Energy Exchange

CFLs Again. Different Story – Same Answers

By: Elena Craft

A recent article published in the Press Democrat repeats some of the same allegations (as well as some misleading information) that we’ve heard before regarding concerns about Compact Florescent Lights (CFLs), such as:

  •  Fluorescent lighting triggers migraines
  • Mercury can be released as a vapor if the bulb breaks
  • Fluorescent lighting emits  dangerous radio waves

The literature on the impact of CFLs in the marketplace is robust, and we at EDF have responded many times to the concerns raised. We list here some of the most frequently asked questions and provide additional resources for those who wish to investigate CFLs further.

Why are CFLs better for the environment?

CFLs use less electricity than incandescent lights, and therefore result in a reduced consumption of power (a 15-watt fluorescent bulb, for instance, generates the same amount of light as a 60-watt incandescent. This makes a fluorescent bulb about four times more efficient). Since approximately 45% of the energy generated in the US comes from coal, replacing incandescent bulbs with CFLs goes a long way with respect to energy conservation. In addition, since coal-fired power plants represent the largest source of mercury emissions in the US, reducing energy consumption through energy efficiency measures (like replacing incandescent light bulbs with CFLs) results in less mercury that ends up in our lakes and streams from power plants (even if all of the CFLs were to be disposed of in landfills, which we hope they don’t!) As a result, less mercury ends up accumulating in our environment, in wildlife, and in sport fish.

Are CFLs better for your pocketbook?

Because CFLs use less energy, your electricity bill will be lower. The savings vary of course, depending on how many bulbs you install and how long the lights are on. Assuming that the light is on for 6 hours per day and that the electric rate is 11.3 cents per kilowatt-hour, the Department of Energy has estimated that replacing an incandescent bulb with a CFL will save $105 over the life of the light. One public utility in Washington State has estimated that if every American household were to replace the five most frequently used light fixtures or bulbs with CFLs, then each family would save about $60 a year in energy costs. [They consider the five most frequently used light fixtures to be: kitchen ceiling lights, table and floor lamps in the living and family rooms, and outdoor porch lights].  If the average home converts all of the average 40 bulbs in a home from incandescent to CFLs it would roughly triple those savings.

Do CFLs contribute to migraines?

In the past, CFLs might have contributed to headaches. The contribution of CFLs to headaches was a result of the flickering of light produced by the magnetic ballasts that powered fluorescent lamps at about 60 cycles per second. Fluorescent lighting used today uses electronic ballasts that operate at 40,000 cycles per second, resulting in imperceptible flickering to the eye. For more information, see here.

Do CFLs cause electromagnetic interference?

The answer is that it is possible for CFLs to cause electromagnetic interference, but these electric and magnetic fields have not been found to pose a health hazard to the general population.

From EPA’s Energy Star website:

Similar to linear fluorescent lighting and other electronics, it is possible for CFLs to cause electromagnetic interference (EMI). Electromagnetic interference is regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and ENERGY STAR includes these requirements by reference for CFLs. In addition, ENERGY STAR requires CFLs to use ballasts that operate at greater than 40 kHz, which limits the potential for interference. Finally, ENERGY STAR requires that the product package clearly state any devices that the CFL has potential to interfere with. This information is usually found along with other statements of known incompatibility with controls and application exceptions.

How much mercury is in the CFL bulbs?

The amount of mercury in CFLs varies, depending on the type and wattage of the bulb. If the bulb is rated as an Energy Star bulb (as most are), then it should contain no more than 5 mg of mercury (5 mg is barely enough to see with the naked eye; for comparison, the amount of mercury in a non-electronic thermometer or thermostat is about 500 mg). In response to concerns from the public about mercury in the bulbs, some members of the Association of Electrical and Medical Equipment Manufacturers have voluntarily agreed to minimize the mercury content in the bulbs. Under the terms of the commitment, participating companies have agreed to cap the average mercury content of CFL models of less than 25 watts at 4.0 mg per lamp. CFL models that use 25 to 40 watts of electricity have capped average mercury content at 5.0 mg per lamp. Environmental Working Group published a list of bulbs that have even lower levels (in the 1-2.7 mg/bulb range) of mercury. You can print out their mercury guide here.

Are there special considerations with regard to cleaning up broken bulbs?

Yes. Because the bulbs contain mercury, there are special considerations with regard to clean-up of a broken bulb. The recommended protocol for cleaning up a broken CFL is the following:

  • Have people and pets leave the room.
  • Shut-off the central system if you have one and air out the room for 5-10 minutes.
  • Carefully place broken bulb in glass jar, sealable plastic bag, or container and place outside (mercury vapors can escape the plastic bag, so don’t keep the bag in the house). Also, if a bulb breaks on the carpet, don’t vacuum it, just pick up the pieces as best you can and dispose of as described above (the vacuum cleaner could cause the mercury to be dispersed). Let the mercury vapor dissipate for a day or two before vacuuming.

You can find more details regarding the step-by-step clean-up instructions on EPA’s webpage.

Why should you recycle CFLs?

Because the bulbs contain small amounts of mercury, it is advised that you recycle the bulbs at any number of collection points, including places like The Home Depot, Lowe’s, and Ikea. Because the bulbs last longer than incandescent, the average home should generate very few bulbs per year. You can find a list of recycling resources here.

So what’s the final conclusion?

Are CFLs the perfect energy solution? No, but they are a big step in the right direction. To help determine what kinds of CFLs are right for you, check out this guide.

Posted in Energy Efficiency / Authors: / Read 1 Response

A Texas Sized Solution for a Texas Sized Problem

It’s true what they say: everything is bigger in Texas, even the hole in our budget.  Today the Comptroller’s office released their estimated revenue projections, and according to most calculations, given state budget needs for the next cycle our deficit weighs in at a hefty $27 billion dollars.  Compare that big budget deficit to another number from the Texas Comptroller’s office (that’s right, the same office):$19 billion dollars.  That’s how much they estimate in a new report Texas could save annually through energy efficiency, smart building standards and other strategies that have environmental benefits and save money at the same time.

The report is the result of legislation passed in 2009 by Sen. Kirk Watson called the “No Regrets” bill, which asked the Comptroller to look at strategies for the state that would save money in Texas, and also reduce CO2 emissions.  The final report is the product of exhaustive work on the part of the Comptroller’s and Senator Watson’s offices, along with the PUC, Railroad Commission, TCEQ, the General Land Office and a broad set of stakeholders including oil and gas companies, manufacturers, businesses, electric companies, environmentalists, Texas A&M, and UT Austin to name a few.

With a set of stakeholders that broad it’s never easy to come to an agreement on even a single strategy.  To Comptroller Combs and Senator Watson’s credit, they shepherded a process that lead to full stakeholder agreement that 20 of the 44 proposed strategies would both save the state money and reduce carbon dioxide.  According to an analysis from the final report, the total annual savings of enacting these strategies would be almost $20 billion.  Of course, saving money for Texans isn’t the same as saving money for the state government, but some of these savings translate directly into state budget savings, while others could be used to offset the need for budget cuts.

During the last budget cycle state leaders were able to patch the budget gap with federal stimulus money but this time around we won’t have that option. Tough decisions will need to be made and Texans have made it clear they’re not interested in new taxes. If you compare Texas’ deficit to other states with Texas sized economies like New York ($9 billion) and Florida ($3 billion) as economist Paul Krugman did in a column last week, you start to get an idea of the sort of trouble we’re in.  Even California’s deficit is about 20% of their general revenue, compared with about 31% for Texas and with an economy about two thirds the size of California’s.

State leaders have been vocal that this time around some difficult decisions will have to be made.  Texans will likely have to deal with longer Emergency Room visits (and more of them!), larger classroom sizes, fewer police officers and firefighters and less care for our grandparents.  State leaders are right to be worried about the looming budget shortfall and the need to tighten our belts, and the No Regrets Report lays out a good roadmap to begin to do that. In the mean time as has been mentioned by my colleagues Elena Craft and Jim Marston, the state could save money immediately by dropping their frivolous lawsuit aimed at circumventing a unanimous decision by the Supreme Court.

Also posted in Renewable Energy, Texas / Read 1 Response

How many state agencies does it take to screw in a CFL bulb?

How many state agencies does it take to screw in a compact fluorescent light bulb and a low-flow faucet head? In Texas, the answer will make you grimace: six. That’s not a very efficient way to save money or energy.

This week, Environmental Defense Fund joined Public Citizen and the SEED Coalition to call for the Texas Legislature to create a single independent efficiency agency.  Today our groups sent a letter to Speaker of the House Joe Straus and Chairmen of the relevant House and Senate committees calling for this new independent agency. Such an agency could coordinate and streamline programs that are now run – often inefficiently – by multiple agencies and help save Texans money in the process.

The most recent blow to Texas’ energy efficiency progress happened this past Friday, July 30th.  The Public Utility Commission (PUC) proved it cannot effectively manage its energy efficiency programs for Texas citizens’ best interests when it radically scaled back a proposal that would have saved consumers $4 to $12 billion over twenty years.

Energy efficiency would cost around $1 per month on a $100 electric bill and save $3, but the PUC has indicated that even this small amount – that pays for itself – is too much. Texas deserve better than this.

An independent efficiency agency just makes sense.

  • Money-saving, Pro-consumer, pro-business energy efficiency programs languish at the PUC
  • Current programs are spread over six different agencies
  • One agency in charge of coordinating all of Texas’ efficiency programs will reduce agency overlap
  • It can be a “one stop shop” for information on all the rebates and incentives available to homes and create an opportunity to achieve more savings
  • One truck (instead of three) can provide homes with comprehensive electric, water and gas efficiency services

Soon we’ll be following up with the chair of Texas’ Senate Natural Resources Committee Troy Fraser, and the chairs of Texas’ House Energy Resources and State Affairs Committees, Jim Keffer and Burt Solomons to work on the details of our independent efficiency agency proposal.

The Legislature has the ability and the perspective to set a strong and achievable goal for energy efficiency that will save households more money on their bill that will in turn boost consumer spending in other areas of the economy.

Also posted in Texas / Read 2 Responses

Texas making energy efficiency progress, despite Energy Star ratings

 Last month, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released their 2009 annual report ranking the top 25 cities with the most Energy Star buildings. Only three Texas cities made the list, but the rankings don’t illustrate the energy efficiency strides some Texas cities have made, nor what opportunities still remain for improvement.

What it means to be an Energy Star building
Energy Star buildings must score in the top 25 percent of EPA’s National Energy Performance Rating System. Nearly 4,000 commercial buildings earned an Energy Star rating in 2009, resulting in savings of nearly $1 billion in utility bills and more than 4.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions.  Read More »

Also posted in Texas / Read 15 Responses

Groundbreaking Goals Hiding in Plain Sight

Colin MeehanYou probably saw today’s announcement on the formation of “Clean Energy for Austin”, a group of businesses, faith groups, low-income advocates and environmentalists that have come together to support the Austin City Council as it works to pass a forward-thinking plan for our utility. 

With  more than 70 local businesses big and small, 18 non-profits and 200 individuals in this new group, it’s pretty clear that the generation plan has strong and broad support in Austin. Some of the reasons you’ve already heard: Read More »

Also posted in Texas / Read 10 Responses

Green Jobs in Texas: More Than Just Talk

When I started working on the Texas Green Jobs Guidebook last spring, talking to community college and workforce development folks around the state quickly made it clear that there was serious lack of information on what a green job is and what a person needs to find one. Read More »

Also posted in Jobs, Texas / Read 43 Responses