My Father tried to convince me that it takes more energy to make the new energy saving florescent light bulbs than they save. I don't know where he heard that, but I doubt that's true. Does anyone know for sure?
2007-11-19 12:42:13 · 5 answers · asked by Dolyn 6 in Environment ➔ Other - Environment
That is not true but people say it all the time. The energy saving bulb saves you $38 worth of energy but only costs $1.65 to buy. See the source. If the company that made the bulb had to use more energy to make it than the $38 worth that it saves, then that company had to PAY $38 for that amount of energy in order to get it to make the bulb. So there is no way they could sell it for less than the amount it saves.
Now some people claim that big companies pay less than you and me for power. Not necessarily true, but possibly true in some cases. But $38 worth for $1.65 (4% of what it costs us)? I don't think so! And that is just to make manufacturing the bulb use the SAME amount of energy. They would need to pay LESS than 4% of our cost for power to sell it without a loss if it took more energy to make the bulb than it saves. I don't care how they get their energy, it is not going to be that cheap.
2007-11-19 13:41:38 · answer #1 · answered by campbelp2002 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Florescent light bulbs save a lot of energy, as you probably know from all the pge commercials. The bulbs produce ultraviolet light that is invisible and requires minimal energy to produce. This reacts with mercury to produce light. This produces less heat and more energy is concentrated in the lighting. It emits 56 lumens per watt verses the incandescents 14 lumens. The florescent lights also last for 10,000 hours so you will save 420000 lumens per watt compared to an incandescent after you use it until it burns out. I'm not sure about the amount of energy needed to make one, but it wont be very different compared to the incandescents too. After all the explanation, you will come to the comclusion that you will save more energy in the long run, and experience a lot of energy savings.
2007-11-19 13:28:35 · answer #2 · answered by BJ 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sure. Think about it. A 60 watt equivalent is 13 watts. Say it only burns for a year. Thats 47X24X365 watt hours or 411 kilowatt hours. It can't take more than an hours worth of electricity to make and it can't take 411 kilowatts for that hour. The cost of the electricity would be more than the cost of the bulb.
Impress him with your math skills. Point out that this is exactly the kind of question they like to ask business school applicants, and exactly the kind of rough analysis they like to see.
About mercury.
Using compact fluorescent lights (CFLs) actually reduces mercury pollution.
Fossil fuels contain mercury. Using incandescent bulbs causes more mercury to be emitted from power plants. More than the tiny amount (0.005 grams or less) that is in a CFL.
It's better if you dispose of old CFLs properly so that even the tiny amount of mercury is not released. But, no matter how they're disposed of, CFLs reduce mercury pollution.
http://www.cityofberkeley.info/sustainable/Powerplay%20articles/16Powerplay.Mercury.CFL.html
http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/cfl.asp
2007-11-19 13:11:24 · answer #3 · answered by Bob 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A friend of mine and I volunteered for Project Porchlight, and we gave away one free light bulb to every house that we got the route to. We got a lot of information regarding the light bulbs, such as one light bulb will last 5-7 years and will end up saving the owner $55 (CDN). I highly doubt it takes more energy to make them than it saves. Otherwise there wouldn't be such a hype in changing light bulbs. In fact, I'm going to say for sure that what your father says isn't true. Maybe convince him otherwise and change even just ONE light bulb. It's the small things such as these that make the difference.
2007-11-19 12:53:56 · answer #4 · answered by Joe J 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The new lights have Mercury a toxin to the human race. When your bulbs blow out or they break you now have Mercury floating around the Earth. A lot of power is safely produced so use the regular bulbs.
2007-11-19 14:45:56 · answer #5 · answered by Nukewar 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No it is not. The only negative concerning the new light bulbs is that they contain mercury. But concerning how much energy it takes it is pretty much the same. I heard that rumor too, it was started by the makers of the traditional candescent light bulb.
2007-11-19 13:03:08 · answer #6 · answered by Dwill 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋