Quote:
Originally Posted by Bownesian
For instance, consider how much energy is saved by putting a CF-lightbulb in a house in Calgary. Sure they are more efficient in terms of transforming electricity into light but an incandescent bulb's "waste energy" is in the form of heat. We heat our houses for 8 months of the year so that light bulb heat has to be made up with natural gas from the furnace. Is 4 months of savings worth the extra energy cost to manufacture then safely dispose of a bulb that contains mercury? The answer is yes, but only because they last an average of 8 times longer than a standard bulb, not so much because they use less of one form of energy, requiring the consumption of another form.
|
I honestly can't believe I still see this arguement popping up. Those incandescent bulbs do give off extra heat, yes, but the equivalent natural gas that would heat the house the same amount would likely cost a penny a month. Also, the four months that we aren't heating the house with natural gas, lots of places get air conditioned, and those incandescent bulbs only add to the air conditioning load. Electric heat is expensive, and if you do want to use electric heat, why not use an appliance that's even more efficient than a light bulb?
As for the mercury in CFLs, we all should be switching to LED light bulbs.