From PESWiki

While we applaud the trend toward more energy efficiencies, like anything else, compact fluorescent bulbs have a down side. This page is presented to document some of those, so an informed decision can be made, and by pointing out the problems, solutions might be produced/encouraged.

"I'm no big fan of incandescent lamps, and would use more CFL's myself if I could find ones of quality that last a reasonable time or even as long as the incandescents they replace, but they are an interim technology which will give way to LEDs before the decade is over." -- Kim L. Ground <KGround {at} technic.com> of Tampa, FL USA; April 18, 2007. [He is responsible for many of the obervations below]

Downsides

More Expensive

The main drawback to Compact Fluorescents is the fact that they cost about ten times more (sometimes much less for lesser known brands) than traditional incandescent light bulbs. A recent informal survey of a local hardware store found Compact Fluorescents selling from $11.00 for higher end models to $1.58 for no-name brand models, most of which were around $7.00 for fluorescents from mainstream companies.

These higher upfront costs can be hard for consumers to bear, but are repaid quickly. A 7.00 bulb will payback between 35-70kwh of usage, depending on market. For a 100watt bulb this is 90-180 days based on 4 hours per day usage. In the long run Compact Fluorescents more than pay for themselves as they don't have to be replaced nearly as often as incandescents and they offer considerable electric operating cost savings of around 75% over incandescents.

• Article:Are CFL's Designed to Make Us Pay More on Our Power Bills - Steve Windisch looks at the "hidden costs" associated with CFLs and Utilities. (Steve Windisch; Aug 18, 2008)

Don't Fit Some Fixtures

Another disadvantage of Compact Fluorescents is that they sometimes don't fit into traditional light fixtures. You can always screw them into a regular light socket, but sometimes the shade or glass/plastic light fixture isn't designed to properly hold a Compact Fluorescent. This problem is becoming less of a problem as advancements in technology are made and many Compact Fluorescents now resemble the shape of a traditional light bulb.

Mercury

• Is Mercury from a Broken CFL Dangerous? (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/05/ask_treehugger_14.php)
• CFL's Pose Mercury Hazard (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55213) - While compact fluorescent lights save energy, they pose a health risk if broken in the home. They also pose a disposal hazard. (WorldNetDaily; Apr. 16, 2007)
  • The CFL mercury nightmare (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=aa7796aa-e4a5-4c06-be84-b62dee548fda) (Canada.com Financial Post; Apr. 28)
  • Mercury Contamination Vs. Energy-Efficient Lightbulbs (http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/30/1557242) (Slashdot; Apr. 30)

The experience of a Maine homeowner, and the articles above popularized the opinion that broken CFLs required bio-hazard cleanup. The Maine DEP, the authority upon which that homeowner worked has a more complete record of the event:

• Facts regarding the Prospect, Maine Compact Fluorescent Lamp breakage (http://www.maine.gov/dep/rwm/homeowner/pdf/prospecthistory.pdf) (Maine Department of Environmental Protection; May, 18, 2007)

"If readings are 300 ng/m3 or less, the area is considered to not require any additional actions"

"The only value within the room that was over 300 ng/m3 was directly at the bulb breakage location on the carpet."

"To visualize the area of high readings, it could be covered by a dinner plate. All other values in the room, including in the first floor room where some residue might have fallen through the vent, were well below the 300ng/m3 action level. Based upon this information, the State Toxicologist assured the homeowner that the potential mercury exposure would be very low and likely of negligible health concern. "

In addition, there are other problems with the article 'CFLs pose mercury hazard':

1) It refers in several places to 'the mercury powder'. -- mercury is a liquid or gas at room temperature. The gas or vapor is the health risk, liquid mercury poses virtually no risk at all except in that it 'boils off' into the vapor at room temperature and normal atmospheric pressure.

2) Who did these mercury level measurements, and how were they made ? There is less than a drop of mercury in a CFL or regular fluorescent tube. The test results are highly dependent on the way the samples were collected. A sample taken a few cm from the site of the spill and showing high mercury levels DOES NOT imply a high level of mercury in the room or even a few feet away. Instead of anguishing over the cost and abandoning a room of her house, why doesn't this woman just cut out the shag carpet and throw it away, then get another measurement made?

(On the second visit) "the Department responder found no measurements over 300 ng/m3, including at the point of impact. However, the carpet piece was removed by the responder at the request of the homeowner."

Phosphors

The larger health risk with any fluorescent tube is the phosphors - they are rich in beryllium (a known and undisputed carcinogen) and heavy metals like strontium.

Ever seen the results of a cut from a broken fluorescent tube - they get infected quickly and are very slow to heal, usually leaving some ugly scar tissue. The phosphor is the culprit.

Greater Energy Consumption in Manufacture

CFL bulbs which cost $3 will save $45 in electricity. The energy used to produce a $3 bulb must cost less than $3 unless manufacturers are losing money on them. Therefore conjecture over the energy consumed in the production is moot compared to the benefits. Nevertheless it has become popular to theorize that manufacturers are doing just this as has been repeated in popular newspapers and blogs, and even here on this site.

Though solid data is not available, it is likely CFLs do require more energy to manufacture, represented by their higher cost, but not significantly more.

Don't Last Like Linear Fluorescent Bulbs

Since they have become a commodity item, most of the CFLs on the market are cheaply made. A fluorescent lamp should last for decades. In fact, if you live in an older house you may have some conventional straight or circular lamps which have been in place for decades and are still functioning well. But the new CFLs have an electronic ballast, and that is where the cheapness is built in. I have never had one of the low cost CFLs from Home Depot or Ace Hardware last even a year, and the part that fails is always the electronic ballast.

Keep Your Receipts! I have had very bad luck with Sylvania CFLs quiting after about 2 years while the normal lights in the same room are still fine. Keep your receipts! If they promise 5 years hold them to it. I have had to exchange about 5 bulbs so far, all Sylvania! The Philips and others are still going good after 2-3 years and I have had some of the old GE CircleLights last for more than 8 years now.

I can't wait for LED lighting to get affordable because I am not paying $50.00 and up for a light bulb.

See also

• Directory:Compact Fluorescent
• Directory:Lighting

- Other Directory listings • Latest • A-I • J-R • S-Z • Tree • News
- PESWiki home page