The Dollars and Cents of Compact Fluorescent Bulbs
When I read that Australia had become the first country in the world to ban incandescent bulbs I had two thoughts. First, I said to myself, "This is a great step in the right direction for the fight against global warming." And second, I asked myself, how come Australia was able to pass a law like this without a massive public outcry?
To help answer this question I decided to look into replacing all of the light bulbs in my house with compact fluorescent bulbs for a hefty fee of roughly $100. But what would I really be doing? Aside from the environmental benefits of compact fluorescent bulbs and playing a part in preventing global warming, will I benefit from switching all of my bulbs? And if so, how? Will I save any money? Will I be able to recuperate the money I spent?
Well, the answer is a resounding "YES!"
One bulb = $2.49 + tax
Energy Use = 15 watts = 60 watt incandescent light bulb light output
One year saving for one bulb averaging three hours of use = $12
Average Life of Bulb = 7 years at three hours of use per day
Nate Would Replace 30 Bulbs
Nate's Pre-Replacement Energy Use = 1,800 watts
Nate's Post-Replacement Energy Use = 450 watts
Nate's Savings Per Year = $360
Nate's Savings Over the Life Time of the Bulbs = $2,520
With this analysis, Australia's decision to outlaw incandescent makes perfect sense. The government is able to play a part in preventing global warming, and the citizens actually will recuperate their expenses and attain additional savings by switching.
This seems pretty reasonable right? So why can't we do it?
Share on Facebook
3 comments:
This is an excellent post.
My brother replaced all the bulbs in his house and has convinced others to do the same.
I have replaced all the bulbs in my apartment (9) and brought down my total useage from 1000 watts to about 180 watts, though I never use all of them at once anyways.
This is like 1/5th of the potential useage and the new 27 watt flourescents are very nice and bright. I love them.
because outlawing incandescent light bulbs is completely flawed logic. (why? read to the end of my coment, or wikipedia: fascism) even if the logic isn't flawed the law is. instead of outlawing a specific light-producing widget, light-producing widgets with efficiency less than a certain amount should have been outlawed.
OK now the logic:
Why stop there? outlaw non-rechargeable batteries. alkaline batteries are extremely bad for the environment. it takes both materials and energy to create each and every battery. then after the charge is gone we just throw away the housing; that's crazy!
outlaw SUV's bc they guzzle gas. outlaw driving with less than 2 people in a car because they're not carpooling.
why stop there? outlaw cars altogether. we should be forced to use public transportation systems bc they're more GREEN!
I'm sorry, that's crazy of me. Of COURSE we can't outlaw CARS. you NEED you car. I never should have suggested such a thing. I apologize for being an ignorant left-wing hippie commie liberal.
we have to be reasonable of course. we have to compromise. SOME things (which thins? the blatantly obvious ones, DUH!) can be outlawed and OTHERS can't. and YOU, the original poster, are the MAN FOR THE JOB!
Post a Comment