Energy saving light bulbs. If you are an average Joe like me who can be confused easily by terms and acronyms, it’s easy to understand why so many of us shy away from ‘new stuff’.
Yet, as a home owner trying to make ‘ends meet’, no one is going to take responsibility for you saving money on your household expenses except you. And, you are not a renovation expert (who really is?) but you do want to make simple changes in your house that can both save you money and help you feel good about ‘protecting the environment’.
Here are the two terms that might help to get things started regarding light bulbs you use in your home:
- Incandescent light bulbs - energy wasters and very short life
- CFL light bulbs - energy savers and much longer life
I could go on and on about the different aspects I am learning about CFL light bulbs. For now, here are a couple of thoughts I wanted to share.
First, I came across a web site from TCP International, a very large player in the manufacturing of CFL light bulbs, that can help the average, and not so average 
, home owner understand the cost savings, options and environmental greenness of CFL light bulbs.
The web site is called SpringLight CFL, after the name of the new brand of CFL energy saving light bulbs manufactured and sold by TCP International. One of the things that is very cool about this site is the SpringLight In Your Home page where you are provided with pictures of different rooms in the home and their different possible lighting.
These pictures are interactive in that you can click on each of the different lights shown and compare the savings of the manufacturer’s SpringLight brand of CFL’s with other types of light bulbs for the same usage. It’s pretty cool and very eye appealing.
There are other areas on the web site about the product line, about different aspects of CFL type of light bulbs and so on. I knew that CFL light bulbs can last longer than incandescent light bulbs; but I didn’t know it was up to 10 times longer. That is also confirmed on the page within the ENERGY STAR (yes, that ENERGY STAR) web site on CFL light bulbs.
The second thought I wanted to pass on was about a recent experience I had in changing a light bulb. I wanted to try a CFL (the energy saving kind) light bulb instead of the incandescent light bulb within one of the recessed (pot) lights in the ceiling in one of our rooms. I had been in the room for about 5 minutes with the ceiling lights turned on to read the packaging of the CFL light bulb, etc.
I had read that CFL light bulbs were not as hot when turned on compared to the incandescent light bulbs. I turned the ceiling lights off and waited for about 2 minutes. I then went to remove the incandescent bulb. I almost burnt my fingers. I had to wait a good 10 minutes before the light bulb could cool down sufficiently for me to remove it. I never realized just how much heat those incandescent light bulbs can generate. Wow! Now we know why certain rooms in our home with incandescent light bulbs in the recessed (pot) lights in the ceiling still feel really hot at night in the summer causing our air conditioner to still run on and on and on (not the only reason of course, but one of them).
When I did replace the light bulb with a CFL type bulb I did a quick test to see how fast it would cool down to compare. I left the light on for what I thought was the same amount of time and then turned it off. I was able to easily remove it after only 2 minutes (perhaps less…. I am not a scientist).
So, as stated above, lots and lots of different aspects of CFL light bulbs that one can talk about and discuss. We hope the above gets you thinking about educating yourself about an easy and inexpensive way to help reduce your direct and indirect electricity costs in your home.
I’ll leave you with one more thought. According to the ENERGY STAR web site referred to above, did you know that “If every American home replaced just one light bulb with an ENERGY STAR qualified bulb, we would save enough energy to light more than 3 million homes for a year, more than $600 million in annual energy costs, and prevent greenhouse gases equivalent to the emissions of more than 800,000 cars.”
Wow!
6 responses so far ↓
1 Jen / domestika // May 21, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Dan, we’re planning to install pot lights in the soffits of our new verandah to give a little lighting on the area of the steps. Do you happen to know anything about energy-efficient bulbs that would be appropriate for that use, that could stand up to our Canadian winters? I know you’ve done a lot of research on products that save energy - so if you’ve got any recommendations, I’d really appreciate it!
2 Dan // May 22, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Hi Jen,
We already have very nice outside lights on either side of our front door and motion sensor lights on our back doors, so we never had a need for this. Hence, I have not looked specifically for this and do not know the answer with any certainty.
If I don’t know an answer for sure, then I’ll find someont to go to someone who does.
I have asked Tina Ricciardi of TCPI (the maker of the CFL light bulbs we use in many of our home light outlets) to answer your question on my behalf.
It is a great questions as that certainly is the new trend in exterior home lighting (the lights in the soffits).
Dan
3 Tina // May 22, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Hello Jen,
First off, thank you Dan for forwarding this question on to us.
TCP, Inc. is the global leader in energy efficient lighting innovations dedicated to creating high-quality products that are brighter, longer lasting and better for the environment. Headquartered outside Cleveland, Ohio, TCP is the largest manufacturer of compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs), manufacturing nearly 1.4 million energy saving CFLs every day. You can find out more about us at www.tcpi.com.
Please see the products listed below showing the CFL’s that would be best for you to use for your application:
http://www.tcpi.com/PDF/1205_00743%20Flat%20Par%20SS.pdf
http://www.tcpi.com/PDF/1523_02097%20Flood%20Light%20T2%20Revision%20SS.pdf
Please note that the floodlights listed above are not dimmable.
The minimum temperature that CFLs are rated for is -20°F, at temperatures this low it is possible that a CFL might not start at all. In cold temperatures above -20°F such as 0°F a CFL will start up slower and will give off less light than it would at warmer temperatures (such as at 60°F) but a CFL should still provide sufficient light for your application.
These products can be purchased through Home Depot Supply. You can call their toll free number to order: 1-800-782-0557.
4 Bill Lynn // Jul 1, 2008 at 9:58 pm
A CFL saga.
In early 2007 we replaced all the incandescent bulbs in our church sanctuary with CFL’s, giving a power reduction of about 6000W, (6kW).
They are on about 4 hours per week 50 weeks per year, so about 200 hours per year x 6 kW = 1200 kWh. At 8.5¢ / kWh the saving is about $100 / yr. The CFL’s cost about $400, so 4 yr payback, right?
Well, not quite. During the heating season the heat that used to come from the incandescents has to come from oil, about 1 litre per 8 kWh.
i.e. 30 wks * 4 hr/wk * 6kW * 1 L/ 8 kWh = 90 litres / yr.
In 2007 oil cost about 60¢ / litre, for $54 / yr, so still ahead.
In 2008 electicity costs 8.7¢ /kWh for a yearly saving of $104, and oil costs $1.20 / litre (and rising) for a yearly cost of $108, so no longer ahead cost wise.
Unfortunately, not only are we no longer saving money, we are adding about 235 kg / yr of GHG to the atmosphere. (This is only true if we assume hydro electricity produces no GHG. Where electricity is produced from coal, the coal produces more GHG than an oil furnace.)
If the church were air conditioned, the cost picture would be different, because the reduced electricity input also reduces the air conditioning load in summer.
Just something to chew on.
5 Dan // Jul 2, 2008 at 12:00 am
Hey Bill,
Do the lights have to be on all that time? If not, has our church considered simple sensors that would turn the lights off with no movement in the area?
I agree non-CFL’s can get quite hot. The numbers ou quote are interesting.
I can’t pretend to understand all those numbers but my but tells me that using a product for a purpose that it was not originally intended, i.e. using lights to heat a room, is likely not the most efficient approach. But, since I am new to all this and learning as I go I could be all wet.
Cheers,
Dan
6 Bill Lynn // Jul 2, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Hi Dan,
4 hours per week just covers the Sunday service, assuming an hour or two before and after.
If the lights were on 40 hours per week, the 2008 saving would be 40 * 50 * 6 * .087 = $1044, which suggests that they would pay back in less than six months.
However, the extra heat required from the oil furnace for a 30 week heating season would cost 40*30*6/8 * 1.20 = $1080, and would produce 2340 kg extra GHG.
Obviously, the incandescent lights were not put there to heat the building, but both scenarios illustrate that our efforts at energy saving can have unexpected side effects (to my on-going frustration).
Leave a Comment