15 minutes rather than making the blanket statement that flourescents are more energy efficient?

On top of that, what are we going to do with the toxic flourescent bulb?

Answer 1

Never heard that before, but I don't quite understand how that would work that way. I'm sure if environmentalists were trying to save the world, they wouldn't have supported something that sucks up that much energy to start.

And even if it did, most people turn on a light and keep it on, or at least where I live they do. I hardly see someone turn on a light, and then turn it back off once they leave.

And as for being toxic, we have other things that are toxic right now, yet no one seems to care. We have dish wash soap under your sink that is toxic, yet no one complains about that.

I think you bring a good point, but the minor con that fluorescent bulbs waste too much energy to start or that they are toxic isn't that bad compared to the good things it can do.

Answer 2

Where did you get this info from anyway.  I have yet to see anything that reflects that a flourescent bulb would take 15 mins of incandescent operating energy (I didn't really understand this since they are totally different in make up) but if I assume you meant the start up energy of each bulb - and the incand. bulb (2) uses less energy to start than the flour. bulb (15) but the continued running costs are reverse.  Well I'd like to see your source because I still have never seen it in print that way.

Answer 3

Your minutes of runtime to get started may be a bit high for our current batch of mini-fluorescents. They appear to use about 40 seconds of their own low rate of consumption to be up to speed.

If you are into sub-optimization, you might prefer to go for a LED where you will be for a very short time, as they are fully functional with less than a second of power consumed. Perhaps a 1 watt LED?

If we are getting the energy to run our bulb from old coal fired plants, we will put more mercury into the air over teh life of the incandescent bulb than we will in the compact fluorescent . In a 'clean coal' plant that mercury will avoid going into the air, but we still have to deal with it.

But we should be developing facilities to deal with them... recovery of the mercury is only  important to get it out of the environment... we seem to have lots of it.

Answer 4

CF Lights will just be tossed in the landfill.  The oceans fish are already at such levels for mercury that expectant mothers can no longer consume fish.  In time, because some "care" enough to force homes to take in more heavy metals, no one will be able to have trout or salmon or any other natural fish.

Answer 5

I'd like to add one more thing to consider. These CFL bulbs are manufactured in China. A country with no environmental safeguards or regulations at all. They are then driven to a port in trucks with no pollution control devises in place. They are then loaded aboard a heavy (dirty) oil burning ship and brought to America. Where we protect the environment with them.

Answer 6

I agree with you and flurescent bulbs are bad for your eyes it makes it weak because of the hard, white glare and a flickering bulb can bring on an epileptic fit if you are suffering from epilepsy

Answer 7

everything has pros and cons. we must move society to a "flourescent lit world" because of energy efficiency. only 5% of an incandecent's bulbs energy is used for light (a lightbulbs purpose) 95% percent of the energy is wasted in heat. we waste a "whopping" amount of energy using the incandescents.

as far as the new lightbulb being toxic, there are other toxic things we use on this earth. the flourescent lightbulb is not the first toxic thing we need to dispose of. therefore, we do have processes and ways to safely dispose of it.

like i said, every solution has pros and cons, in this case the pros outweigh some of the very minor cons.

Answer 8

There are faciliticies to recycle the mercury in the bulbs and I've never heard that they use that much energy to start...

If you are going to be somewhere for a short amount of time and they really take that much energy [Which I think is a lie] then yeah.

All forms of lighting are equally inferior to solid-state LED lighting, however...