Now for this month's question from afar...

Does the extra production cost of compact fluorescent lamps exceed the
possible energy saving they provide? As you may know they contain many
electronic components, coils, resistors, capacitors etc. There must be
a cost to the environment to produce these more than what is passed on
to the consumer...

(In a similar vein to the disposable / terry nappies saga this could go
on for ages...)

Any (non-destructive) comments would be welcomed...

Does the extra production cost of compact fluorescent lamps exceed the
possible energy saving they provide? As you may know they contain many
electronic components, coils, resistors, capacitors etc. There must be
a cost to the environment to produce these more than what is passed on
to the consumer...

Not even close. A CFL bulb will use many, many times its own cost in energy
alone over its life.

Working on a 25W CFL bulb for 10,000 hours, the electricity cost would be
about 20 pounds. A similar output incandescent lamp (100W) would use 80
pounds worth of electricity and need to be replaced 10 times during this
period.

Christian.

The message
from "Christian McArdle" contains
these words:

Not even close. A CFL bulb will use many, many times its own cost in energy
alone over its life.

Yes, but will it /save/ many times its energy cost? (insert smiley here)

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

On 21 Apr 2006 01:39:09 -0700 someone who may be "Englishman in
Adana (Turkey)" wrote this:-

Does the extra production cost of compact fluorescent lamps exceed the
possible energy saving they provide?

There is a difference between financial cost, environmental cost and
energy.

As you may know they contain many
electronic components, coils, resistors, capacitors etc.

They do indeed contain a number of electronic components. They also
don't contain long filaments. I suspect both contain about the same
amount of glass.

There must be a cost to the environment to produce these

Of course there is, just like there is an environmental cost in
producing GLS bulbs.

more than what is passed on to the consumer...

An easy assertion to make. However, I don't think it is a conspiracy
by the manufacturers (who had a lot of money tied up in GLS bulb
plants) to sell more expensive products. Even if it was a conspiracy
I think that Friends of the Earth and similar organisations would
have pointed this out long ago.

As has been said, the bottom line is that over their life cycle they
consume significantly less electricity and resources than the
roughly ten GLS bulbs one replaces. That reduces greenhouse gas
emissions (except in somewhere like Norway, where almost all
electricity is produced by hydro plants and even there they still
have advantages).


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On 21 Apr 2006 01:39:09 -0700 someone who may be "Englishman in
Adana (Turkey)" wrote this:-

Does the extra production cost of compact fluorescent lamps exceed the
possible energy saving they provide?

There is a difference between financial cost, environmental cost and
energy.

As you may know they contain many
electronic components, coils, resistors, capacitors etc.



A very good point - one that concerns me when we import cheap electronic
toys and poor quality batteries. They all consume valuable and ultimately
polluting resources - yet add next to nothing to the quality of life. They
become landfill in a very short time


John

Owain wrote:
David Hansen wrote:
As has been said, the bottom line is that over their life cycle they
consume significantly less electricity and resources than the
roughly ten GLS bulbs one replaces.


There are also indirect savings in packaging and distribution, because
one uses fewer of them.

Are tehre any governmental subsidies?
I notice that CFLs marketed at teh corporate world typically have much,
much higher prices than the 49.5p you can find CFLs for in supermarkets.

Englishman in Adana (Turkey) wrote:
Now for this month's question from afar...

Does the extra production cost of compact fluorescent lamps exceed the
possible energy saving they provide? As you may know they contain many
electronic components, coils, resistors, capacitors etc. There must be
a cost to the environment to produce these more than what is passed on
to the consumer...

(In a similar vein to the disposable / terry nappies saga this could go
on for ages...)

Any (non-destructive) comments would be welcomed...


Well, assuming an efficient market, the fact that cost benefit analysis
shows they are cheaper overall, says no..

Ian Stirling wrote:
Owain wrote:
David Hansen wrote:
As has been said, the bottom line is that over their life cycle they
consume significantly less electricity and resources than the
roughly ten GLS bulbs one replaces.

There are also indirect savings in packaging and distribution, because
one uses fewer of them.

Are tehre any governmental subsidies?
I notice that CFLs marketed at teh corporate world typically have much,
much higher prices than the 49.5p you can find CFLs for in supermarkets.

thats because they actually work...
I can't find CFLS at 49.5p.... £4.95 perhaps.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher writes:
I can't find CFLS at 49.5p.... £4.95 perhaps.

I've seen them in supermarkets for 49p (Asda and
somewhere else, but I can't recall where now).
There weren't no-names either (Philips, IIRC).

I used to keep an eye out and buy them for stock
when on special offer. I have ended up with a
small cupboard full before it dawned on me that
I was picking them up much faster than I actually
needed to replace them, and haven't needed to buy
any for about 5 years, even though I'm pretty
well all CFS throughout the house.

ISTR reading some years back that IKEA was having
a fight to bring in CFLs from China at low prices.
My recollecftion is vagues, but ISTR EU was stamping
an inport duty on them to bring them up to same high
prices of EU manufacturers.
I can't recall the deatils now, but IKEA may have
got some concession, as it was about half the
price of everyone else for a number of years.
Many other sellers prices have come down to match
now.

--
Andrew Gabriel

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Ian Stirling wrote:
Owain wrote:
David Hansen wrote:
As has been said, the bottom line is that over their life cycle they
consume significantly less electricity and resources than the
roughly ten GLS bulbs one replaces.

There are also indirect savings in packaging and distribution, because
one uses fewer of them.

Are tehre any governmental subsidies?
I notice that CFLs marketed at teh corporate world typically have much,
much higher prices than the 49.5p you can find CFLs for in supermarkets.

thats because they actually work...
I can't find CFLS at 49.5p.... ?4.95 perhaps.

Morrisons (at least my local one, a couple of weeks apart) have had
philips Genie 11/18W (60/100W equiv) for 99p BOGOF.

I've bought 20, to do the garage lighting.
Combined with whitewashing, for a total outlay of maybe 15 quid, you can
actually see stuff in there now.

Only one has failed so far, and that was the one that I dropped on the
floor

The message
from (Andrew Gabriel) contains these words:

I've seen them in supermarkets for 49p (Asda and
somewhere else, but I can't recall where now).
There weren't no-names either (Philips, IIRC).

Poundland had some a few years ago. They were utterly crap. Deep
blue-grey light of almost no utility.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 09:51:48 GMT, "John"
wrote:


"David Hansen" wrote in message
.. .
On 21 Apr 2006 01:39:09 -0700 someone who may be "Englishman in
Adana (Turkey)" wrote this:-

Does the extra production cost of compact fluorescent lamps exceed the
possible energy saving they provide?

There is a difference between financial cost, environmental cost and
energy.

As you may know they contain many
electronic components, coils, resistors, capacitors etc.



A very good point - one that concerns me when we import cheap electronic
toys and poor quality batteries. They all consume valuable and ultimately
polluting resources - yet add next to nothing to the quality of life. They
become landfill in a very short time


John


In the case of CFLs they become toxic waste becasue of teh mercury
vapour. In the future they will have to be disposed of in a certain
way no doubt.

marvelous wrote:
On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 09:51:48 GMT, "John"
wrote:

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On 21 Apr 2006 01:39:09 -0700 someone who may be "Englishman in
Adana (Turkey)" wrote this:-

Does the extra production cost of compact fluorescent lamps exceed the
possible energy saving they provide?
There is a difference between financial cost, environmental cost and
energy.

As you may know they contain many
electronic components, coils, resistors, capacitors etc.

A very good point - one that concerns me when we import cheap electronic
toys and poor quality batteries. They all consume valuable and ultimately
polluting resources - yet add next to nothing to the quality of life. They
become landfill in a very short time


John


In the case of CFLs they become toxic waste becasue of teh mercury
vapour. In the future they will have to be disposed of in a certain
way no doubt.

very little mercury in them. Not enough to shake a thermometer at
really. Sure they have lots of little components, but the actual energy
is mainly used in making the glass..and thats the same for them and
standard bulbs.

I am sure that if copper prices go up, we will recycle the copper..