With more than 75% of all American households already using compact fluorescent lights (CFLs) and the government essentially banning biologically inert, safe, incandescent bulbs, are we being kept in the dark about CFLs?<\/p>\n
If you\u2019ve gone out to purchase light bulbs recently, you\u2019ve probably noticed that your options are limited.\u00a0 Because of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007<\/a>, we are now facing the end of the light bulb as we know it.<\/p>\n While it is good \u201cto move the United States toward greater energy independence and security, to increase the production of clean renewable fuels, to protect consumers, to increase the efficiency of products\u2026to promote research on and deploy greenhouse gas capture and storage options, and to improve the energy performance of the Federal Government,\u201d it\u2019s the \u201cfor other purposes<\/em>\u201d part of this Act that has me concerned.<\/p>\n Part B of Title III (Energy Savings through Improved Standards for Appliances and Lighting) requires about 25% greater efficiency for light bulbs, which will be phased in from 2012 through 2014.\u00a0 This section of the Act basically bans the continued manufacture of almost all incandescent light bulbs, one of the most trusted inventions of our era.\u00a0 Switching to CFLs is being touted as one of the best ways for the nation to reduce electricity use and lower greenhouse gases.<\/p>\n But will switching to CFLs really reduce energy consumption and lower greenhouse gases, and are CFLs safe?\u00a0 If you\u2019re feeling a bit in the dark over the CFL issue, read on, because CFLs are not the \u201cshining lights\u201d they are made out to be.<\/p>\n Residential lighting represents a small fraction of all of our overall energy consumption, and only has a limited potential for energy savings. \u00a0Although we should be conserving wherever we can, CFLs are actually adding to the problem.\u00a0 \u201cCFLs take from 6 to 10 times more electrical energy to produce than standard incandescent bulbs,\u201d says Gary Friedman<\/a>, a freelance investigative reporter and writer, \u201cand that electrical energy is overwhelming supplied to CFL production facilities by coal-powered electrical plants, which add CO2 directly into the atmosphere, increasing global warming conditions\u2014 undermining the very argument for the promotion of CFLs in the first place.\u201d<\/p>\n So do CFLs last 10 times longer than standard incandescent bulbs, and are they recyclable?\u00a0 Although CFLs reportedly use 75% less energy than standard light bulbs, they incur energy losses during operation, which you are not told about.\u00a0 According to Friedman, the \u201cstatistic\u201d regarding their energy efficiency is based on the circuitry in the bulb, which is supposed to operate at a specific sustained temperature of 105\u02da C.\u00a0 Unfortunately, CFLs operate at an average temperature of 130\u02da C or higher, meaning that for \u201cevery 10 degree increase, the efficiency of the bulb decreases by 50%.\u201d\u00a0 Also, these higher temperatures cause failures in the bulbs\u2019 circuitry, essentially making them non-recyclable.\u00a0 Even worse, because such high heat is produced in the plastic base of the bulbs, they pose a fire risk.\u00a0 There have been numerous reports of CFLs igniting fires throughout the country, including fatalities.<\/p>\n Then there are the health risks.\u00a0 CFLs are toxic technology.\u00a0 They contain mercury and other carcinogenic substances such as phenol, naphthalene and styrene.\u00a0 Mercury is listed as the third most toxic substance to human health on both the EPA\u2019s and CDC\u2019s list of toxic substances.\u00a0 Break one of these bulbs and you need to call in the hazmat team!<\/p>\n