Energy efficient bulbs?

Enjay said:

They may have a longer life, but they are significantly more expensive and I can buy a fair number of traditional bulbs for the cost of an "energy efficient" bulb (although there have been various schemes to give away free ones).

Yeah...I never really took much notice of their price, but they seem to come in those annoying vacuum-sealed packs in ones or twos for more than the price as a box of 4-6 normal bulbs.

At least CFLs are better than those goddamn led rope lights.

rf` said:

At least CFLs are better than those goddamn led rope lights.

Not to mention those fake electric neon "candles"...

Regarding the power factor, first small test we did on a generic 10W supermarket bought CFL resulted in a power factor of 0.8.

I guess it's a hit and miss thing or they just sell really shitty CFLs where the article dude lives.

0.8 is pretty good, but there are better ones (> 0.9) as well as tons of shitty ones(< 0.6) out there. Plus there's the issue of EMI noise etc. If you're unlucky enough, you may even still find some of those older line-frequency (50 Hz, 60 Hz) CFLs with mechanical ballasts! Damn, do these teach you a thing or two about buzzing and slow start-up times...

One of the reason that brand CFLs may cost upwards to 5 times more than a "bulk" CFL, is the higher quality of the electronics in all the previously mentioned aspects: high quality electronics may even handle international voltage ranges and dimmers without breaking a sweat, and reduce start-up time to a few seconds.

It's hard to convince the average consumer however e.g. that there is any sort of long-term difference or immediate advantage between buying e.g. a Philips 18W bulb over a noname 23W bulb.

With my crappy windows and doors, it doesn't matter if I keep the CFL's, or go back to incandescents, at all.
I do save a lot on the electric bill with the CFL's, about 30% less.
Since my heat is also electric (ouch), the bill is slightly cheaper than with the old-style bulbs.
I guess in a more energy efficient place, it might make a bigger difference.

AndrewB said:

Apparently "energy efficient" CFL bulbs aren't as helpful at reducing energy as generally thought. For homes located in colder climates, old-style light bulbs don't just provide light, they help heat the homes. This element is actually surprisingly significant. Most CFL light bulbs claim to reduce energy consumption by 75%. While they do indeed tend to use this much less electricity than incandescent bulbs, the more important figure should account for the loss of heat. After adjusting for this factor, the average savings in energy with CFL bulbs when used indoors is about 20%, not 75%. In fact, in some northern villages that rely on expensive shipped oil to generate electricity, CFL bulbs actually result in more energy consumption. However, people who live in a persistently hot climate and make heavy use of air conditioners can rest assured that they're saving a lot of energy by switching to newer bulbs.

I personally do not use any CFL bulbs.

Interesting. Sometimes I leave my light on in my room because I feel like it does provide some heat and doesn't use that much energy. I have those old free standing heating units. Electric heat seems to be more efficient than oil heat in my house. So regular heat producing lightbulbs or my space heater seem to me to be more efficient. So this little blurb does not surprise me at all!