Evaluation Essay Going green; this is the mantra of countless ecologists, media personalities, and celebrities.

And at the center of the fracas is energy conservation. For most people the biggest aspect of going green is finding energy efficient appliances and items in their home. In the past several years, one of the key products advertised has been the compact fluorescent light bulb (CFL). Since their introduction into the market, CFLs have been touted for their energy efficiency and long life spans compared to the incandescent bulbs they are designed to replace. The only question is do CFLs live up to the promise? It is common knowledge that manufacturers claim CFLs consume only twenty-five percent of the energy used by equivalent brightness incandescent bulbs. However, is there any

concrete evidence to back up these claims? According to tests performed by Popular Mechanics, CFLs only use approximately thirty percent of the electricity that is consumed by equivalent incandescent bulbs. In their documentation Popular Mechanics claims that the average U.S. household has 45 light bulbs and if those bulbs were replaced by CFLs, assuming the incandescent bulbs are 75 watt bulbs, each household would save $180 per year (Masamitsu, 2007). In fact the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) states that if every American switched one incandescent bulb to a CFL, it would save more than $600 million in annual energy costs and prevent greenhouse gases equivalent to the emissions from 800,000 cars (USEPA, 2009). It is hard to argue facts like these. People looking to make a difference in the fight against pollution and help the United States get away from its energy-hog reputation should definitely be on board with the assessment that CFLs are an excellent replacement for incandescent bulbs. Another of the most advertised qualities of CFLs is their long life spans compared to incandescent bulbs. Most CFL manufacturers boast 8,000 to 10,000 hour lifetimes for their

Evaluation Essay products compared to an average of 1,000 hour life spans for incandescent bulbs. Although the

advertised life spans are impressive, there have been complaints in the past by consumers that the CFLs do not live up to their billings. Even though recent tests performed by Consumer Reports seem to give some credence to the complaints, the overall data shows that even the shortestlived CFLs burned at least 3,000 hours triple the life of incandescents (Compact Fluorescent Bulbs, 2008). In that same report the data for the GE Long Life 41525 and the N:Vision 423-599 have shown that sixteen out of eighteen bulbs tested were still burning after 10,300 hours (Compact Fluorescent Bulbs, 2008). Given these results and using an estimate of three hours of usage per day, the CFLs last at least three years, and up to nine years, compared to just one year for an incandescent bulb. These results show that, regarding longevity, the compact fluorescent bulbs are an excellent replacement for the incandescent bulbs. While longevity can be considered a characteristic of durability, the common failure modes of the bulbs will be the focus of the CFLs durability evaluation. Most people have witnessed an incandescent bulb fail. The filaments break and the bulbs cease to function. There may be a popping sound or a flash when the filaments break, but that is usually the extent of the observable characteristics of the failure. According to National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA), Incandescent lamps are a historically very safe product (National Electrical Manufacturers Association, 2008). This fact may present a large hurdle for the CFL in the durability category. Numerous sources cite consumer complaints concerning failures of CFLs, usually the presence of smoke and/or an odor at the time of failure. NEMA notes that since a CFL is a much more technically complex product, with many more components, it has potentially a more complex and diverse set of failure modes (National Electrical Manufacturers Association, 2008). With this in mind, it is understandable that consumers may observe sights,

Evaluation Essay sounds, or smells during the failure of a CFL that they have not witnessed during the failure of

an incandescent bulb. NEMA states that when consumers experience a failure mode with which they are unfamiliar and which, if the failure happens when they are present, [it] may appear to present a safety risk, even if the product fails in a mode that is actually safe (National Electrical Manufacturers Association, 2008). While there is the possibility a CFL can fail in a manner that is quite different from an incandescent bulb, according to NEMA, The vast majority of SBCFLs also fail in a benign manner with no behavior that would either alarm a consumer or present a perceived safety hazard condition (National Electrical Manufacturers Association, 2008). With no discernable advantage or disadvantage in durability for the CFL bulbs they remain a good replacement option for incandescent bulbs. So far, the energy efficiency, longevity, and durability of CFLs support their use as an acceptable replacement for incandescent bulbs. But, will consumers be satisfied with a bulb that does not provide a quality light source, even if it does last longer than an incandescent bulb, doesnt have catastrophic failures, and costs less to use? According to Emily Masamitsu, in a 2007 Popular Mechanics lab report, early CFLs threw a dim, antiseptic light that paled next to the warmth of good old-fashioned incandescent bulbs (Masamitsu, 2007). However, as with most technology-based products, CFLs have improved drastically over the years. In an article published by Consumer Reports older CFLs with magnetic ballasts would flicker when they were first lit but new bulbs with faster electronic ballasts do not. They also state that while older CFLs took a long time to turn on, newer bulbs that were tested took about 30 seconds to reach 80 percent of their brightness (Compact Fluorescent Bulbs, 2008). But, nothing beats the good-old head-to-head test. In a lab test performed by Popular Mechanics they report that When it came to the overall quality of the light, all the CFLs scored higher than our incandescent

Evaluation Essay control bulb (Masamitsu, 2007). Thus, the quality of light of a CFL is at least as good as an incandescent bulb, which also supports the assertion that CFLs are good replacements.

Lastly, and near-and-dear to any consumer, is total cost. CFLs are more expensive to buy than incandescent bulbs. In an article published by Consumer Reports, the calculated average price of the CFL bulbs they tested is $2.63 (Compact Fluorescent Bulbs, 2008). In comparison, a quick search on the internet or perusal at the local hardware store will show that a typical 60 watt incandescent bulb costs between sixty and eighty cents. The mercury content of the CFL must also be taken into consideration. CFLs should not be disposed of in the garbage. They should be taken to a facility that provides services for the proper disposal of these bulbs. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) encourages consumers to recycle all mercurycontaining light bulbs. The EPA also advises consumers to contact their state or local environmental regulatory agency concerning the options available to them, including disposal in your household garbage if no other options are available (Mercury-containing light bulb (lamp) recycling, 2008). Although proper disposal of CFLs is not as simple as throwing them in the trash, there is ample evidence that numerous options for disposal are available to the consumer. And, given the longevity of CFLs and the fact that several large stores are providing recycling for fluorescent bulbs at no charge to the consumer (Compact fluorescent light bulbs: weighing energy savings vs. mercury hazard, 2009), there is no discernable added cost for disposing of CFLs. What this means for the consumer is that, although there is a larger initial investment, the longevity, energy efficiency, and absence of any added cost for disposal of CFLs will ultimately save the consumer approximately $50.00 per year per bulb. This assumes an average use of three hours per day and a 60 watt incandescent bulb versus an equivalent CFL.

Evaluation Essay With savings such as this, a person would be hard-pressed to argue that CFLs are anything but excellent replacements for incandescent bulbs. Many times with new technology people must overcome their mental comfort zone in

order to accept a product. This is easier said than done. Human nature tends to resist change, and when dealing with a product that has been around as long as Edisons incandescent bulb, the comfort feeling is deeply entrenched. However, given the numerous advantages of CFLs over incandescent bulbs, both in performance and cost, the clear indication is that compact fluorescent bulbs are an excellent replacement for incandescent bulbs.

Evaluation Essay References

Compact fluorescent bulbs. (Cover story). (2008, October). Consumer Reports, Retrieved July 1, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database. http://muncie.libproxy.ivytech.edu/login? url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=34347294&site= ehost-live Compact fluorescent light bulbs: weighing energy savings vs. mercury hazard. (2009, March). Professional Safety, Retrieved June 30, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database. http://muncie.libproxy.ivytech.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? direct=true&db=aph&AN=37194267&site=ehost-live Masamitsu, E. (2007, May). PM LAB TEST Compact fluorescent Bulbs. Popular Mechanics, 184(5), 90-92. Retrieved July 1, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database. http://muncie.libproxy.ivytech.edu/login? url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? direct=true&db=aph&AN=25274774&site=ehost-live National Electrical Manufacturers Association. (2008, February) Failure modes for self-ballasted compact fluorescent lamps (SBCFL)a NEMA update. Retrieved July 1, 2009, from NEMA.org. http://www.nema.org/stds/ LSD40.cfm United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2009, January) Compact fluorescent light bulbs: do energy-savings outweigh mercury hazard? Retrieved July 1, 2009. http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/f0d7b5b28db5b04985257359003f533b/00c07c cb32cf4fab8525754d0073d8d1!OpenDocument United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2008, September) Mercury-containing light bulb (lamp) recycling. Retrieved July 5, 2009. http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/ wastetypes/universal/lamps/index.htm