Reflections on GE's New Compact Flourescent Lightbulb

This article was originally posted on Cleantech Blog by Richard T. Stuebi:

I have long been a fan of the compact fluorescent lightbulb movement, so I thought it was fitting to compare the pitfalls of CFLs - and consumer behavior around energy efficiency. While grocery shopping yesterday, I found that our local store has finally started stocking GE (NYSE: GE) compact flourescent lightbulbs (CFLs).

Candidly, my experience to date with CFLs has not been positive. Last year, I went to Home Depot (NYSE: HD), where I tend to buy household gadgets, thinking they would have the best selection of CFLs. At least back then, Home Depot didn't carry GE CFLs (some say this was because of ex-CEO Bob Nardelli's lingering resentment of having been passed over for Jeff Immelt when Jack Welch stepped down as CEO of GE), so I bought what Home Depot had in stock: a carton of private-label CFLs, for about $10 for a 5-pack.

I wish I could say that I was blown away by the CFLs, but regrettably, I wasn't. In my assessment, the light quality provided by the CFLs was too pale, and it took far too long (10-20 seconds) to reach even a minimally acceptable "warm" color. Furthermore, the CFLs were not usable in many of the applications in my home: they don't fit into lamps with tight covers/shades, and when installed to a fixture with dimmers, they emit an annoying loud buzzing sound -- and an awful Snap-Crackle-Pop (and I don't mean Rice Krispies) when the dimmer is turned down.

My initial foray into CFLs thus resulted in considerable disappointment. Although I don't feel good about it at all, so far I've generally stuck with the old horribly inefficient incandescents -- they at least produce a quality of light that I've come to expect.

I've been told that CFL quality varies, and that GE's CFL products are quite a bit better -- albeit more expensive -- than the generic brands of the kind I had bought. I didn't search all over town for GE CFLs, but I never saw them anywhere I happened to be shopping. Until this weekend.

Now, here in front of me finally were individually-packaged GE CFLs, the 15 watt (60 watt incandescent equivalent) priced at $4.49. Two shelves below were the standard GE incandescent 60 watt soft white lightbulbs, priced at $1.59 for a 4-pack, or about $0.40 per bulb. The CFL is thus 11 times more expensive, on a first-cost basis, than the incandescent. For the average customer, who is typically very conscious of the initial cost and pretty clueless about life-cycle economics, this is a really big spread.

In small print on the CFL packaging, GE claims that the 15 watt CFL bulb will save over its 3000-hour lifetime $13 worth of electricity (at $0.10/kwh) relative to 60 watt incandescents offering the same lumination.

$13 worth of electricity savings for an extra $4 up-front sounds like a pretty good deal. However, of course, it all depends on how many years it will take the user to generate the $13 of electricity savings -- which in turn depends on how much the user uses the lightbulb.

A year is comprised of 8760 hours, so if the CFL operates 24/7, it will only take a few months to generate $13 in savings. Perhaps more importantly, it will only take a few weeks to pay back the extra $4 for the CFL instead of the incandescent. But, few of us use any lights anywhere near that much.

For a lamp used an hour a day, or about 300 hours a year, it will take 10 years to achieve the $13 in savings -- or about 3 years to recover the $4 extra premium for buying the CFL instead of incandescents. A 3-year payback represents a good internal rate of return, on the order of 20%, which is far better than the long-term returns historically offered by the stock market.

So why don't I pursue a 20% financial return? On further consideration, I am put off for two reasons.

First, I can see for sure the $4 extra leaving my hands today to buy the CFL -- but I don't have anywhere near the same degree of confidence that I'll actually generate the economic savings at the desired pace. Will I really use the CFL about an hour a day? It might be more like 15 minutes a day, leading instead to a 12 year payback period -- an outright unattractive financial return.

Second, I am strongly influenced my past negative experience with CFLs. If I buy this expensive lightbulb today, will I like its light? Will I be annoyed every time I turn it on and wait for it to have a color I can barely tolerate? Will I swap it out for a regular incandescent after a few weeks?

When I reflect upon it further, it's the second set of considerations that put me off from buying that GE CFL. I bought CFLs in the past that I disliked, and don't use. They were a bad investment. Even though it's relatively small dollars involved, I don't like making mistakes -- and I really hate making the same mistake twice.

I speculate that I might not be alone in having a poor first impression of CFLs. Such a bias will probably need to be overcome by a no-cost favorable experience with a good CFL. If they really want to build the market, players like GE might consider an investment in a mass-scale public free trial -- a mailbox stuffer? -- of CFLs. I know that if I got a GE CFL for free, I'd give it a go -- and assuming I liked the product, maybe then I'd consider buying some at $4.49 per.

Richard T. Stuebi is a columnist for Cleantech Blog, is the BP Fellow for Energy and Environmental Advancement at The Cleveland Foundation, and is also the Founder and President of NextWave Energy, Inc.

Comments

[Tom B:]

CFL's have problems. And, they need to be properly disposed of because they contain mercury. But I found a few rooms in my house where they were suitable. And I am hoping someone comes up with practical white LED bulb that will make CFL's obsolete somewhere down the road.

2007 Jun 26 08:25 AM

[huangjin:]

Popular Mechanics did a big review of CFLs.
www.popularmechanics.c...

2007 Jun 26 08:28 AM

[Malkiel:]

I'm frankly surprised at all these bad experiences with cfl's because last Fall when I retrofitted my house with them I had no trouble finding sizes that fit all fixtures and the light from all of them is better than the light from the incandescents they replaced. The "warmup" time is only about 4 seconds, not 20, unless the bulbs Neil bought were old stock.

As for costs, while the analysis above is the right way to look at it, the frightening spikes in electric costs in New England last year gave me every reason to believe that cutting down power usage by whatever means (in a house with electric heat) would be a matter of financial survival. The next season we have a price spike I'm sure analysis will show I've broken even much sooner than anticipated.

We need to also remember the collective price to be paid for not taking tangible measures to cut down household electric usage: ALL of us in a community suffer when power interruptions come and the demand is too high for supply. Using cfl's, waste disposal issues notwithstanding, is an exercise in collective responsibility. By investing a little in savings in the home we may be saving our workplaces or hospitals or schools from some collectively expensive closures during "brownout" days such as we've had in Southern New England for 4 of the last 5 years.

2007 Jun 26 10:05 AM

[datalink1995:]

I bought 6 CFLs two years ago and ran them in a fixture with inc. bulbs. The CFLs lasted no longer than the inc. ones, and when they failed they burned at the juncture where the tube was joined at the base part. They were guanteed so I called the the mfg. and they replaced the three. But I'm not sold on the value. And unless they reduce the price or improve the quality I will not buy any more.

2007 Jun 26 10:23 AM

[ronkr:]

I didn't read in the article about my experience of the short life of CFLs. I have a box full of them that have lasted only 3 to 6 months. They are the various Home Depot brands.

2007 Jun 26 10:48 AM

[gorml94:]

I use cfl's as nigthtlights and safety lights on the porch. 8 hours/night.
The 60 watts of light is of a yellowish quality and not great for reading.
I also use one over my keyboard, for just about the right amount of light. And another when I watch TV.

2007 Jun 26 12:14 PM

[jimslag:]

Hi, I put some CFL's in my ceiling lamps and reading lamp about a year ago and they seem to be working fine. Not sure of the brand (not at home right now), but I picked them up at Lowes Home Center. They take a while (about 3-4 seconds) to come on compared to incandescents. They also do not work on dimmer switches or in lamps with 3-way switches. They do not impart a good light for reading and will be replaced in my reading lamp with a lower power incandescent. As for the ceiling lights, they work fine and will stay until they burnout, then I will decide if the cost justifies more CFLs or back to incandescent.

2007 Jun 26 01:06 PM

[jstickley:]

Sir: The compact flourescents are good for hard to get to fixtures and
long burning fixtures such as nightlights.
The new GEs start up faster and have better light.
Used outside, they won't start in below zero temperatures.
The generic bulbs may or may not last as long as they claim. The claims, anyway, are averages, not specific warranties for each bulb.
I believe Lowe's has the GEs.
Regards:

2007 Jun 26 02:29 PM

[gator52:]

My wife and I have begun to convert our home to the new bulbs. The light quality seems to be excellent. In considering cost savings over time, if the bulbs last as long as predicted, inflation should also become a realistic factor. Further, electricity where we live costs around 20 cents a KW. Greytop 77

2007 Jun 26 05:10 PM

[gator52:]

My wife and I have begun to convert our home to the new bulbs. The light quality seems to be excellent. In considering cost savings over time, if the bulbs last as long as predicted, inflation should also become a realistic factor. Further, electricity where we live costs around 20 cents a KW. Greytop 77

2007 Jun 26 05:10 PM

[Robert Gree...:]

I have tried various CFls over the years and only buy them when they are on sale. I don't think that they provide the amount of light that they claim. And they seem to get dimmer over time, so they do not provide the same amount of light consistently over their lifetime. A bulb claiming to provide the same light as a 100 watt incandescent just doesn't. It might provide tdhe light of a 75 watt incandescent. So therefore the savings is exagerrated.

2007 Jun 28 08:04 AM

[Robert Gree...:]

I have tried various CFLs over the years and only buy them when they are on sale. I don't think that they provide the amount of light that they claim. And they seem to get dimmer over time, so they do not provide the same amount of light consistently over their lifetime. A bulb claiming to provide the same light as a 100 watt incandescent just doesn't. It might provide tdhe light of a 75 watt incandescent. So therefore the savings is exagerrated.

2007 Jun 28 08:04 AM

[paul:]

First the good news. I have outside lights that operate off photocells. In other words they come on at dusk and turn off when the sun rises. I have had cfls last over 5 years continuous in this application. The shortest life was about 3 years and the newer cfl lamps seem to be improving. It helps when you buy them 6 or 8 to a package. The price approaches $2.00 ea.

No one ever mentions the fact that a cfl used in an application that gets turned off and on often will dramatically shorten its life. This phenomenon is present in all flourescent bulbs. To get the long life you must leave on once turned on. A 4' tube flourescent life can be as short as 25% of the life if it is left on for at least 3-4 hours. You should never use a cfl with a dimmer. It takes a special electronic ballast to allow dimming of a flourescent lamp.

As you can see cfl lamps have a place but are not a "Green" panacea. Maybe LED lights will change this.

2007 Jun 28 03:49 PM