EcoHearth: Come Home to the Earth

For years, compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs) have been touted as the green altenative to incandescent bulbs. But are they truly better for the planet?

Incandescent bulbs are extremely inefficient—90% of the energy they require generates heat while only 10% becomes light. Much of that wasted energy unnecessarily contributes to global warming. And with lighting accounting for 20% of residential electricity, incandescents bump up home energy bills.

CFLs, on the other hand, produce the same amount of light as incandescent bulbs but use only a quarter of the energy.  This makes them popular with many folks who care about the Earth. Others, however, worry that the toxic mercury they contain will find its way into our environment and our bodies.

The CFL alternative has been around since the 1930s, but CFLs have not been popular for several reasons. The original models gave off a greenish and not a yellow or white light like incandescents. (This is moot as they now come in a variety of colors.) They take slightly longer to turn on and don’t work with dimmer switches. And, in rare cases, they can interfere with cordless phones, radios and remote controls.

The main objection, however, has been their higher cost. They are more expensive, but they last years longer and reduce electric bills (saving as much as $47 over the life of a CFL), so their overall cost is less than for  incandescents.

The question here, however, is not if CFLs save homeowners money, but if they are good for the environment. And we'd better settle this question soon. After all, many countries will be outlawing the sale of incandescent lights within the next decade: Canada has called for a ban by 2012, Australia by 2010 and the US by 2014.

While using CFLs will allow people to decrease their energy consumption, a good start to decreasing greenhouse emissions, the main problem is the mercury they contain. Mercury is extremely toxic to humans in even the most minute amounts, but it’s central to the functioning of CFLs.

A CFL is filled with a gas that fluoresces when in its excited state. This gas then produces a UV ray that reacts with mercury and a phosphorescent chemical to create visible light. While CFLs contain only five milligrams of mercury, even such a small quantity can be deadly.

Ironically, incandescent bulbs—although not containing mercury—add more mercury to the environment than CFLs. The reason, according to Wendy Reed, manager of the EPA Energy Star program, is that coal plants are the largest source of mercury emissions in the air and incandecents, as noted, require much more energy—mostly coal-produced in this country—than CFLs.

One of the other major issues dealing with the mercury in CFLs revolves around disposal and recycling. While people never had to worry about tossing incandescents in the trash, CFLs must be disposed of properly, otherwise the mercury can leech into the soil or groundwater.

Many US counties and cities offer a collection/exchange program for mercury-containing devices, but they are not always readily available. Some stores have taken the initiative, such as Home Depot and Ikea, and started in-store CFL recycling programs, The EPA is pressuring more large retailers to start similar disposal/recycling programs.

Overall, while the mercury in CFLs can pollute the air, water and soil if not properly disposed of, on balance the huge energy savings make CFLs the environmentally friendly choice. And the future is bright for CFLs.  Some manufacturers have created bulbs that have less mercury, and states such as Maine are beginning to require this legally.

Beyond the mercury levels, one of the growing concerns of switching over to CFLs has been the increased levels of UV radiation from these bulbs. In early October 2008, the British Health Agency (HPA) investigated CFLs and found that nine out of 53 bulbs emitted unacceptable levels of UV radiation at a proximity of 12 inches or less and for a period of more than one hour per day. Not only that, but those suffering from lupus or other problems caused by the sun are especially susceptible to such UV exposure. The HPA suggests enclosed or globe CFLs for any applications where UV exposure is a concern; the extra enclosure is enough to absorb excess UV. While most people are not in contact with CFLs at such close proximity and for long periods of time, those with CFL desk lamps or who work continuously around these bulbs should take extra precaution to cover the lights.

While some folks are still reluctant to embrace CFLs because of their mercury, UV radiation or cost, the majority of US companies and people have now cottoned to the energy-saving fluorescent bulb thanks to its ability to reduce both their electric bills and greenhouse emissions. After all, who among us can say “no” to saving both money and the environment?

Comments (4)

Subscribe to this comment's RSS feed

Write comment