I could see no difference in performance compared to incandescent: they start instantly, have nice bright light at full power, nice warm light as they dim, and they dim continuously with no buzzing, the bulb looks the same and fits.

I would have preferred to use CFL bulbs: compared to standard incandescent Halogena bulbs use about 1/3 less electricity; CFLs use 4 to five times less. CFLs also last a great deal longer, even than Halogena’s modest 500 hour improvement. So Halogena are an incremental improvement.

But as per the mission of this blog: saving energy and conservation is a matter of a lot of small steps that add up to big, big savings.

Where It Makes Sense to Use Halogena Bulbs

Sadly, I have not yet found a dimmable CFL bulb in the special R20 and BR30 sizes of our kitchen and living room ceiling fixtures … or should I say I haven’t found one that is any good.

If anyone knows of an R20, BR30, or PAR30 CFL bulb that fits a standard ceiling fixture, dims fairly well (without buzzing), and maintains a warm color temperature, please let me know. The R20′s need to produce light about 500 lumens, the BR30 or PAR30′s need to produce about 600 lumens. LED light bulbs would be fine, too as long as it’s not too expensive.

So I conditionally recommend Halogena bulbs to replace only bulbs that cannot be CFLs.

With only several remaining exceptions, every other bulb in our house is a CFL. In most applications, CFLs are great. Our basement, including the finished part, is great; outdoor floods and the lights in our garage, reading lamps, desk lamps, standing lamps, hanging lamps and so on, all use CFL. Some use the GE EnergySmart brand I settled on in my CFL test and review last year. Others use ones I installed as long ago as 4 or 5 years — still going strong.

CFL is great for most applications … just not all.

Energy Cost Savings

If you replace bulbs with equivalent light output, the Halogena bulbs in general save at least 30% in energy costs. The two bulb types I am using now each save a little more than that based on their rated wattage. Based on my electricity rate, I have calculated that each 100W saved over the course of a year saves me a bit less than $200 — it may be less in other parts of the country, as we have higher than usual electricity rates in Massachusetts. Our rate is $0.22/kWh — so ten 100W bulbs on for an hour cost 22 cents.

I replaced 7 bulbs in the kitchen (R20), and 7 in the living room (BR30). Total cost was $145, compared to about $85 for standard (assuming longer life). So I have to make up $60. We have the kitchen bulbs on for about 2 hours a day (more when it’s dark outside, less when light); we have the living room lights on far less, say 1 hour a day. The kitchen bulbs use 35W less than the ones they replace; the LR bulbs use 25W less. So how many kWh did my old bulbs use per year?

• Kitchen: 7 bulbs saving 35W for 2 hours for 365 days = 179 kWh * $0.22/kWh = $39/year saved, and
• Living Room: 7 bulbs saving 25W for 1 hour for 365 days = 64 kWh * $0.22/kWh = $14/year saved.

Total Annual Savings, Payback Period, and Assumptions

• Grand Total: $53/year saved, so payback is just over a year.

This assumes you replace the lights as the old ones burn out, and you replace bulbs with ones of the same light output. (In my case, neither was true, although most of the bulbs had been in place for several years at least). The kitchen bulbs were actually 50W (not 75W) so my savings would be less, however the living room bulbs were 120W (!!), not 75W so that savings would be more. The math works out about the same.

One last assumption: we’ll use the lights the same amount now. I think this one is important: knowing that we use less energy, will we be more inclined to use the lights than in the past? This is a big issue, in fact. Look at cars: as manufacturers learned how to make more efficient engines, they made the engine more powerful instead of using less gasoline — even some hybrid vehicles used this trick. So if you replace light bulbs, don’t get sloppy with turning them off!

IF there were CFL bulbs that were suitable, the savings calculated above would have been based on an 80% savings. 75W of incandescent light requires about 15W in a CFL, a savings of 60W. Here are those (fictitious, but hopeful) numbers:

• Kitchen: 7 bulbs saving 60W for 2 hours for 365 days = 307 kWh * $0.22/kWh = $67/year saved, and
• Living Room: 7 bulbs saving 60W for 1 hour for 365 days = 153 kWh * $0.22/kWh = $34/year saved, for a total of $101/year.

Either way, a little savings add up over time.

Keeping your house cool in the summer (with minimal, or no air conditioning) boils down to three things:

1. Don’t Add Heat from the Inside — cook on the grill, turn on the bathroom exhaust fan, keep the lights off
2. Don’t Let Hot Air from Outside In — shut windows, doors, and seal the drafts and leaks that let hot air in
3. Don’t Let Convective or Radiant Heat from the Sun In — insulation, low-E glass, blinds down … and outside shades

We have had exterior shades on some of our windows for several years now and they work great. They’re nothing more than big rolling window shades, but it’s key that they are outside, not in. Normal inside window blinds are good — they don’t let the sun that has already come in, get further than it has, and can reflect some of the heat back. But even in that pocket of air between the shade and the window, you’re allowing the sun to heat up the air in your house.

Exterior shades or awnings, however, do the same thing as window shades, but the heat never gets inside the house in the first place. We use both, and it has really made a difference.

SunSetter Retractable Awnings

We bought two window awnings from SunSetter, and I installed them yesterday. They are also basically roll-up shades, except they have struts on the side that hold the shade out, at an angle. By raising them you can get them entirely out of the way, lowering them all the way mostly covers the window … but the main setting for the summer is out at an angle.

With this setting, they shade the entire glass area of the window while still providing a view and light from outside. The angle is just right to bounce the radiated sun away but not get in the way of the view.

You can buy the awnings in different colors and sizes. I recommend getting a light, neutral color, as the material lets through the light from the sun without the heat — a strong color awning fabric would affect the colors in your room … which is fine, if that’s what you mean to do. Our awning was about 8 inches wider than the outside frame width of the window. There are numerous sizes and configurations available.

The awnings can be adjusted with a pull cord, and the ones we bought have the option of being adjustable from outside or inside. (In our case, however, there wasn’t enough clearance between our curtains inside to install the supplied pulley … not a big deal, since I think there’s mostly a summer setting and a winter setting).

The materials of the SunSetter awnings are very high quality (and this is not often the case with window treatments, in my experience). The awning itself is thick, rugged vinyl. The hardware is aluminum with an enamel coating — very durable and nothing is flimsy. They’re not cheap (around $235, delivered for a 4′ awning), but they’re also not cheap-o — they will last, and not rust for a long time.

Installation is a bit of work, more than just screwing in a few screws — I mounted our two awnings yesterday, and have two important tips:

1. The first one took me an hour, mostly running to get a tool I needed (up and down the ladder); the second one took around 20 minutes
2. Don’t install the awning at noon on a hot, sunny day :-)

You’ll need a few tools — level, measuring tape, socket wrench, drill, screwdriver and a water bottle. If you’re reasonably handy, the instructions provided are very detailed and well written … although frankly they were so detailed I thought there was more to it than it turns out. If you’re not handy, find someone who is to do the installation.

The chimney balloon is an inflatable bag, available in various sizes to fit inside your chimney. A tube and valve on the bottom allows you to inflate it so that it conforms to even the roughest, oddest shaped chimney interiors. The inflating tube is detachable, so there’s nothing visible when installed. The balloon is made of a tough, durable plastic. It can be easily removed as needed (but don’t forget to before lighting a fire!) and just as easily reinstalled. The cost is under $50, and their web site has a lot of great and helpful information on how to choose the right size.

I can tell that the chimney balloon works because it has solved an annoying problem for us already this summer: during cooler evenings, we get fresh and cool air into the house using our whole-house fan. If we don’t have enough windows open, the living room would have a smokey smell, as the fan would draw air in through the chimney. After we installed the Chimney Balloon, the problem is solved, and we get fresh air in the house.

As a result of an inadvertent slip, I did manage to put a small puncture in our chimney balloon (don’t ask: I’ll just say it was not a very clever move on my part, and involved a razor knife :-). After a quick look around on their site, I found good instructions for repairing it: a patch with packing tape did the trick and it’s as good as new.

It’s hard for me to quantify the savings in heating (and cooling) one could expect from this product. Based on our audit, we’re expected to save about $350 per year on our heating bill after completing the various air sealing projects identified. It’s pretty clear, just from walking around with the inspector while the blower-door sucking air out of the house during the test that the chimney, even with damper closed, was one of several large sources or air leakage. Perhaps if it accounts for 10% or 15% of the fixable leaks, the cost of the larger sized chimney balloon we needed should be paid for in a year or less. This seems to be backed up by independent testing reported by the seller which suggests savings of more than $100/year (for a house in Minneapolis). At a cost of under $50, it’s a quick payback on fuel alone.

Another solution for blocking chimney drafts is to install glass doors over the fireplace opening. They are far more expensive, however (around $250 and up), and a bit of a chore to install, especially if your fireplace opening is not relatively flat. The tests I note above suggest that the chimney balloon is a bit more effective than glass doors, too, although I suspect either makes about the same difference.

This is a small expense and small effort that can save you a lot of money over the years, and reduce your carbon footprint a little bit.

Actual Size: 2-1/4 Inches

I was skeptical. For one, my toilet is the kind that make people hate low-flow toilets. It sometimes doesn’t work in, eh hem, certain cases. We have lived with the toilet’s shortcomings for a while. So anything that might reduce efficacy further seemed like a bad idea.

But I put in the WaterSaver anyway, just as a test, and measured. The simplest way is to measure fill time. Before installation fill time for my toilet was a bit less than a minute; afterward it was about 52 seconds. After three flushes, I calculated that I used about 10% less water. I rushed off to write this blog post, but was distracted by reality. That was four months ago.

But is my forgetfulness is the ultimate endorsement of this product. My concerns were unjustified. The failed-flush rate is no different than before. I had completely forgotten that this little device was in there … saving a little every flush, for months.

The WaterSaver works simply. After a toilet is flushed, water runs to fill two parts: the tank and the bowl: it stops filling when the tank is full. The WaterSaver diverter just sends a little more water into the tank, and a little less into the bowl. And thus, the tank fills more quickly, with less water being sent directly down the drain through the bowl.

You might ask, why doesn’t the toilet maker do this from the start? The answer is simple: the fill devices used on most commodes are commodities that can be purchased at any hardware store. One size fits all. Only a very few companies (e.g. Toto) actually optimize their toilets for consumption (and have a proprietary fill valve) — the rest just meet whatever standard they must, apparently without much thought of how. So, diverting a little water into the tank (instead of the bowl) saves a little water.

As I said, installation is a snap. Take the lid off the tank and you’ll see a small plastic tube that is clipped to a larger, vertical pipe — this fills the bowl part after a flush. You just slip the WaterSaver on the end of the plastic tube and clip it back on the pipe. No tools are needed.

So head on over to the WaterSaver site and get one for each of your potties. And while you’re at it, get Darryl McMahon’s book, The Emperor’s New Hydrogen Economy — I can’t vouch for the book yet, but I can assure you that the WaterSaver is a simple, effective way to save a bit of water.

I have now done five low flow shower head reviews so far (sorry, no nude shower scenes in this one) and the HighSierra wins hands down on price and is a strong contender for the best feeling shower of those we have tried.

A water saving shower head can help you conserve water, and in particular hot water which means you’re also save energy.

The other very good water saving shower heads I tested are larger, and considerably more expensive. Don’t be deceived — the HighSierra model might look like those really cheapo, painful shower heads that they put in locker room showers. But HighSierra’s clever low flow design makes it really a totally different beast. Simple is good; the manufacturer claims that it is less likely to become clogged with mineral deposits, it’s very small, and solidly built.

Here are some criteria I use for water saving shower head reviews:

• Comfortable: is the spray pleasant overall and does not sting … nor is wimpy
• Droplet size: very small droplets cool down and can be chilly around the edges
• Effective: forceful enough to remove shampoo and rinse soap off easily and quickly
• Spray pattern: wide enough that your whole body is covered
• Adjustable: are there options to adjust flow rate, e.g. a shut-off valve
• Construction: does it seem solid and durable, prone to clogging or other failure?
• Water usage: regular shower heads use 2.5 GPM, a low flow head should use less
• Price: some of these puppies can be expensive

And here’s my review of the HighSierra FCS-200 low flow shower head:

• Comfortable: very comfortable and pleasant overall, compares favorably to normal 2.5GPM showerheads
• Droplet size: large droplets retain warmth and feeling of power and do not sting
• Effective: Very good, if a little less forceful than the Oxygenics model
• Spray pattern: wide spray is smart; more water reaches the edges and the spray is horizontally oriented
• Adjustable: The FCS-200 model has a flow-control button valve; good for reducing flow when shaving or soaping up
• Construction: all-metal, chrome, very well made, unlikely to clog
• Water usage: at 1.5 GPM, this one is a little better than other low flow heads
• Price: $22.90 for the FCS-100 (no shut-off), $25.45 for the FCS-200 as of 2/10/2009

Some comments from the family… my son greatly prefers this shower head over the Oxygenics shower head I reviewed and that we normally use. I think this is because the other head is optimized for adults (taller, and therefore closer to the spray). With the HighSierra head, the larger droplets stay warm longer so reach down the extra couple of feet to his 4-1/2 foot body. The shower head is very small and great for tight spaces. My wife and I are both very happy with it, with only one minor quibble — tiny drops of water tend to escape around the top, and can get into your eyes.

A heads-up for buyers: the unique design confused me at first (I didn’t read the instructions) — you have to rotate the head until the visible eye-shaped orifice is oriented horizontally (like the CBS logo). From experience, I can attest that it’s a rather unusual shower experience if you don’t do that step! But that’s a one-time thing. Otherwise, installation is a simple matter of unscrewing the old head and screwing on the new one (a wrench or pair of pliers might help).

Bottom line: this is a great shower head for about one half the price of other great ones I have used. (And the real bottom line is that my wife hasn’t asked me to re-install our old one). I think you’ll be very happy.

Good Picture (borrowed from Slashgear)

Netflix is a great service, which by now everyone probably knows about — they pretty much single-handedly killed numerous movie rental chains just by being easier and better. You pick movies from a web site, and they send them to you in a special envelope that you use to return them when you’re done watching. TiVo is also a great service that allows you to watch TV on your terms (far better than the horrible “TiVo-like” DVR services offered by cable and satellite providers).

Netflix recently started making some of their movies available over the internet, on demand. But you needed a special player. More recently, you could use an XBox as that player, and there are even a couple of Blu-Ray players that are “Netflix capable”. But now, TiVo (HD models only), and that’s the best.

A while back TiVo made a deal with Amazon, who has a digital media service called “unbox“. It’s ok, but Amazon is not very strong at providing help choosing movies (Netflix is awesome!), you have to pay a per-rental fee to Amazon, and it can take a while for movies to start downloading. If you have a Netflix account, you can use your TiVo to watch any of the movies that Netflix has available for the service, instantly, for free. It’s really pretty great.

OK, but How Does This Save Energy?

So the interesting thing about this from an energy perspective is that movies watched in this manner do not need any of the following:

• To be sent via postal mail to you
• To be sent back via postal mail to them
• To be turned into DVDs with mylar slip cases and labels
• To be handled numerous times by multiple shipping facilities and employees
• To be subject of physical limitations, like the number of DVD copies made
• Have an extra set-top box consuming more electricity (assuming you have a TiVo)

We were trying to do the math on the new cost model this creates for Netflix. We still pay our $17/month fee to Netflix and can watch as many movies as we want. So there has to be a cost that Netflix pays to the movie studios each time they rent a movie — maybe $1.00? But a big cost of their transaction is cut out with digital delivery — at least $0.84 for postage in two directions (maybe less if they pay a bulk rate), then the cost of their regional facilities and especially the labor it takes to manage all those disks — I’ll bet the handlings all adds up to $2.00 or more per round-trip of a movie.

Maybe the average Netflix user watches four movies a month at a total cost of $3.00 per movie or $12.00 per customer, leaving $5.00 left over for operational costs and profit. But with the new model, maybe we watch more movies, but Netflix pays only the studio fee and bandwidth and server fees that are incremental to their existing costs (perhaps $0.10 per movie delivered? Probably less).

Naturally, the selection of movies available for download is a much smaller set than the ones you can rent from Netflix the old way — it seems better than the selection Amazon has, but it’s a fraction of what’s out there, now. This can only be due to (stupid) studio rules, and/or (their paranoia) about people stealing their movies — it’s certainly not a cost issue for anyone. Well, except Sony and the other makers of Blu-Ray HD players who would presumably love to see their players to every man, woman and child with a regular DVD player now, as well as the disks they make.

This is similar to the struggle between iTunes and the music studios (often the same ones). iTunes seems to be winning that battle, if slowly. Perhaps we can rid ourselves, for once and for all of the fragile, poorly constructed, hard to set up, energy sucking players as well as the masses of easily scratched plastic disks in plastic cases, shipped all over the place to sit in our houses, being watched a few times (or sent back and forth by mail).

Think of the energy we’ll save :-)

Simple and Inexpensive

There are three kinds of shower timers I could find: fancy models that actually shut off the water flow, egg timers that run for about 4 minutes, and digital countdown timers. I have found a good, inexpensive choice: The “Shower Professor”.

The first type of timer is fancy: it installs between the shower water spout and the shower head and actually shuts off the water after a set period of time. They cost about $150 or more. This seems like an expensive and rather excessive method.

I tried using an egg timer. They are cute and inexpensive (around $4) but pretty limited. For one, they are set for about 4 minutes, which is the recommended time, but some may prefer an extra minute or so. I also found the model I got hard to read. In the end, I would forget it and stopped using it.

Two models of digital countdown timers are available. Both have a digital display, are water resistant, have a suction cup, and a few buttons. One made by Ripple Products in Australia has several colorful designs (star, duck, etc) for about $20. A new company (that contacted me and provided a free sample) called Shower Professor is similar, and is only $12.98 including shipping.

(And, I just noticed that TerraPass sells one called the Half a Teaspoon Shower Watch for $30)

The Ripple and Shower Professor differ in a small but important way: the Ripple needs to be set (e.g. press the “minutes” button 5 times for 5 minutes, then press start). The Shower Professor comes with four presets: 5, 7 and 10 minutes and another for 1 minute — one touch and you start the timer. Not a big deal, for sure, but who needs to think when getting into the shower?

Both have a display, and beep when time’s up. The Shower Professor’s display is large enough to be legible, and has a discrete, short (but audible) beep. My only real complaint is that the 1 minute setting worked a little differently than I expected — I thought it would add a minute, instead, it stops (but doesn’t restart) a running timer, or if there’s no timer running, starts a 1 minute countdown.

Also, the Ripple sells in the US for about $20 when you include shipping; the Shower Professor is $13 with shipping, at least to my address. No doubt you can save $13 in a matter of a few weeks if you’re motivated. The Shower Professor website is a little hokey, but I have exchanged a few emails with they guy there, and he seems like an honest guy.

I am regularly reminded how slowly my brain is operating when I shower in the morning — it’s nice to have a gentle reminder lest I find myself asleep under a gentle spray of warm water :-)

Don’t Forget The Low Flow Shower Head!

Short showers are a good complement to low-flow shower heads several of which I have reviewed in prior posts. My favorite is the Oygenics Elite 700, but there are other good options, notably the Evolve Roadrunner, or even just the little fitting that comes with the Evolve or can be purchased separately that turns off the water once it has warmed up.

Apple's Time Capsule

We have a Windows PC setup in our broom closet. It holds a bunch of files; our pictures, digital music, backups, and other stuff we all use. It’s also a shared printer server. Finally, it runs a bit of software that works with several “Squeeze Boxes” that let us play our digital music on the kitchen radio, and in our living room and outside patio. There’s a small monitor, keyboard and mouse which are needed when updating the machine. We also have our wireless network router in there.

The only problem: when all of this stuff is on, my Kill-a-Watt meter shows that it uses 108 Watts of electricity. And it’s on all the time. No wonder the closet is so hot!

Apple to the rescue! We bought a Time Capsule, which is a terribly named thing, if you ask me. It’s actually: a wireless router, a 500GB (!) hard disk, a print server, and, get this, it can even let us play music from our music library in our kitchen and living room.

This single box uses only 12 watts when idle (18 when the hard disk is in use), and it can replace the computer and exiting wireless network router. All this in an elegant 8-inch square, 1-1/2 inch high case. And, it’s silent.

Net reduction of power: 96 Watts, 24 hours a day. So that’s 2.3 kWh saved every day, which at our rate of $0.19/kWh is 44 cents a day. So what, you say? That adds up to $13/month, or $160 per year saved.

Kill-a-Watt Meter

We can now store brooms and other things in our broom closet, and the house will be just a little bit quieter.

I can sell my SqueezeBox (wireless music player) and get an Apple AirPort Express (which also extends the wireless network and can be a print server too); I think the net cost here should be very small. I doubt there will be a significant energy use difference, maybe a bit less.

Our PowerCost Monitor (which measures all the electricity we use) reports that we’re using about 400 Watts of power … when everything is “off”. This is the sum of all of those “standby” modes, vampire transformers, phones, clock, cable box (well, TiVo, actually) … and the whole computer setup. So this represents about one quarter of our standby use.

Which, of course, makes me wonder, what other things are sucking up the other 300 Watts?!!

I have found and tested a number of bulbs and found several specific bulbs that I believe solve most of the issues people have had with CFL bulbs. I have tried a lot of bad bulbs, but the winners are GE Energy Smart CFL bulbs. There are a few in this line that are not good, but I have tested each of the ones below.

There are a few things to keep in mind about what to expect from CFL bulbs. See below for more details, but first, my recommendations!

My Recommended Best CFL Bulbs (updated 2/2009)

Also Available in Stores

These bulbs are also available widely at local retailers like Walgreen, Walmart and many others. Bulb costs generally run about $7 — more for higher wattages or specialty bulbs, and are available in 3-packs and 6-packs in some cases.

What To Expect from CFLs Compared to Incandescent

Warm Up Period for CFLs to Get Bright

Nearly all CFLs have a warm-up period before they get to their full brightness. Some take a long time to warm up, and/or start quite dim — from 30 seconds to a minute or more for some that I tested. Most of the GE bulbs I recommend have relatively short warm-up times, but you should still expect to wait 10 or 20 seconds to get to 80% or 90% brightness, and there is still a several minute period where the bulb reaches it full brightness.

I am quite sure that the warm-up delay accounts for part of the perception that CFLs are “not as bright”.

Avoid “Daylight” CFLs

Some bulbs are labeled as “daylight”, or “cool, natural light” — this sounds a lot better than it is for most cases. People (and photographers) find the light in the early morning or afternoon more pleasant than the harsh noon sunlight; the daylight bulbs are bright, but harsh and unpleasant. Look for designations like “regular, everyday light”, or “warm”, or for “2700K color temperature”, except for specialty lighting.

The GE Energy Smart bulbs I tested are all sold in a package with a yellow top and green bottom. The daylight bulbs are in a blue package.

Some CFLs have gone too far to get the warm color. Also, the most commonly sold wattage of CFL replaces a 60W incandescent bulb; 60W is not terribly bright. These things probably account for the rest of the perception that CFLs are not as bright as incandescent bulbs.

CFLs Are As Bright as Regular Bulbs

As noted above, there are several reasons that it may have seemed that your new CFL is not as bright as the bulb it replaces. If you give the bulbs I recommend a few seconds, and make sure to replace with the same or higher “equivalent” wattage I am confident that you will see that CFLs are indeed as bright as claimed.

When CFLs first came out, the most popular wattage was a 60W equivalent bulb. If you replace a 75W or 100W incandescent with a 60W equivalent, you’ll certainly be disappointed.

Avoid Dimmable CFLs

Dimmable CFLs don’t work well, even the best that I have tested are still a far cry from dimmable incandescent bulbs. Many kitchens have recessed lighting designed for bright halogen bulbs on dimmer switches — no CFL I have found comes close to reproducing this light. My neighbor has replaced his kitchen floodlight bulbs with GE EnergySmart dimmable CFLs, and they work pretty well in his kitchen. But I can’t find them on GE’s (rather poorly organized) site. Maybe GE has decided to sell only products that don’t suck :-)

Generally, dimmable CFLs don’t dim evenly, and give off an ugly purplish-blue light, and often hum or buzz when they are dimmed.

CFL Sizes and Shapes

Some people have complained that the spring clips used to affix lampshades to the lamp do not work well with the spiral bulbs. I have actually found that the work just as well as the standard pear shaped bulbs (designated as “A” shape) … which is to say that neither shape bulb seems to work very well — spring clip lampshades always seem to be tilted one way or other. It may be worse with the spiral CFLs, but there are some recommended A-shape CFL bulbs that you can use.

In other cases, the “ballast” of the CFL bulb (usually a bulky white part near the screw-in base) can prevent the bulb from fitting in a tight spot. This is especially true for recessed flood, or spot lights, usually designated as R20 (smaller) or the larger R30 and PAR30. I have tried a number of these in our living room (R30) and kitchen (R20), but both are on dimmers, and in several cases the bulbs were too large for the fixture.

Avoid Low Quality CFLs: They Don’t Last, or Break

As I researched this piece, I learned that most (perhaps all) CFLs bulbs are manufactured in one of a relatively small number of plants, usually located in China, or other low-cost locations — all the GE bulbs I recommend are from China.

However, not all bulbs are the same: many (even most) CFLs are specified to be cheap, not good. The bulbs I recommend are easily distinguished by visual inspection from cheapo bulbs. Their parts are all solidly attached, with no gaps or irregularities. They also warm up faster and have relatively small ballasts.

(In fact, the bulbs we gave out for Halloween last year may have done more harm than good — they were cheapo 60w spirals, and I have found several whose bases and glass have become loose).

One of my objectives in reviewing bulbs and making a recommendation was that the specific bulb I recommended was one that could be bought and easily identified by brand and model number, for this is really the only way to have even just some confidence that you’re getting the right bulb. It is certainly the case that some “brands” are not much more than marketing vehicles for taking the cheapest bulb available on a given day and putting it into a box with a seemingly good name. I haven’t tested them myself, but some people report that the nVision brand sold by Home Depot (and only them) is good.

It is quite clear that companies like GE, Sylvania, Philips and even retailers like Home Depot, Wal*Mart, Target and Lowes have done themselves a great disservice by failing to sell high quality CFL bulbs from the start, even if they are getting their acts together now. It seems they have learned their lesson, at least in GE’s case. While some makers still sell lower quality, cheaper CFLs, the idea of real branding (where brand is supposed to represent quality) seems to finally have come to the CFL world.

Go for quality from a known brand; it’s not worth paying less.

CFLs and Mercury

Recently, there has been a lot written about the fact that CFLs contain mercury, and this is true. However, the actual risk to you is small, and this is especially true if you stick with high-quality, well-manufactured bulbs. Here’s a good article on the facts about mercury in CFLs. In short, more mercury is released in the air due to coal burnt from extra electricity of incandescent lights than is contained in a CFL.

While this article is pretty unequivocal about the matter (saying it’s a small risk), it’s clear that many people are still concerned about this issue — just read some of the comments in the linked article.

More and more places, like grocery stores and hardware store are making CFL recycling available.

My take on the mercury issue is that, like many things we face as we move away from our “energy is free” mode to the one where we recognize its various costs, we need to start getting used to making somewhat uncomfortable trade-offs.

The mercury debate is not “winnable” one way or the other, so if you want a clear-cut answer, I suppose you should go with common sense. For me, common sense tells me to be aware of the issue, buy well-made bulbs, and look for places that will properly dispose of burnt-out CFLs (and batteries, paint, oil, electronics, the standard tube bulbs, and the many other partially toxic materials we use in our daily lives.)

And by the way, it is reported that a broken CFL would expose you to about as much mercury as one or two cans of tuna. So, perhaps this puts the actual risk of mercury in perspective: it’s there, but perhaps we have other more risky things to concentrate on.

Finally, I believe one thing you can do to reduce the likelihood of bulb breakage is to buy the “A” shaped bulbs or other non-spiral shapes. These bulbs are typically made just by putting the decorative (or functional shape) plastic shell around a regular spiral or bent-tube bulb. I would think this gives you an extra layer of protection from accidental breakage, and perhaps even a more contained enclosure if there is breakage.

Give ‘Em Another Try

I hope you have good luck with these CFLs. If you have been disappointed in the past, now’s the time to give it another try. They are less expensive, more readily available and now you have the facts you need.

[Update: 2/3/09, Changed links to stores to Google Search since Amazon often didn't have the ones I recommended in stock. Added some comments and emphasis based on concerns readers have noted in the comments.] ]]> http://fivepercent.us/2008/09/09/cfl-bulb-review-recommended-cfl-bulbs-to-replace-incandescent/feed/ 45 http://fivepercent.us/2008/07/28/cent-a-meter-centometer-or-power-cost-meter-pays-for-itself/ http://fivepercent.us/2008/07/28/cent-a-meter-centometer-or-power-cost-meter-pays-for-itself/#comments Mon, 28 Jul 2008 04:00:29 +0000 Tom Harrison http://fivepercent.us/?p=279 I have a product, known variously as the “centometer”, “cent-o-meter”, “cent-a-meter”, “powercost monitor” and “power cost meter”. It shows your electrical consumption in dollars and cents on a little display you can put where you like. Your electrical use is no longer “out of sight, out of mind”.

Update: 3/10/2009 — the same unit is now being sold under the Black and Decker label.

And boy does it work!

I bought one and installed it, and, having received our first electricity bill since then, can confidently say that it will pay for itself in less than a year. Maybe a lot faster than that!

Update, 2009: Oh yeah, a LOT more quickly than a year!!

Where To Buy The Cent-a-Meter

I’ll call it the Cent-o-meter, because the TV show Wa$ted used that name. The model I got is officially called the PowerCost Meter, and I purchased it at the TerraPass Store for $134. Update, 2009 — BlueLine’s PowerCost Monitor is now available for about $100 at Energy Circle’s store

I found the “real” Cent-A-Meter online for $153. I have not used the actual cent-a-meter. They should both have the same result, even if they work a little differently.

Does that seem like too much to spend?

Is the Cent-A-Meter Too Expensive?

Consider that over the course of several years, my family and I have reduced our electricity use by more than 40%. Our bill this month was around $100. Our electricity rate, like those around the country, will be going up (way up). This month, we appear to have cut yet another significant percentage off our total, I think now up to 50% reduction. In other words, our bill last month would have been $200 without our conservation measures.

So if you are starting from scratch, you could easily get the first 25% in a few days, using the Cent-o-meter as a guide. In our house, that would be $50/month. Maybe you’ll get more, or maybe you pay less for electricity (now), but it won’t take long to pay for itself.

How We Cut Our Electricity Use in Half

We learned how to save electricity usage the hard way: try a things or two, wait for the electric bill to arrive, and see how we did. This method takes discipline, patience, diligence, and perhaps a mental disorder (of which I have all, except perhaps patience :-). Yes, I could have walked outside, read the electric meter, done the math, and all, but I didn’t. I’ll bet you don’t, either.

I was aided in some cases by my Kill-A-Watt meter, but that only works for things you plug in, run on 110 volts, and can reach easily. For us, this did not include the dryer or our fridge, nor most of our lights.

It took a long time. Some things, like turning out lights you aren’t using take a lot of practice. It would have been a lot quicker if we had this little display sitting in our kitchen all along, right next to our thermometer and clock.

You Know When The Dryer Is On

The PowerCost Meter works because you know within a few days what really uses electricity in your house.

When things are mostly quiet, we still use about 5 or 6 cents per hour — a dollar a day. When we’re up and about, it’s usually around $0.12 per hour; lights are on, the refrigerator is running, the computer or TV is on, and so on.

Here’s a picture from this evening — $0.09/hour, we have used $22 of electricity since I last reset and it is surprisingly cool 64 degrees outside for a late July evening.

But when I look down and see $1.22 per hour, I know the dryer is on. Holy cow!

Why Does The Cent-o-Meter Work?

In truth, it’s not the actual money that motivates me. I waste a lot of money on a lot of other things less useful than dry clothes. I know having a clean dryer vent can significantly reduce drying time, and now I feel more motivated to keep it clean. And fewer loads seems like a better idea. And I wonder if it would be practical to dry a few things on a clothes line?

The same idea works in my car (a Toyota Prius). Being aware of my mileage at any moment has affected my driving habits only because I am immediately aware of the gas mileage impact of how I am driving. There is no doubt in my mind that I am currently getting 51.9 mpg in my Prius, well over the rated 45 mpg, because I pay a lot of attention to that meter. It’s something to do, and kind of fun.

Installation and Stuff

The model I got (BlueLine Innovations PowerCost Monitor) installed easily in about 20 minutes. It has a device designed to be strapped around the electric meter, and it actually reads the meter. It can work with most common meters, even the old spinning-dial ones. Instructions were good, and there’s a special book for each different meter kind.

The meter-reader part has a wireless transmitter that sends a signal to the display part that you put inside your house. You set the date and time, and also, using a current electrical bill, enter the amount you pay for a kilowatt-hour of electricity, which is usually right on the bill. That’s all.

The actual Cent-a-meter works slightly differently — rather than being strapped to the electric meter, you wrap a measuring device around the main electricity wire to your house. Other than how they get at the usage, both devices seem pretty much the same.