Do Compact Fluorescent Bulbs save energy in total, considering the energy used to produce and dispose of them?

Question

A very green person, a lighting professional, suggests that CFL's are not, given the extra resources needed for constructing the plants to make them and for generating the extra materials in them. Beyond the energy balance asked in the question, are other environmental factors involved? I doubt, for example, that consumers will drive 10 miles to a hazardous waste disposal site to get rid of one bulb, or even put it in a separate bag ( under most current law and regulation regimes). In other words, what should a trying-to-be-green consumer do? Does it matter that I happen to be in the US? And need dimmable bulbs?

Answer 1

Short answer: CFs are better than incandescents.

Yes, there are more energy inputs for the CF, but those can be (roughly) quantified by its price ($6 or so) versus the $0.50 to $1 for an incandescent bulb. Plus you need 4 to 10 incandescent bulbs to equal the life of a CF, so that is more labor, materials and cost to factor in. CFs will save $40 to $60 in energy usage over their life, so you come out far ahead financially and resource wise.

Clearly the manufacturer, transporters, retailers, etc are NOT putting more than $6 of energy into the bulb if they sell for that.

There is definitively mercury in CFs as in any fluorescent bulb. So you should, ideally, save them up for a household toxics day at the dump. Obviously many people don't, so there is already mercury in the landfill. Which is a better place for it than a stream or open field.

Note that CFs should be only be put in open fixtures like a traditional lamp with lampshade or a wall sconce. They die pretty quick in an enclosed lighting fixture because they can't stand the heat like an incandescent. They'll die in a few hundred hours instead of lasting a few thousand hours.

Answer 2

I have often heard people say things like that. A solar panel will never produce as much energy as it took to build in the first place. A compact fluorescent lamp will not save as much energy as it took to manufacture it. (Strangely enough, I have never heard the same said of plain old ordinary fluorescent lights, the 4 foot long tubes that are in every commercial building.) But these claims are never backed up with facts. Where are the studies and documents that show exactly how much energy was used to manufacture these things? That is always lacking. I never just believe something that sounds improbable unless I am also presented with clear facts that I can accept that back up the claim.

Answer 3

That's a very interesting question. According to Wikipedia, manufacturing a compact fluorescent bulb emits trace amounts of mercury. Instead of driving 10 miles to a disposal site, some stores accept burnt out light bulbs and will properly dispose of them. According to Ban The Bulb, 101 billion kWh are wasted every year in the US from the heat loss of incandescent bulbs. Fluorescent bulbs use 67% less energy than incandescent bulbs. It seems to me that if everybody used fluorescent bulbs, it would cut down pollution caused by the wasted 101 billion kWh from incandescent bulbs. I believe fluorescent bulbs are better.