• Home
• About
• Blog Roll

Green Journal #5: The “Wife Test” on CFLs
May 28, 2007

Before I left for my Vancouver vacation, I came across a rather discouraging and, for me, somewhat disparaging article in the Washington Post on women and compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs). The bottom line: though women care about environmental issues and conservation, they are resistant to CFLs because of aesthetics and performance concerns. The article also cited an observation that CFLs sales lag in grocery and drug stores where women typically shop but experience faster uptake in home improvement stores where men tend to shop. Thus, the article referred this trend as failing the “wife test”.

Well, THIS wife begs to differ. In my household, it is the wife who actually made it a personal action to do some research and switch to CFLs. Actually, I have been “dabbling” with CFLs for a while, buying different brands and types and testing them out, precisely because I wanted to understand the truths and misconceptions about CFLs. So what did I learn in my research?

First, some general facts: CFLs use about 75% less energy than its incandescent counterpart and lasts up to 10 times longer (anywhere from 3-10 years bulb life). The difference in energy use is due to the light creation methods. Standard incandescent bulbs produce light by heating up a wire filament. Much of the energy is lost through heat. CFLs use gas that reacts with electricity and the phosphorus inside the bulb to produce light and waste less energy to heat. If every US household replaced just one bulb with CFL, we would save enough energy to light more than three million homes a year and reduce green house gas emission equivalent to that of 800,000 cars (per www.energystar.gov) CFL market share in the US has risen to approximately 6%, up from 1% in 2001, which is encouraging; however, this adoption rate is quite dismal compared to 80% in Japan. In addition, Australia recently announced an incandescent phase out by 2009.

Then, what are the “drawbacks” that seem to fail the Wife Test referenced above? To begin with, there’s the aesthetics. Old CFLs used to generate a sickly, gray cast over the room, or what my in-laws (who are early adopters of CFLs) fondly called “winter, fluorescent tan”. With both soft and bright light options (like incandescents) now available, this image is and should be just a distant memory. Also, with the variety of styles currently available, the somewhat strange, bare spiral bulb design is no longer an issue. The covered globes or reflector globes look similar to the traditional or flood bulb and are perfect solutions for open fixtures, recessed or flood lights. The new generation of CFLs also seems to have eliminated of the strange, buzzing sound emitted by older ones. Then there is what I call the “initial sticker shock”. If you were to compare the two price tags in absolute terms, the average CFLs is expensive than its counterpart. However, if you consider that CFLs last anywhere from 3 to 10 times longer, they are actually more economical, even before you factor in the $30 energy saving estimate per bulb. In addition, PG&E is offering aggressive rebates to encourage CFL adoption. In fact, you can find PG&E subsidized CFLs in most stores selling at 2pak for $0.99 or on sale at 4pak for $.99; at that price, they are cheaper than standard incandescents even in absolute price! Logically speaking, aesthetics and initial price should no longer be issues. So what gives? After talking to some of my wife friends, my personal theory is that these improvements largely remain hidden from the every day shopper. It seems that many people pick up light bulbs while shopping for groceries and other household items. Unlike home improvement or hardware stores, these stores only carry a limited selection, the most common (and most attractively priced) being the bare spiral table top bulbs. The higher end covered bulbs are usually hidden in the isle and many are not PG&E subsidized. Unless these store shoppers have done prior research or cost benefit calculations, all they see are the strange looking bulbs (albeit cheap) or really expensive bulbs.

For me, there are two valid trade-offs in switching to CFLs, the first one being the warm up period. Unlike incandescent bulbs, CFLs may take anywhere from 1 to 3 minutes to reach full brightness. The covered CFLs seem to take longer to warm up but definitely look more attractive in spots and recessed lighting. Plus, CFLs seem to work best in fixtures that are in frequent and long periods of use. Also, only specially marked bulbs will work in fixtures with dimmers and they are hard to find. The other and larger issue of CFL is proper disposal, which has environmental ramifications. These bulbs do contain a small amount of mercury, which when in use or in tact, poses no health concerns but may be released in the air broken upon improper disposal. The best disposal method is to take the spent bulbs to your local waste management site. The government is working with large retailers to facilitate take back and recycling programs but the only retailer (I know of) that is currently accepting CFLs is IKEA. Given the long life of these bulbs, I am hopeful that improved recycling programs will soon catch up with the adoption rate.

Thus, after some trial and error, I finally switched from the incandescent to compact fluorescent bulbs. I visited both the large home improvement store and my local hardware store and picked up bare, spiral bulbs for my table lamps (not visible under the lamp shade), covered globes for open fixtures, covered reflectors and spots for my recessed lighting. However, I have not switched my dining room lighting as it is on a dimmer and I am still research dimmer CFLs. Also, I left my bathroom lights alone as these are all fully enclosed fixtures with infrequent use and CFLs work best in open fixtures in non-humid areas. I purchased several different brands of bulbs in hopes of finding out which brand works best in the long term. Also, in the kitchen and living room (where we are most frequently), I placed bare bulbs in less visible recessed cans in effort to minimize the initial dimness of the covered bulbs. So far, I am fairly happy with the result even though I am still switching around the different brands of the spot light bulbs.

So, my tally for this week’s action is:

Number of times forgotten: None
Time consumed to implement this action: In total, I probably spent four hours: about one hour researching CFLs online, two hours deciding and shopping around and one hour to switch out all the bulbs. I am still trying to figure out what to do with my old light bulbs that still have life in it.
Amount of resources spared: I swapped out 20 65-watt and 6 100-watt bulbs for CFLs equivalents of 16-watt and 29 watts. In terms of electricity per hour, I saved a total of 1400 watts or approximately 75% of my previous consumption.
Extra Upfront Cost: In terms of absolute upfront cost, I probably spent an extra $50, all on the covered CFLS as they were about 50% more than the incandescents. From the long term perspective though, I will actually be saving money as all these bulbs last at least 3 times as long, not to mention the electricity savings.

I must say of all green journal actions thus far, switching to CFLs was the most time consuming. However, this is a one-time action that will pay off in time.

CindyC

Previous Green Journal Entries:
Green On the Road
Eating Local
BYOC: Bring Your Own Cup
BYOB: Bring Your Own Bag

To read the referenced article from Washington Post

Copyright 2007 Organicpicks