Are compact flourescent lightbulbs worth it?

[Frugal Vegan Mom]

CFL's may be small potatoes in the grand scheme of ERE, but this questions is bugging me.
I went to Target the other night to get some lightbulbs. I’ve never tried compact flourescents but it seems they appear as the thing to do in every money/energy saving article I see. (Are they supposed to be good for the environment too? I have no idea…) I guess since they’ve become all the rage I haven’t changed many bulbs and we’ve had enough regular ones stocked up to last us – and the savings of a few dollars on an item I buy about once per year didn’t seem worth the research.
Anyway 1 CFL was $5 claiming 6000 hours of light.
A pack of 8 regular bulbs was $3 for 1500 hours of light per bulb = 12000 for the pack.
What gives? Do they actually cut down on the amount of energy used? As in, my electric bill will go from $23/month to $10/month? I would like an example from a real person, instead of trying to search the internet for a credible source!
Thanks,
K
http://www.frugalveganmom.wordpress.com

[HSpencer]

There are those who say CFL emits too much harmful radiation.
http://www.instructables.com/community/ ... radiation/
I don't use very many in my house.

[JohnnyH]

I haven't heard about that, but they do have a significant amount of mercury in them.
NOT something I'd want breaking in my house.

[jacob]

It depends ... do you have a candelier populated by eight 100W bulbs over the dinner table which is left on all day (I've seen that) instead of six 10 W CFLs or is it more of a replacing a 60W bulb with a 15W CFL?
In the former case
8*100W*16hr*365days = 4672kWh / year vs 6*10W*4hrs*365 = 87.6 kWh/year
I changed the habits as well .. with same habits, 16 hrs, you'd save 4000kWh per year or about $400/year. That's worth it.
If we're talking a reading light which is on 2 hours per day.
2hrs*60W*365 days = 43.8kWh vs 2hrs*15W*365days = 10.95kWh.
That's a difference of less than 50 cents... not worth it.

[HSpencer]

I really never had much luck with long lasting CFL's.

I would put them in and hear them pop when they went out in a few weeks. I might have been using the cheapies though.

[Matthew]

I have only had good experiences with these for light that is kept on most of the time (like on an automatic timer). I don't think they last the 6000 hours if they are constantly being cycled on and off all day or in applications that do not have consistent voltage. A lot of people hate the color of the light as well.
I think they can be money savers, but kind of like buying investments are supposed to make you money:) Some just don't work out.

[Robert Muir]

The push for CFLs is actually one of the few conspiracies that I believe in. It's a legal conspiracy for making money off of a technology, but a conspiracy nonetheless.
They push CFLs for their energy savings. However, they don't mention how much energy, resources, and toxic materials goes into each one of these things. After they burn out, they can't be disposed of normally - they have to be taken to a hazardous waste disposal center. Who knows what they do with them; probably ship them to South Korea.
The CFL manufacturers are very slick. I'm impressed by the way they have convinced utilities to subsidize their cost and how they've even convinced entire governments to outright ban simple glass & tungsten bulbs.
My only hope is that LED technology will become so cheap as to drive the CFL bastards out of business.

[csdx]

I think CFLs do take much more to produce on a per bulb basis, but given the less energy usage and longer life, the total cost (manufacture, shipping, operations, and disposal) on a per lumen-hour basis might be more comparable. Also (according to this: http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/p ... ercury.pdf ) even dumping the CFLs in a landfill still result in less mercury in the environment due to the overall lower power required (electricity generation produces mercury).
Not that I'm all "Whoo CFLs!" (I'd prefer LEDs caught on). But I'd be more likely to believe that interests pushing for the status quo are the ones with the conspiracy. Especially given that they are often more entrenched, which means both more power to lobby and more to lose. Though I do see CFLs being pushed on people, but the reason is less sinister; I think it's more a path of least resistance as it requires no habit changes on the 'consumers' end to get the benefits (versus say telling them to want/feel entitled to less).
Also @jacob, don't forget there's an element of time savings in not having to replace the bulbs as often, especially if you have to go to a store to get them, or have those ridiculously high ceilings.

[jj]

I've wondered about the same trade-off - supposed energy saving versus the hateful environmental impact of CFLs.
We just replaced a burnt out CFL in our bathroom. I was very unimpressed with it's longevity. And now I have to find a home for a worthless CFL...

[Kevin M]

Not going to argue the pros/cons, but I found buying them at Lowe's to be cost-effective. One brand had a $10 gift card in the box, I believe it cost $10 for the pack of 6 CFLs. So basically free assuming a return trip to Lowe's is in your future.
As far as recycling goes, I keep my old 6 pack they came in and put the bad ones in there with it clearly marked "To be recyled". I've not replaced any in the year we've been in our new house.

[Q]

Well, here in California, I believe passed a law banning the regular bulbs.
CFLs to me were an easy swap as I somehow had a bunch already. LED's would be cool if they weren't so expensive.
My main electric use probably comes for my laptop and the bathroom light.
I am surprised Jacob didn't give the standard ERE answer - use sunlight as much as possible.

[Frugal Vegan Mom]

Hahaaa does that mean you're on the throne all the time using your computer?
Thanks for all the input everyone. I'll stick with tried & true (& cheap) regular bulbs for now, our house is tiny with few bulbs and we're gone much of the time anyway.