Light bulb manufacturer Philips has launched an internet campaign to persuade us of the impact we can make by changing our old-fashioned incandescent light bulbs for the latest energy-saving CFL models.
Bulb-shaped CFL compared to traditional bulb
Consumers visiting ASimpleSwitch.com can calculate how much CO2 they can personally save by committing to replace a certain number of bulbs. Since CFLs use roughly one-fifth of the electricity that an equivalently bright incandescent bulb would use, it's easy to see how energy savings should be made.
However, CFLs are more complex and generally cost more to buy than the decades-old design sold in most convenience stores. And besides the matter of cost, numerous doubts and myths tend to be circulated about the practicality of energy saving bulbs. You can see why consumers are proving reluctant to make the change.
Here we tackle two of the bigger doubts, and ask: are CFLs worth switching to, for your sake and the planet's?
Doubt #1: Are they really that environmentally friendly?
The debate has centred on the chemicals used to make CFLs--particularly mercury.
Mercury is necessary for the function of a compact fluorescent bulb. It's toxic when released into the atmosphere as gas -- and far worse if released into water. A typical CFL contains 4 milligrams of the slithery, silvery stuff. Is this appropriate for a "green" product?
Unfortunately, mercury gases are also released in the flue gases of a coal-fired power station. Over the 5-year lifespan of a typical CFL, the electricity used to power equivalent incandescent bulbs will result in up to 10mg mercury emissions. The combined total for an energy saving bulb (4mg mercury contained + 2.4mg mercury released whilst powering it) is still significantly lower.
Moreover, the risk posed by mercury in the bulb depends on how you dispose of it. Recycle CFLs at your local waste centre and most of the mercury can be recaptured and prevented from polluting the environment.
Doubt #2: Don't they cost more to buy?
It's true that CFLs generally have a higher price tag than standard bulbs (notwithstanding the promotions of some retailers). But we're assured that they pay for themselves in the future, right?
Having visited A Simple Switch and pledged to replace 4 bulbs, I'm told I can prevent 1,312 kg of CO2 pollution. Will I also end up out of pocket -- or better off? I decided to do some sums based on my own example:
Bulbs replaced: 4 x 60W incandescent, with a lifetime of 1000 hours.
An equivalent CFL Bulb (the Philips 12W GLS Energy Saving Bulb) has a lifetime of 8,000 hours.
I reckon I use bulbs at a rate of about 3 hours a day, which is roughly equivalent to 1000 hours a year. So my comparison is based on total costs over 8 years.
Life cost of bulbs:
4 x Philips 12W CFLs @ £3.49 each (as sold by Argos) costs £13.96 total and will last me 8 years.
Equivalent number of 60W incandescent bulbs needed = 32, at total cost of £11.92 (Argos: £1.49 for a 4-pack)
So that's an extra £2.04 outlay over 8 years for 4 energy savers (or 26p a year).
Cost of lighting used:
Power consumption: 4 x 12W CFLs x 1000 hours per year = 384kWh total electricity over 8 years.
32 x 60W incandescent bulbs x 1000 hours per year = 1,920kWh
Electricity price per kWh = 10.67p per kWh incl VAT
Energy Cost with CFLs: 384kWh x £0.1067 = £40.97
and with Incandescents: 1,920kWh x £0.1067 = £204.86
So that's a total electricity saving of £163.89 (or £20.48 a year).
As you can see, even after buying the four Energy Saver bulbs upfront, the reduced electricity bills will cover this cost within a year. After that, it's 7 years of £20 savings a year. Sounds good to me: that and saving over a tonne of carbon dioxide emissions, just for changing 4 bulbs.
It seems it's worth the switch on both these counts. Are you convinced?
Mark Churchill