Are FL bulbs actually "greener" than incandescents?

I can't find any objective hard data on this. I am concerned that all of the FL bulb's energy savings come from the fact that they produce a lot less heat, compared to the amount of light that they output. However, most places in Canada have to be heated 8 to 10 months a year. This just means that the heat previously supplied by the old incandescent bulbs has to be replaced by heat produced in other ways, so there are no net energy savings during those months.
In addition, Fl bulbs seem to be much more complex, requiring ballasts to turn them on, many more components than incandescents, the glass part seems to be much more complex, all in all adding up to a lot of extra energy used in the manufacturing, not to mention the recycling of them, where available. I'm afraid that we're all getting scammed by the bulb manufacturers because they make a lot more money on FL. It may make sense for hot climates where there are additional savings in not having to remove the heat of incandescents from buildings using AC, but for our climate, I'm not so sure.
Can anyone shed any more light on this issue?

Originally Posted by notanexpert

I can't find any objective hard data on this. I am concerned that all of the FL bulb's energy savings come from the fact that they produce a lot less heat, compared to the amount of light that they output. However, most places in Canada have to be heated 8 to 10 months a year. This just means that the heat previously supplied by the old incandescent bulbs has to be replaced by heat produced in other ways, so there are no net energy savings during those months.
In addition, Fl bulbs seem to be much more complex, requiring ballasts to turn them on, many more components than incandescents, the glass part seems to be much more complex, all in all adding up to a lot of extra energy used in the manufacturing, not to mention the recycling of them, where available. I'm afraid that we're all getting scammed by the bulb manufacturers because they make a lot more money on FL. It may make sense for hot climates where there are additional savings in not having to remove the heat of incandescents from buildings using AC, but for our climate, I'm not so sure.
Can anyone shed any more light on this issue?

For one, think about where your light bulb is. The ceiling. When you have an incandescent all of that heat is going into the ceiling, heating up the stuff either in between your floors or heating up the air in your attic. Only a very small amount of it is useful heat for the house.

As well, 5 months is 5 months. That's almost half the year. It is such an insane waste to be producing heat with light only to cool it off again with AC.

Also, think of commercial establishments that don't use fluorescent (restaurants, etc). These guys have lights on 24/7 365. Think of how much energy the country would save if even half of businesses switched entirely to CFL.

I hear what you're saying. The overall carbon footprint of a CFL bulb may be just as large as a regular incandescent bulb when you factor in the cost of manufacturing and disposing a much more complex device.

The same goes for "green" cars. The carbon footprint of manufacturing, operating and disposing those hybrid cars (especially the very toxic battery) is higher than conventional gas powered cars.

The marketing of these items easily glosses over the real carbon footprint of producing and disposing of these products as it focuses purely on the operating cost instead of fixed cost.

But the efficiency and optimization of the manufacturing and disposal of new "green" products can only be improved over time and with lots of money invested in research. And the only way to get money to invest in research is from the profit of product sales. Part of the money you spend on the product is used towards research to make it better and cheaper.

In the mean time, the only savings we'll see are from shifting the costs around (ie. increase initial cost to reduce operating cost) instead of true absolute savings.

Your outlook is completely wrong.

CFL bulbs use less power by design. For the same light output, a 15W CFL bulb puts out the same light as a 100W incandecant. Watts are a measure of power consumption (same as horsepower). So a CFL bulb uses 1/6th of the electricity as an incandecant.

Heat is a by product of the way an incandecant bulb works. A CFL bulb works under a completely different principal, so the heat difference is not relavent.

Regarding the manufacturing costs, CFL bulbs last 5-10 times longer than an incandecant bulb. I can't say for sure, but I doubt a CFL bulb takes 5-10 times the carbon/energy to make over an incandecant bulb.

Originally Posted by Impossibles

Your outlook is completely wrong.

CFL bulbs use less power by design. For the same light output, a 15W CFL bulb puts out the same light as a 100W incandecant. Watts are a measure of power consumption (same as horsepower). So a CFL bulb uses 1/6th of the electricity as an incandecant.

Heat is a by product of the way an incandecant bulb works. A CFL bulb works under a completely different principal, so the heat difference is not relavent.

That isn't correct at all.

The whole reason that the incandecant takes 4 times the power to make the same light, is because 3/4 of that power is generated as "waste" heat.

What the OP is proposing is that in Canada, where we heat our homes half the year, that heat is not really "waste" heat - especially if you heat your house by electricity, which is basically "a light bulb that is 100% inefficient" - all of it's electricity is converted to heat.

He is sort of right but as I pointed out above most of the heat is lost and not useful heat because of where your lights are located - which eliminates the advantage of it.

Originally Posted by Impossibles

...
Heat is a by product of the way an incandecant bulb works. A CFL bulb works under a completely different principal, so the heat difference is not relavent.
...

Its relevant to me, because the 85 watts I save by using a CFL, I have to use in a heater or furnace of some sort to generate additional heat that used to come from the incandescent bulb! I agree that 4 months out of the year its waste heat, but for 8 months it is NOT waste heat, it is actually much needed heat. So all these savings are in reality 1/3 of what they are in theory. I doubt that amount of savings actually offsets the additional energy needed to manufacture that bulb and dispose of it.

Edit: I guess I just duplicated what Brunes said, didn't see his post before my reply.
To brunes: I have many light bulbs which are not next to the ceiling, in any case it should not matter that much if you have some sort of insulation above the ceiling or a second and third floor, which I do.

Originally Posted by notanexpert

Its relevant to me, because the 85 watts I save by using a CFL, I have to use in a heater or furnace of some sort to generate additional heat that used to come from the incandescent bulb! I agree that 4 months out of the year its waste heat, but for 8 months it is NOT waste heat, it is actually much needed heat. So all these savings are in reality 1/3 of what they are in theory. I doubt that amount of savings actually offsets the additional energy needed to manufacture that bulb and dispose of it.

Edit: I guess I just duplicated what Brunes said, posted at the same time.
To brunes: I have many light bulbs which are not next to the ceiling, in any case it should not matter that much if you have some sort of insulation above the ceiling or a second and third floor, which I do.

The 85W difference between a incandecant bulb and a CFL bulb is not just like having an 85W heater. Appliances that are designed as heaters have much more surface area to heat the maximum amount of air, they use different materials as heating elements, and usually have a fan to move air over the heating elements. All these things effect the effeciency of a heater, while they all may use the same # of Watts.

Originally Posted by Impossibles

The 85W difference between a incandecant bulb and a CFL bulb is not just like having an 85W heater. Appliances that are designed as heaters have much more surface area to heat the maximum amount of air, they use different materials as heating elements, and usually have a fan to move air over the heating elements. All these things effect the effeciency of a heater, while they all may use the same # of Watts.

100 watts of electricity turned into heat isn't any hotter or better based on element type/shape size, electricity turns 100% into heat when put into a resistor, you can't get more then 100%. That is different the feeling of warmth you'd get from directional or heaters with fans but thats not what the OP was talking about.

Now heaters do direct the energy or put it where you want but when it comes to central heating or heating your whole home it doesnt matter, your home looses X watts of heat to the outside and that needs to be replaced by something.

The OP has a point about replacing the lost heat due to lighting. This is a major issue in offices, offices rarly have a heating problem most of the time its a cooling problem (even in the coldest winters) and drastic changes in lighting and/or the type of office equipment can lead to haveing a cooling system that is way to big.


I think on a per light bulb basis the net change in pollution is minor when you consider the disposal and manufacturing, but still for the better, but when one considers the shear number of light bulbs out there, thats alot of very small changes.

I'm a little surprised there is some level of arguement a on this topic. There is definitly the possibility of getting more hear per watt from a heat source, and this due largely in part to the fact that you dont get 100% efficiency. Look at heaters from 50 years ago and a modern ceramic heater, watt for watt, the newer one will put out more heat.

On that note, if you've got 2 lightbulbs in a room (200 watts) and replace them both with CFL's (40 watts) you've got a lot of left over power - 160 watts in this case. Run a heater in that room at 160 watts and I gaurentee it'll get warmer then if you relied on the two lightbulbs.

There is no doubt that CFL's require more energy in production, but this is offset (by a significant degree) by their lifespan and much lower energy consumption. Furthermore, because they consume less energy CFL's actually result in less Mercury emissions then regular incandescent bulbs - which is better for the environment and us.

Originally Posted by corrupt123

I'm a little surprised there is some level of arguement a on this topic. There is definitly the possibility of getting more hear per watt from a heat source, and this due largely in part to the fact that you dont get 100% efficiency. Look at heaters from 50 years ago and a modern ceramic heater, watt for watt, the newer one will put out more heat.

On that note, if you've got 2 lightbulbs in a room (200 watts) and replace them both with CFL's (40 watts) you've got a lot of left over power - 160 watts in this case. Run a heater in that room at 160 watts and I gaurentee it'll get warmer then if you relied on the two lightbulbs.

There is no doubt that CFL's require more energy in production, but this is offset (by a significant degree) by their lifespan and much lower energy consumption. Furthermore, because they consume less energy CFL's actually result in less Mercury emissions then regular incandescent bulbs - which is better for the environment and us.

I think what you're saying contradicts some laws of physics.
If the old heater of the same wattage as the new one did not put out as much heat, then where did the energy go? Energy can NOT just disappear.
One thing is for sure, 40 watts of CFL's plus a 160 watt heater will produce exactly the same mount of heat as 200 watts of incandescent bulbs. Again, this is because energy can not disappear.

Originally Posted by notanexpert

I think what you're saying contradicts some laws of physics.
If the old heater of the same wattage as the new one did not put out as much heat, then where did the energy go? Energy can NOT just disappear.
One thing is for sure, 40 watts of CFL's plus a 160 watt heater will produce exactly the same mount of heat as 200 watts of incandescent bulbs. Again, this is because energy can not disappear.

nope he's right, the heat from bulbs on the ceiling can be very easily dissipated into the ceiling and not warm you up on the sofa.

i don't think he was implying that energy disappears

I retract my old statement - kind of. You're totally right in saying energy cannot be created or destroyed (law of conservation) and in saying that watt for watt, the same about of heat is created.

In the real world though, there are a lot of loss factors (like the post above mine about heat going directly into the ceiling) and on that note, the 'felt' heat of a new and/or more "efficient" heater, an old heat, and a lightbulb are all different. Especially so with a lightbulb, because some of the energy is creating light.

So yes, 200 watts will create 200 watts of heat, but whether you want that from 2 sources on the ceiling or from one larger source on the floor is the deciding factor.

I'm not claiming that I can heat my house well with the old light bulbs, I'm just saying that the vast majority of that supposedly "waste heat" from those bulbs is not waste. Yeah, maybe a little of that heat escapes more easily than heat from a baseboard heater, but the vast majority of it is actually usefull heat, especially in multi-storey homes like mine. Even if that heat "escapes" through the ceiling, all it does is heat the room above. This means that the energy "savings" claimed by CFL manufacturer's are totally bunk for 8 months of the year, because that energy was not "waste" in the first place. So once you chop off 2/3 of the supposed savings, the case for CFL's becomes very weak to me. Maybe even with enough research I could build a good case against CFL's for a climate like ours.
I don't for a second doubt that they do make sense in countries where they have been legislated, like Australia and Brazil, where they hardly have a heating season at all.

i'm slowly going back to incandescents

Originally Posted by notanexpert

I'm not claiming that I can heat my house well with the old light bulbs, I'm just saying that the vast majority of that supposedly "waste heat" from those bulbs is not waste. Yeah, maybe a little of that heat escapes more easily than heat from a baseboard heater, but the vast majority of it is actually usefull heat, especially in multi-storey homes like mine. Even if that heat "escapes" through the ceiling, all it does is heat the room above. This means that the energy "savings" claimed by CFL manufacturer's are totally bunk for 8 months of the year, because that energy was not "waste" in the first place. So once you chop off 2/3 of the supposed savings, the case for CFL's becomes very weak to me. Maybe even with enough research I could build a good case against CFL's for a climate like ours.
I don't for a second doubt that they do make sense in countries where they have been legislated, like Australia and Brazil, where they hardly have a heating season at all.

Regardless of this - unless you live in the NWT you likely don't have your heat on 5 months of the year.

So unless you are going to swap all your bulbs out for CFLs every May and then swap them back again in September, it is still better overall to use CFL.