Are FL bulbs actually "greener" than incandescents?

[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?

[brunes]

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.

[eelfliw]

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.

[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.

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.

[brunes]

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.

[notanexpert]

...
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.

[Impossibles]

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.

[dark169]

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.

[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.

[notanexpert]

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.

[bokep]

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

[corrupt123]

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.

[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.

[Sohjonn]

i'm slowly going back to incandescents

[brunes]

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.

[Bazooka Joe]

A few things to keep in mind: On average my furnace is only on October-March (6 months, and I live pretty far North in Northern Ontario). 8 months would be Fort McMurray and points north.

Gas is more efficient (environmentally) than electric heat. So your argument only works is your house is heated via electric heat. Much electricity comes from burning coal, which is a 30%-40% efficient process. Add to that transmission losses and you're getting much less "green" by the kilometer.

As stated previously, heat rises. To heat a room at human level it is more efficient to heat from the bottom than the top. Much of the lightbulb heat is wasted as it is heating space that is not occupied by people (assuming electric heat, the heat has to radiate through the floor before heating the above story - much heat will be lost compared to turning on an equally sized baseboard heater).

[notanexpert]

A few things to keep in mind: On average my furnace is only on October-March (6 months, and I live pretty far North in Northern Ontario). 8 months would be Fort McMurray and points north.
...

Don't know what you do for heat in April and May, but here in "balmy" Toronto, I have to have my furnace on at least till mid-May or otherwise my kids get the sniffles from getting too cold at night, followed by a cold or flu.

Furthermore, I tend to use my lightbulbs only for a couple of hours a day during the summer, while in the winter, when the heat given off by them is most usefull, they're on for 5 or 6 hours. Secondly, heat does not just "dissipate" or get "absorbed" by the ceiling, it has to go somewhere. If I stand on my bathroom floor, which is above my incandescent kitchen potlights, I can feel the tiles are nice and warm. The only way that the heat from the lightbulb is actually wasted in the winter (that is, gets OUTSIDE the house) is when it is installed in an un-insulated ceiling on the top floor of the house.

[Bazooka Joe]

Don't know what you do for heat in April and May, but here in "balmy" Toronto, I have to have my furnace on at least till mid-May or otherwise my kids get the sniffles from getting too cold at night, followed by a cold or flu.

Furthermore, I tend to use my lightbulbs only for a couple of hours a day during the summer, while in the winter, when the heat given off by them is most usefull, they're on for 5 or 6 hours. Secondly, heat does not just "dissipate" or get "absorbed" by the ceiling, it has to go somewhere. If I stand on my bathroom floor, which is above my incandescent kitchen potlights, I can feel the tiles are nice and warm. The only way that the heat from the lightbulb is actually wasted in the winter (that is, gets OUTSIDE the house) is when it is installed in an un-insulated ceiling on the top floor of the house.

So your house is electrically heated to begin with?

Also, do you use AC in the summer?

There is space between the ceiling of the floor below and the floor of the floor above which is not often insulated. This space is actually somewhat "insulated" by the floor above, due to flooring. In the case of pot lighting much of this space is removed and tile has few insulating properties. Under normal cictumstances, it would be easy for that heat to migrate through internal walls and up to your attic and outside. Unless your internal walls and floors are insulated, but this would be very unusual for your average home.

If heating the ceiling were such an efficient way of heating a home, why have they not put registers or baseboard heaters on the ceiling?

If you want to use incandescents, enjoy them while they're still on the shelves. But 4 months out of the year it's a total waste, and the other 8 months (look into more insulation if you're running your furnace 8 months a year in TO) it's a significantly less efficient way to hear your house. Is it as good as the manufacturers claim? Of course not. But it is definitely "greener".

As for the energy put into producing them, that is an excellent question that I don't have the answer to. It would be interesting to see how much additional energy is required to make these vs. the traditional. I've heard that CFL lights last 10x as long as incandescents though, so if the energy is less than 10x to make them you'll break even there too.

[tomtong]

requiring ballasts to turn them on

Anyone can shed some light on this process? I saw people focused on the difference on the wattage that the bulb used while they are on 24/7. Is that true it will be a better choice to have incandescents in those places you only need it on for short period of time, like cool room and garage?

[Bazooka Joe]

Anyone can shed some light on this process? I saw people focused on the difference on the wattage that the bulb used while they are on 24/7. Is that true it will be a better choice to have incandescents in those places you only need it on for short period of time, like cool room and garage?

http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2006/12/episode_69_22000_foot_fall_lig.html

According to mythbusters calculations, the energy used to turn on a CFL equates to 0.015 seconds of use. For an incandescent, it's 0.36 seconds. It is a spike, but a really, really small spike.

Other bulbs for reference:

Incandescent: 0.36 seconds
CFL: 0.015 seconds
Halogen: .51 seconds
LED: 1.28 seconds
Fluorescent: 23.3 seconds

(turning the light on uses that many seconds worth of running power)

[tomtong]

Thanks for the information. Found the following from a different perspective for the operating life of the CFL, part of our cost.

http://www.mnenergychallenge.org/askanexpert/?PHPSESSID=afc2d785e31f8#q5

I have heard that it is not energy efficient to turn flourescent lights on and off a lot- that it takes more energy to start them up than it does to leave them on for half an hour when you are not in the room. Is this true? What rule of thumb would you reccomend for maximum efficiency? Is this also true of compact flourescent bulbs?

It is a popularly held belief that fluorescent lights (including CFL's) use a "lot" of energy to get started, and thus it is better not to turn them off for "short" periods. There is an increase in power demand when a light is switched on, and the exact amount of this increase depends on the type of ballast and lamp. The ballast provides an initial high voltage for starting the lamp and regulates the lamp current during operation. This relatively higher "inrush" current lasts for half a cycle, or 1/120th of a second. The amount of electricity consumed to supply the inrush current is equal to a few seconds or less of normal light operation. Turning off fluorescent lights for more than 5 seconds will save more energy than will be consumed in turning them back on again. Therefore, the real issue is the value of the electricity saved by turning the light off relative to the cost of relamping a fixture. This in turn determines the shortest cost-effective period for turning off a fluorescent light.

All types of lights have a nominal or rated operating life, which is the total number of hours that they will provide a specified level or amount of light. However, the operating life of all types of light bulbs is affected by how many times they are turned on and off. The more often they are switched on and off, the lower their operating life. The exact number of hours that switching lights on and off reduces the total operating life depends on the type of light and how many times it is switched on and off.

For most areas of the United States, a general rule-of-thumb for when to turn off a fluorescent light is if you leave a room for more than 15 minutes. In areas where electric rates are high and/or during peak demand periods, this period may be as low as 5 minutes. Fluorescent lights are more expensive to buy, and their operating life is more affected by the number of times they are switched on and off, relative to incandescent lights. Therefore, it is a cost trade-off between saving energy and money by turning a light off "frequently" and having to replace the bulbs "more" frequently. This is because the reduction in usable lamp life due to frequent on/off switching will probably be greater than the benefit of extending the useful life of the bulb from reduced use. By frequent we mean turning the light off and on many times during the day. Lighting manufacturers should be able to supply information on the duty cycle of their products. In general, the more energy-efficient a bulb/light is, the longer you can keep a light on before it is cost effective to turn it off.

For more information visit - http://www.eere.energy.gov/consumer/your_home/lighting_daylighting/index.cfm/mytopic=12280

[notanexpert]

...
If heating the ceiling were such an efficient way of heating a home, why have they not put registers or baseboard heaters on the ceiling?
...

Actually, I do have heating "registers" between my floor and the ceiling below in my kitchen and bathroom on the ground floor. There is a hose with hot water from the furnace running all over between the joists below my tile floor and there is no other heating in those rooms. In western Europe a floor heating system is used extensively in newer buildings, so I'm guessing it is a very efficient way to heat the home. I think Europe is way ahead of us in terms of efficiency.

In terms of electric heat versus natural gas - gas may be cheaper but for the amount of greenhouse gases released to heat the home, there is not that much difference, so it does not matter for the purpose of this discussion.

[dark169]

In terms of electric heat versus natural gas - gas may be cheaper but for the amount of greenhouse gases released to heat the home, there is not that much difference, so it does not matter for the purpose of this discussion.

This is not true when you consider both how and where the electricity is generated. A high end condensing furnace can get 95% efficiency, which is 20-40% more then the overall combined cycle efficiency one sees in a power plant. So unless all of your power is from none hydro-carbon based power plants burring gas at home vs. electric heat makes sense.

Never mind line losses and the use of gas turbine generators to deal with peak loads which have even lower efficiency.

[notanexpert]

This is not true when you consider both how and where the electricity is generated. A high end condensing furnace can get 95% efficiency, which is 20-40% more then the overall combined cycle efficiency one sees in a power plant. So unless all of your power is from none hydro-carbon based power plants burring gas at home vs. electric heat makes sense.

Never mind line losses and the use of gas turbine generators to deal with peak loads which have even lower efficiency.

I think you're ignoring the fact that well over 50% of the electricity generated in Canada comes form nuclear or hydro-power stations, which have virtually zero greenhouse gas emissions. That easily makes up for the poor efficiency of the gas and coal fired generating stations and the line losses.

[ZenOps]

Yup, if you live in an especially cold climate, and do not have natural gas as a heating option, moving to CFL's actually will make very little difference in money savings and being "green".

As for saving money, using a regular lightbulb for heating is pretty well just as good as using an electric heater (an average incandescent putting out 95% heat and 5% light) There are some small advantages to actual electric heaters though - mainly being that you can place them much lower to the ground. Heat rises, and you want to "create and trap" the heat as low as possible (heated baseboards are the best example)

If you want to save money, actually a incandescent lightbulb or an electric heater is a bad choice as they have a power factor of basically .99 (which means almost perfect VA to watts)

The power companies usually charge you based on wattage, and if you have old appliances that are "dirty" meaning less than .75 power factor, then you are actually getting 25% more heat for the same paid wattage. IE: They are very power inefficient for the wattage, which actually works to the consumers advantage if electrical heating is your only option.

Every single porchlight however, which does not contribute to the heat of the house should be a CFL. There is a national drive to get every external lighbulb on a house converted over to CFL's for this reason.

[brunes]

If you want to save money, actually a incandescent lightbulb or an electric heater is a bad choice as they have a power factor of basically .99 (which means almost perfect VA to watts)

The power companies usually charge you based on wattage, and if you have old appliances that are "dirty" meaning less than .75 power factor, then you are actually getting 25% more heat for the same paid wattage. IE: They are very power inefficient for the wattage, which actually works to the consumers advantage if electrical heating is your only option.


I am interested in this info... are you saying you can somehow get heaters that use the same amount of electricity, but because they use less wattage, cost less to operate?

Where can you get these?



Every single porchlight however, which does not contribute to the heat of the house should be a CFL. There is a national drive to get every external lighbulb on a house converted over to CFL's for this reason.
Problem is I have yet to find a CFL that does well in -20 degrees.

When I spend ~ $2 on a light bulb and see it burn out or break after the first cold day, my wallet aches :/ Makes me not want to risk that again.

[Bazooka Joe]

Yup, if you live in an especially cold climate, and do not have natural gas as a heating option, moving to CFL's actually will make very little difference in money savings and being "green".

As for saving money, using a regular lightbulb for heating is pretty well just as good as using an electric heater (an average incandescent putting out 95% heat and 5% light) There are some small advantages to actual electric heaters though - mainly being that you can place them much lower to the ground. Heat rises, and you want to "create and trap" the heat as low as possible (heated baseboards are the best example)

If you want to save money, actually a incandescent lightbulb or an electric heater is a bad choice as they have a power factor of basically .99 (which means almost perfect VA to watts)

The power companies usually charge you based on wattage, and if you have old appliances that are "dirty" meaning less than .75 power factor, then you are actually getting 25% more heat for the same paid wattage. IE: They are very power inefficient for the wattage, which actually works to the consumers advantage if electrical heating is your only option.

Every single porchlight however, which does not contribute to the heat of the house should be a CFL. There is a national drive to get every external lighbulb on a house converted over to CFL's for this reason.


I'd never thought of this before, but you're absolutely right. Do they have a way of measuring your house power factor? If not, you could very cheaply heat your home with inefficient compressors :lol: :lol: :lol:

I wouldn't exactly call this "green", except for the fact that it would save a ton of money over electric heating :lol:

Edit: I'm trying to come up with an appliance that you would need to use for winter use only or an incredibly inefficient engine - perhaps some sort of energy creating device. There has to be a way to get free heat out of this somehow.

[dark169]

If you want to save money, actually a incandescent lightbulb or an electric heater is a bad choice as they have a power factor of basically .99 (which means almost perfect VA to watts)

The power companies usually charge you based on wattage, and if you have old appliances that are "dirty" meaning less than .75 power factor, then you are actually getting 25% more heat for the same paid wattage. IE: They are very power inefficient for the wattage, which actually works to the consumers advantage if electrical heating is your only option.


Either you miss understand what power factor is or your attempting to apply it to things which it doesn't apply.

PF is the ratio between real and apparent power.
VA is always watts.

The way to get a power factor other then 1 is to have an induction machine. Your furnace motor would be one such beast, but odds are has a capacitor installed for starting/pf correction.

PF refers to the fact that current can lag (or lead) voltage in an AC system where large induction machines still draw high power but the peak voltage (120V) times the current at that peak equals less then the average power drawn. Typical power meters can't measure this power but industrial sites do and it costs the power company to generate that energy.

Your never going to get more heat then what you pay for. The best you could try is to get a 1500watt motor, hook it up to a break and run it you'll just have a noisy 1500watt heater that will burn up and light your house on fire one day all so you can cheat the power company out of a few %...

[ZenOps]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_factor

Power companies usually tend to charge residential customers in Watts, not VA. VA does not equal Watts unless it has a near perfect power factor.

A regular lightbulb or heating element should have a power factor of .99 or 1.

An alternating electric motor or a compressor (like what is usually found in a fridge or freezer) is less than that, often around .80

Since the electric company supplies VA, but bills watts, its always in the best interest of the consumer to have "dirty" appliances if they live in cold climates and only have electrcity as a heat source. IE: The power company must supply more VA to dirty appliances, but they are not allowed to charge you any more. Using a perfect power factor heating element means you are paying exactly what you are using. Using low power factor appliances means the power company must supply more VA (which does result in more heat due to the mechanical inefficiency) but can still only bill you for the watts.

Its a *dirty little secret* that the power companies try to discourage users from figuring out. A perfectly out of phase motor would have a power factor of .50, although there are many other appliances that are very power inefficient, including UPS battery backups. A specially made heating element that cycles out of phase at 50/60 hz would also have a power factor of .5 Although if it gets too bad, the power company will hate you and are well within their rights to charge you more $ per watt if they find out your household is under 90 percent or so efficient (In Canada, it rarely happens that a power company will care about power factor losses, in Japan and California, they will nail you for it)

Canadians should be far more concerned with insulation and retaining the existing heat, than changing out to electrically energy efficient appliances. People who live in for example Texas and California should be far more concerned with changing out to electrically efficient appliances.

[brunes]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_factor

Power companies usually tend to charge residential customers in Watts, not VA. VA does not equal Watts unless it has a near perfect power factor.

A regular lightbulb or heating element should have a power factor of .99 or 1.

An alternating electric motor or a compressor (like what is usually found in a fridge or freezer) is less than that, often around .80

Since the electric company supplies VA, but bills watts, its always in the best interest of the consumer to have "dirty" appliances if they live in cold climates and only have electrcity as a heat source. IE: The power company must supply more VA to dirty appliances, but they are not allowed to charge you any more. Using a perfect power factor heating element means you are paying exactly what you are using. Using low power factor appliances means the power company must supply more VA (which does result in more heat due to the mechanical inefficiency) but can still only bill you for the watts.

Its a *dirty little secret* that the power companies try to discourage users from figuring out. A perfectly out of phase motor would have a power factor of .50, although there are many other appliances that are very power inefficient, including UPS battery backups. A specially made heating element that cycles out of phase at 50/60 hz would also have a power factor of .5 Although if it gets too bad, the power company will hate you and are well within their rights to charge you more $ per watt if they find out your household is under 90 percent or so efficient (In Canada, it rarely happens that a power company will care about power factor losses, in Japan and California, they will nail you for it)

Canadians should be far more concerned with insulation and retaining the existing heat, than changing out to electrically energy efficient appliances. People who live in for example Texas and California should be far more concerned with changing out to electrically efficient appliances.

It sounds good in theory but you'd have to run a HELLOVAS lot of waste-heat generating things to get the equiv. of evenone baseboard heater.

And I think o are overlooking the other point. If an appliance has 50% smaller PF than a heater, it isn't "50% cheaper", it is only a small amount cheaper because most of the power the appliance is using is going toward whatever it was meant to do in the first place.

[notanexpert]

I...
If an appliance has 50% smaller PF than a heater, it isn't "50% cheaper", it is only a small amount cheaper because most of the power the appliance is using is going toward whatever it was meant to do in the first place.

I can't think of any appliance such that nearly 100% of its power consumption does NOT end up inside my home as heat. Unless its an AC with its ass end (or condensing unit) sitting outside.
Sure, some energy goes out the windows in the form of light, but that is nearly negligible compared to the amount of energy that stays in as heat.

[ullyeus]

Maybe even with enough research I could build a good case against CFL's for a climate like ours.


You should go the other way even further and propose more "inefficient" lightbulbs that generate a tonne of heat!

[majesus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_factor

Power companies usually tend to charge residential customers in Watts, not VA. VA does not equal Watts unless it has a near perfect power factor.

A regular lightbulb or heating element should have a power factor of .99 or 1.

An alternating electric motor or a compressor (like what is usually found in a fridge or freezer) is less than that, often around .80

Since the electric company supplies VA, but bills watts, its always in the best interest of the consumer to have "dirty" appliances if they live in cold climates and only have electrcity as a heat source. IE: The power company must supply more VA to dirty appliances, but they are not allowed to charge you any more. Using a perfect power factor heating element means you are paying exactly what you are using. Using low power factor appliances means the power company must supply more VA (which does result in more heat due to the mechanical inefficiency) but can still only bill you for the watts.

Its a *dirty little secret* that the power companies try to discourage users from figuring out. A perfectly out of phase motor would have a power factor of .50, although there are many other appliances that are very power inefficient, including UPS battery backups. A specially made heating element that cycles out of phase at 50/60 hz would also have a power factor of .5 Although if it gets too bad, the power company will hate you and are well within their rights to charge you more $ per watt if they find out your household is under 90 percent or so efficient (In Canada, it rarely happens that a power company will care about power factor losses, in Japan and California, they will nail you for it)

Canadians should be far more concerned with insulation and retaining the existing heat, than changing out to electrically energy efficient appliances. People who live in for example Texas and California should be far more concerned with changing out to electrically efficient appliances.

Haha, interesting theory, but you are giving everyone the impression that lagging their PF would be beneficial.
It MAY cause problems for the end user as well: with sensitive electronic devices, loss of power due to additional voltage drops in the lines of your home, additional heat generated in motor windings that can lead to failure, etc...
Anyways for a good read:
http://www.nakahoma.com/POWER_FA.PDF
http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=185597&page=1


As for CFL, the cost savings over time from utilizing CFL outweighs its initial capital cost. Not to mention the energy savings reduces the carbon footprint (hydro footprint depending on where your power comes from.) Yeah it is debatable if the material footrprint is less.... compared to the total amount of incandescent a CFL replaces per lifetime, the amount of material and energy to manufacture one CFL can be arguable. Futhermore, as the technology and manufacturing process improves, this arguement tends to be in favor for CFLs.

Two examples where incandescent lights are useful: extreme temperatures ranges, (outside lamp, below freezing, freezer light, oven light), and intermittent use (on for 2 minutes per month, say in a rarely accessed storage closet)

[dark169]

You should go the other way even further and propose more "inefficient" lightbulbs that generate a tonne of heat!

well considering electrical resistance is pretty much 100% efficient at turning electrical energy into heat it would be hard to get more "inefficient", bloody laws of thermodynamics. Remember even the 13W used by a CFL ends up adding 13W of heat to your home. His point is IF your heating your home with electricity anyway it matters very little if that heat is coming from a heater or a light bulb or a fridge / stove, actual energy savings during the heating months of CFL are alot less.

[Red_Army]

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?

it is more harmful to the environment to produce these lightbulbs

[gilboman]

it is more harmful to the environment to produce these lightbulbs

in what perspective are you talking about? from a lifecycle point of view, manufacturing, usage, effluents, byproducts from manufacturing or just plain out of your a$$?;)

[ullyeus]

well considering electrical resistance is pretty much 100% efficient at turning electrical energy into heat it would be hard to get more "inefficient", bloody laws of thermodynamics. Remember even the 13W used by a CFL ends up adding 13W of heat to your home. His point is IF your heating your home with electricity anyway it matters very little if that heat is coming from a heater or a light bulb or a fridge / stove, actual energy savings during the heating months of CFL are alot less.

That's my exact point as well. We should create lightbulbs that purposefully give off lots and lots of heat and allow us to direct that heat.

[notanexpert]

That's my exact point as well. We should create lightbulbs that purposefully give off lots and lots of heat and allow us to direct that heat.

No need for any new designs. You can buy 500W incandescents, if you put one like that in your bathroom and leave it on for fifteen minutes before your shower, you will find it nice and toasty inside, exactly as warm as if you had a 500W heater. If you put in a 13W CFL, it will act like a 13W heater, meaning that you won't feel much heat at all. So you can already choose the amount of heat you want with the existing products.

[82]

Gas is less efficient than electric heat, hi-efficient furnace has 90% efficiency. Electric heater has 100% efficiency.

What about in summer? The heat produced by incandescents will make your A/C runs harder.



A few things to keep in mind: On average my furnace is only on October-March (6 months, and I live pretty far North in Northern Ontario). 8 months would be Fort McMurray and points north.

Gas is more efficient (environmentally) than electric heat. So your argument only works is your house is heated via electric heat. Much electricity comes from burning coal, which is a 30%-40% efficient process. Add to that transmission losses and you're getting much less "green" by the kilometer.

As stated previously, heat rises. To heat a room at human level it is more efficient to heat from the bottom than the top. Much of the lightbulb heat is wasted as it is heating space that is not occupied by people (assuming electric heat, the heat has to radiate through the floor before heating the above story - much heat will be lost compared to turning on an equally sized baseboard heater).

[Evil Techie]

incandescent is produces waste heat
because it is not efficient at producing heat at all
most of the time the heat is blocked by light fixtures so the amount of heat added to the rooms by these bulbs arent significant enough to be taken into accounts anyways

[Tjalfe]

Gas is less efficient than electric heat, hi-efficient furnace has 90% efficiency. Electric heater has 100% efficiency.

What about in summer? The heat produced by incandescents will make your A/C runs harder.

Gas furnaces come as high as 96% efficiency, if you factor in generating inefficiencies, electric heat is more wasteful and will cost you more. If you only have electric heat as an option, look into getting a ground sourced heat pump to be more than 100% effective :D

[dark169]

incandescent is produces waste heat
because it is not efficient at producing heat at all
most of the time the heat is blocked by light fixtures so the amount of heat added to the rooms by these bulbs arent significant enough to be taken into accounts anyways

lol so the temperature inside for the bulb continues to rise until its hotter then the sun? Where does the energy go. Peoples lack of understanding of energy is mind boggling.

Things create waste heat becuase they are not efficient at doing what they are meant to, in this case light (which is just shorter wavelength EMR then what people feel as heat). Heat is always the waste and I can promise you the wattage any electrical appliance uses is turned 100% into heat eventually.

[dark169]

That's my exact point as well. We should create lightbulbs that purposefully give off lots and lots of heat and allow us to direct that heat.

buy a 1500W heat bulb... OR a 1500W heater which is just a light bulb you can't see the "light".

[82]

Electric furnace may cost more in many areas but it is neck to neck in provinces with ample Hydro source. Electric is very low maintenance, 100% efficient in theory, no CO gas, save the cost of the maintenance of a seperate gas pipe. If I am going to build another house, I will defnintely go for Electric heat.

Geo Heat Pump is too new, maintenance info is unknown. And heat is too slow, need alternate forced-air solution to fill to cold surge. Interesting green idea but need more time to show its ability.


Gas furnaces come as high as 96% efficiency, if you factor in generating inefficiencies, electric heat is more wasteful and will cost you more. If you only have electric heat as an option, look into getting a ground sourced heat pump to be more than 100% effective :D

[Tjalfe]

Heatpumps have been around for quite a while. We had one when I was growing up in Europe, and that was 20 years ago. Lots of government grants available if you switch from plain resistive heating to a heatpump as it is much more efficient, and it has a very efficient air conditioner build in when reversing the flow.
cost of maintaining a gas line?.. the line is put in place, unless it is rusting on you or something, I cannot see what maintainence you would need to do with a gas line.. no more than you would on a big 200A electrical service.
No CO gas produced, true, which is why gas furnaces are vented outside.

[JAC]

Geo Heat Pump is too new, maintenance info is unknown. And heat is too slow, need alternate forced-air solution to fill to cold surge. Interesting green idea but need more time to show its ability.

Wrong on all counts. My folks have a ground source heat pump furnace/AC, and it works just fine.

They are bloody expensive, however.

[majesus]

That's my exact point as well. We should create lightbulbs that purposefully give off lots and lots of heat and allow us to direct that heat.

I think we are going around in circles, there are lightbulbs that are purposefully designed to give off lots of heat, they are typically used in the food industry.
http://www.hardwarestore.com/media/product/103230_front200.jpg


If you put in a 13W CFL, it will act like a 13W heater, meaning that you won't feel much heat at all. So you can already choose the amount of heat you want with the existing products.
A 13W CFL, doesn't give off 13W of heat, a CFL consumes 13W of electricity (Pin.) Since Pin = Pout, the light will deduct from the generated heat.

I wouldn't be concerned about CFL heating your house. How many CFL do you have in your room? CFLs are designed to give off light, if you want to heat your house, buy a heater.

[82]

If I use electric heat, I essentially eliminate the need of a gas line to my house. Also I don't need to pay the minimal month charge (about $10) on the gas account for the 6-8 months.

Geo heat pump is a good idea but the initial cost is too high, and it doesn't cope well with cold surge as forced air heat. For example, if you open the front door too often (e.g. party, accepting delivery...), the indoor temperature may drop significantly around the front door and it takes a while to heat up that area.




Heatpumps have been around for quite a while. We had one when I was growing up in Europe, and that was 20 years ago. Lots of government grants available if you switch from plain resistive heating to a heatpump as it is much more efficient, and it has a very efficient air conditioner build in when reversing the flow.
cost of maintaining a gas line?.. the line is put in place, unless it is rusting on you or something, I cannot see what maintainence you would need to do with a gas line.. no more than you would on a big 200A electrical service.
No CO gas produced, true, which is why gas furnaces are vented outside.

[Brandon]

Something else to consider is that it's not very practical to heat a house depending on incandescent light bulbs vs a furnace. From another point other than efficiency, incandescent light bulbs don't do anything actively to radiate heat energy, they depend on convection.

Take for instance it's evening time and everybody in the house is on a communal area watching TV or reading. This room will be the only room which lighted, thus the only room receiving heat energy from incandescent light bulbs. Come time for everybody to go to sleep, all the other rooms will be relatively cool compared to that room which is "comfortable".

So maybe if you lived in a small apartment with one or two open areas, heating with lighting wouldn't work. A furnace works well for heating a house (efficiency aside), as it works in conjunction with an active heat distribution system (ducts). Now I don't go as far as claiming that all rooms have equal amounts of heating from this, it's much more even than compared to real world lighting usage.

And if you have the furnace on and the rest of the house is at a comfortable temperature, and you have lights on in one room, I sometimes find that the room is uncomfortably warm while the rest of the house is fine. This is even more especially noticable on second floor rooms in a house. If you open a window in the winter to equalize the temperature, it defeats the purpose as you lose heat energy that way (even though it's what you would practically do).

[Tjalfe]

If I use electric heat, I essentially eliminate the need of a gas line to my house. Also I don't need to pay the minimal month charge (about $10) on the gas account for the 6-8 months.

Geo heat pump is a good idea but the initial cost is too high, and it doesn't cope well with cold surge as forced air heat. For example, if you open the front door too often (e.g. party, accepting delivery...), the indoor temperature may drop significantly around the front door and it takes a while to heat up that area.
is electricity super cheap where you live, compared to Gas, since you chose to use resistive heating?

[82]

Yes, Hydro is cheap and green if properly planned, 0.06 for kW. Gas price can go up and down, very easy to be manipulated by future trading. One of my friend replaced his mid efficient gas furnace (80%) with a electic heater two years ago and he is very impressed, cheaper, no need of CO detector, maintenance free.

Then again, cheaper is really depends on where you live and the market price of natural gas, which is traded in future contract as Gas. 10 years ago, nobody will bother to install a electric heater.




is electricity super cheap where you live, compared to Gas, since you chose to use resistive heating?

[brunes]

is electricity super cheap where you live, compared to Gas, since you chose to use resistive heating?

Gas prices go all over the map. People seem to think there is some infinite source of gas. There isn't. It is almost as scarce of oil. Current predictions say the world's supply will be totally exhausted by 2085.

That said - the price of gas will continue to go up over time. RIght now gas is at a crazy unjustified low due to trading. This isn't going to stay that way forever.

The reason I heat with electric is I don't have to worry about this kind of crap. Electric heat is the great equalizer -I let the power company worry about the cheapest way to make power, and I will indirectly get the benefits.

If gas gets super expensive, power company will eventually switch to something else. I don't have to pay to convert my whole house over every 5-10 years when the next best thing comes along. Overall you lose a bit of efficiency due to the transmission of the energy, but if the energy source the power company is using is green, then it doesn't matter anyway.

[Tjalfe]

Yes, Hydro is cheap and green if properly planned, 0.06 for kW. Gas price can go up and down, very easy to be manipulated by future trading. One of my friend replaced his mid efficient gas furnace (80%) with a electic heater two years ago and he is very impressed, cheaper, no need of CO detector, maintenance free.

Then again, cheaper is really depends on where you live and the market price of natural gas, which is traded in future contract as Gas. 10 years ago, nobody will bother to install a electric heater.

Right now electricity here is also around $0.055 or $0.06/KW/h, but with transmission, account,bs fees and such, it is closer to twice that.. I believe after tax I pay around $0.13/KWh
Electricity too is being artificially kept low at this time.. it too will change in the future.

[dark169]

Geo heat pump is a good idea but the initial cost is too high, and it doesn't cope well with cold surge as forced air heat. For example, if you open the front door too often (e.g. party, accepting delivery...), the indoor temperature may drop significantly around the front door and it takes a while to heat up that area.

Only true if you have a poorly designed system. A home should never be heated 100% by radiant heat for this and other reasons, but a proper radiant system combined with a high velocity air system is way better then other options.

100% radiant systems (electric baseboard, gas/water, heat pump/water) leaves your home with stale still air. Theres piles of mixxed solutions, high velocity systems get away from large ducts and registers and depending on the system can be used to heat rooms individually combined with radiant solutions.

I questions the wisdom of having an electrical resistance heater keeping the front entrance toasty warm while the door is open, pretty much just pouring money out the door. In floor hydronic heating has the added benefit of making people feel warmer despite a lower air temperature as the concrete slab will radiate heat evenly over the whole space.

[82]

Yes, this is what i said. Geo thermal pump requires assistant from another heat source to smooth out the cold surges. This will increase the TCO because of added equipments, maintenances, fuels. In MB, our Hydro cost is so low that make Geo pump not very economical, especially if you take interest into account. we only pay around 0.06 per kW and a basic charge less than $10 per month and it will take 12-15 years to payback with 0%interest, so reality maybe over 20 years!!! Don't get me wrong, Geo pump is good and green, just calculate your TCO carefully before you make any decision. Hopefully engineers will make the technology cheaper to install.

Electricity's price is different all over the world, unlike Crude Oil and Natrual GAS where Canadian are forced to pay the same market price. Even if you live in Alberta, you don't benefit from the low production cost. So there is a much higher risk of price fluctuation and manipulatin. The biggest mistake is to privatize electricity operation. So essentially we are paying the mistakes made by inproper plannings and greeds of private firms.

Electric furnace is forced air heat too and very easy to retrofit into existing gas furnace. Basically you simply replace the gas furnance with a electric furnace, all the HVAC keep intact. Very simple change.




Only true if you have a poorly designed system. A home should never be heated 100% by radiant heat for this and other reasons, but a proper radiant system combined with a high velocity air system is way better then other options.

100% radiant systems (electric baseboard, gas/water, heat pump/water) leaves your home with stale still air. Theres piles of mixxed solutions, high velocity systems get away from large ducts and registers and depending on the system can be used to heat rooms individually combined with radiant solutions.

I questions the wisdom of having an electrical resistance heater keeping the front entrance toasty warm while the door is open, pretty much just pouring money out the door. In floor hydronic heating has the added benefit of making people feel warmer despite a lower air temperature as the concrete slab will radiate heat evenly over the whole space.

[dark169]

Yes, this is what i said. Geo thermal pump requires assistant from another heat source to smooth out the cold surges.

a high velocity air system isn't another source of heat its just another delivery method, the heat still comes from the heat pump. It uses a water to air heat exchanger combined with a fan and small ducting. Its the same system that would provide the AC in the summer. AC is not the same as cooling a floor.

You can comfortably heat a whole home with a well designed system using only a heat pump (or a NG boiler, or a electric boiler for that matter).

[dark169]

Electricity's price is different all over the world, unlike Crude Oil and Natrual GAS where Canadian are forced to pay the same market price. Even if you live in Alberta, you don't benefit from the low production cost. So there is a much higher risk of price fluctuation and manipulatin. The biggest mistake is to privatize electricity operation. So essentially we are paying the mistakes made by inproper plannings and greeds of private firms.


End of the day someone needs to pay the true cost of electrical generation. Keeping it controlled by the government only hides who really pays the bill. In regulated areas when the cost of NG or any other feed stock goes up (uranium/coal) but the price of electricity can't someone needs to pay the difference and end of the day theres only one person that does: the tax payer.

In proper planning is SOP for government operations / crown corperations as they are backed by the crown.

[Red_Army]

in what perspective are you talking about? from a lifecycle point of view, manufacturing, usage, effluents, byproducts from manufacturing or just plain out of your a$$?;)

actually its the gasses used to produce suh lightbulbs

[82]

You can install more heat coils but it won't be cost effective, this is the nature of heat pump, it is not designed to heat up a room quickly. Here is a quick update on cost comparison as on August 2007.
http://www.hydro.mb.ca/your_home/home_heating_comparisons.pdf

I don't think the true cost of electricity is being manipulated as bad ad natural gas prices in Canada. In MB, electricity prices was charged higher to compensate the natural gas price last Winter.

Hey, I thought the thread is about CFL :?:



a high velocity air system isn't another source of heat its just another delivery method, the heat still comes from the heat pump. It uses a water to air heat exchanger combined with a fan and small ducting. Its the same system that would provide the AC in the summer. AC is not the same as cooling a floor.

You can comfortably heat a whole home with a well designed system using only a heat pump (or a NG boiler, or a electric boiler for that matter).

[st7860]

You can install more heat coils but it won't be cost effective, this is the nature of heat pump, it is not designed to heat up a room quickly. Here is a quick update on cost comparison as on August 2007.
http://www.hydro.mb.ca/your_home/home_heating_comparisons.pdf

I don't think the true cost of electricity is being manipulated as bad ad natural gas prices in Canada. In MB, electricity prices was charged higher to compensate the natural gas price last Winter.



in BC, hydro is dirt cheap but its still cheaper to use gas heating.

[82]

Have you factor in the maintenance and monthly basic charge? Accordingly to MB Hydro's calculation using August 2007 market price (where Natural Gas price is still relatively low at $6-$7 per MMBtu in past three months, compared to $14 after Katrina). Electric is only $145 more than 92% high-Efficiency Furnace for typical MB winter. But if you omit Natural Gas service, you save 12 x $10 per year basic monthly charge right there. BC is warmer than MB, so the difference is even smaller.

MB Hydro is the primary supplier of Natural Gas and Electricity for the Province.


in BC, hydro is dirt cheap but its still cheaper to use gas heating.

[Tjalfe]

here gas prices have only gone above $0.30 a couple of times in the last year.. it mostly hovers at around $0.26. Yes, there is a monthly charge from the gas company, but there is the same for hydro here, and we have to pay debt retirement fees as well.

[82]

You can eliminate gas entirely by switching to electric furnace, but you cannot eliminate electricity unless you have your own generator.



here gas prices have only gone above $0.30 a couple of times in the last year.. it mostly hovers at around $0.26. Yes, there is a monthly charge from the gas company, but there is the same for hydro here, and we have to pay debt retirement fees as well.

[nelsonmp5]

Btw, have you guys seen Living with Ed Beagley Jr?
Funny show.
He's obsessed with going green. He's also neighbours with Bill Nye the science guy and they have a little competition as to who will get off the grid first.

Also a link to a promotional vid from National Geographic
http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/player/environment/going-green-environment/conservation-in-action/this-bulb-ngv.html

And a link I think has been posted before but I thought I repost.
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/about_us/Dr_David_Suzuki/Article_Archives/weekly06220701.asp