I have to say, this story has sure played out at my house, where my bride lovingly (I hope) refers to me, in moments of teasing (I hope), as "Mr. Conserver Man" for what she considers to be an excessive devotion to making the electric meter spin more slowly and for my habit of figuring out ways to avoid using the car.
But the 100w incandescent in her bedside lamp says that I'm at least smart enough to know when to quit:
Fluorescent Bulbs Are Known to Zap Domestic Tranquillity
Energy-Savers a Turnoff for Wives
NESKOWIN, Ore. -- Alex and Sara Sifford, who live here on the Oregon coast, want to do the right thing to save a warming world.
To that end, Alex Sifford, 51, has been buying compact fluorescent light bulbs, which use about 75 percent less power than incandescent bulbs. He sneaks them into sockets all over the house. This has been driving his wife nuts.
She knows that the bulbs, called CFLs, save money and use less energy, thus cutting greenhouse gas emissions blamed for climate change. She knows, too, that Al Gore, Oprah Winfrey and the Department of Energy endorse them. Still, the bulbs, with their initial flicker, slow warm-up and slightly weird color, bug her.
"What really got me was when my husband put a fluorescent in the lamp next to my bed," recalls Sara Sifford, 53. She said she yelled at her husband for "violating the last vestige of my personal space."
Experts on energy consumption call it the "wife test." And one of the dimly lighted truths of the global-warming era is that fluorescent bulbs still seem to be flunking out in most American homes.
...
Sara Sifford says that is ridiculous. But she has lost the will to fight. She also said she believes that using CFLs is "the moral, ethical and environmentally correct thing to do."
"He has worn me down," she said. "Honestly, the fluorescent bulbs still bug me."
Merkley wants Senate jobs bill to help finance building efficiency retrofits
Slideshow: Reinventing the JP Green House
Toxic suds want to watch you shower
Comments
View as Flat
PBrazelton Posted 5:53 am
30 Apr 2007
Seriously, what the hell? Unless you're putting bare bulbs all over your house I defy you to tell the difference. We've replaced all of our incandescents and cannot tell the difference, as the light is being filtered through frosted enclosures, lamp shades or are indirect.
As for the other article assertions, maybe CFLs sell more slowly in grocery stores because people buy 1 or 2 replacement bulbs there, but at Home Depot go on a swap out spree because they're actually cheap there. And old-style CFLs did suck; I doubt it's just women who became gun shy after dealing with them.
As for JMG, I think you can have any light you damn well please next to you in bed. Having strong preferences about a light two feet from your head makes a hell of a lot more sense than freaking out because your bathroom is lit in some new, subtle way.
Permalink
Icelander Posted 6:27 am
30 Apr 2007
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 7:24 am
30 Apr 2007
Getting divorced over things like the setting on a thermostat, the types of bulbs above the bathroom mirror, length of showers, or a bedroom reading light would be a heavy price to pay for very little gain.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
JMG Posted 8:00 am
30 Apr 2007
Now why women would find the warmup time more annoying than men is not clear (if they do, but presuming the statements cited in the story are true -- and when I say that they find the warmup time more annoying than men, perhaps it's a tie, and they find both equally annoying).
I do note that, in my house, the story rings true---bought my first "compact" florescents from 7th Generation in 1990 or something and, as I recall, I paid something like $27 each for three big honking huge quad tubes (that we are still using today). My non-gossiping, non-pie-baking, mathematically adept wife thought I was being a little over the top, and perhaps still does.
I simply note that my bride has never sought out or bought a CFL in the intervening years, and seems fully able to move into a new apartment and not immediately change all the lights over. Where we last lived before this apt., she would not install the dimmable CFLSs into the overhead fixture in her office.
"An optimist is someone who thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist is someone who is afraid that the optimist is right."
Permalink
Dawn Pillsbury Posted 10:02 am
30 Apr 2007
I also note the great improvement in flicker and delay in the new generation of CFLs. JMG, are you cheaping out with old bulbs? Think of your marriage and get her input next time.
In the interest of statistics: I bake pies, but don't gossip much.
_______________
Grow what you eat
Permalink
sort of like an AUK Posted 2:34 pm
30 Apr 2007
Seriously people are you not all outraged that the author lays the blame on the US's dismal cfl adoption rates squarely, and soley, on women's vanity? He makes no mention of the higher electricity prices in Japan, Germany and the UK which surely have some influence on the use of cfls there and deserve some mention in this story.
I'm sure the enlightened prius-driving, bike-riding, public-transport-taking, walk-to-work men on gristmill would be upset with my suggested next story on oil. Just like the cfl vanity story, there is some truth to it, but it isn't nearly the whole story and comes nowhere close to being news, especially not front page news.
Permalink
JMG Posted 2:59 pm
30 Apr 2007
I know that you sure won't get any argument in these parts that US oil imports have EVERYTHING to do with advertisers' ability to manipulate the average US male's real or feared inadequacies ...
I mean, Jesus, I saw an ad for a RIDING LAWNMOWER that showed a guy looking downcast and sad when his neighbor shouted over the fence "HEY! 22 minutes, not bad eh!" ... and then showing the downcast guy all hard and firm and ready to defend his manhood again by going to Home Depot to buy a BIGGER LAWNMOWER than his neighbor.
Trust me, Auk, there's probably nothing you can say about males thinking with their lower brains that isn't at least half true.
Back on the CFL story though, I don't recall women's distaste for the lights being ascribed to their vanity. The article said this, which seems to attribute the bulbs' low acceptance rate to the failings of the first generation lights (bulbs that are quite possibly still in use, as several first gen ones are in my house):
======
"There is still a big hurdle in convincing Americans that lighting-purchase decisions make a big difference in individual electricity bills and collectively for the environment," said Wendy Reed, director of the federal government's Energy Star campaign, which labels products that save energy and has been working with retailers to market CFL bulbs.
"I have heard time and again that a husband goes out and puts the bulb into the house, thinking he is doing a good thing," Reed said. "Then, the CFL bulb is changed back out by the women. It seems that women are much more concerned with how things look. We are the nesters."
A key to the abiding grass-roots resistance to CFLs, Reed and other experts said, is indelible consumer memories of the hideous looks and poor quality of earlier generations of fluorescent lights. They were bulky. They were expensive, as much as $25 each. They had an annoying flicker and hum. They cast an icky, cold-white light that made people look pale, wrinkly and old.
"People remember them from 20 years ago and they are not going to forgive," said Dave Shiller, vice president of new business development for MaxLite, a Fairfield, N.J., company that manufactures CFL bulbs.
A new breed of bulbs solves most, if not all, of the old gripes. The bulbs are smaller and much cheaper -- often selling for as little as $1.50 each at big-box stores. Most bulbs pay for themselves in reduced power consumption within six months. They last seven to 10 years longer than incandescent bulbs. The hum and flicker are long gone, and many bulbs are designed to mimic the soothing, yellowish warmth of incandescent bulbs. (Most, though, still do not work on dimmers.)
=====
Can you explain how you get from women saying that they don't like the way the light looks to "vanity?"
"An optimist is someone who thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist is someone who is afraid that the optimist is right."
Permalink
jrusch Posted 4:23 pm
30 Apr 2007
I've changed our CFLs multiple times this very year (new house, and yes, I did it, not my wife). I took half of them back, because the problems the industry says it has solved are still there for me. The flicker can be pretty subliminal but still give me a quite measurable headache. Color in some bulbs changes over time as the bulbs heat up, ending in a cold blue that is quite depressing at night (and makes people look pretty depressing, too.) Kelvin ratings are clearly off, warm white isn't, etc., lumens estimates are all over the map compared to incandescents. It's a mess. I fear a new wave of backlash if the industry doesn't get its act together stop overpromising, and uniformly label its products according to standardized testing methods.
You'll dismiss me as a crank, but it's not for lack of trying to do the right thing on my part, given three trips to three different hardware stores, including two big boxes and a lighting specialty shop. Headaches and depression are real, measurable effects of lighting that vary from person to person, so blanket statements like "change to CFLs" are a bit simplistic...
If anyone knows of a good web site devoted to this, let me know, thanks.
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 4:55 pm
30 Apr 2007
No, I've tested bulbs from a range of manufacturers, and you are quite correct. There is a noticable variation in quality on construction (which influences the hum), on-time, warmup curve, and color temp. Although my biggest problem with color temp has been that the commonly available bulbs are all either too low (2700K) or too high (5500+K) for my tastes.
I am surprised that you perceive flicker, since these bulbs are electronically ballasted at something like 10kHz, which should be well beyond the ability of a human to perceive under any circumstances. But it doesn't surprise me that some people are annoyed by them in various ways. However, it may be that your level of sensitivity is rare enough that it won't be a problem for most people.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 7:09 pm
30 Apr 2007
I think it is clear that happiness is largely a matter of having positive social relationships once food and shelter are concerned. It's sad that in the US our work lives have us so fragmented that we get twitchy about things like our appearance.
The refusal to switch to CFL's is akin to perfectly lovely women pancakeing their faces with make-up and men with adoring mates lusting after the biggest truck on the lot. Whatever we actually have we seem to think that it's just not enough.
Given a choice between possibly looking a little off color today or having a stable climate in ten years most women are going to choose the flattering lights.
Advertising has manipulated our self worth in such a deep way that we are willing to scatter known poisons about our living quarters in order to get a little bit of a social confidence boost.
I really think the bulk of the changes will wait until AFTER another Katrina level disaster. It's just too bad.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 8:14 pm
30 Apr 2007
It is quite credible, though, that they are manufactured at different grades of quality. I suspect we are getting the top line: individually packaged, for which we pay a pretty penny, at either of our local hardware stores.
As for wives with minds of their own, aren't there pumpkin shells for dealing with that problem?
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
PBrazelton Posted 12:59 am
01 May 2007
As for the other comments, I won't deny that the story could ring true in one household and not another. I do take issue, however, with broad gender characterizations based on a few anecdotes and some very weak attempts at linking correlation with causation. I believe it's counterproductive (and occasionally insulting) to create these neat little boxes that reinforce sexist prejudices. Especially to generate FUD around what should be a straightforward course of action. Perhaps the author will next inform us of how low-VOC paints don't supply the necessary range of hues for discerning gay couples because he talked to a few of them about it.
Permalink
kmp Posted 1:12 am
01 May 2007
To add to the quasi-scientific survey, I don't much like CFLs, in terms of performance; I don't like the quality of the light, it is cold and somehow a bit muddy at the same time. Most of our light fixtures are open, so you can see the bulbs, and let's face it, CFLs aren't the most asthetic things on the planet.
So - I put them where I can, and where they don't make me crazy. We do like candlelight, however, and often that is our only source of light at night, so maybe that makes up for it!
Permalink
Engineer Posted 1:52 am
01 May 2007
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=cfls.advan ...
My wife drives a Prius, recycles, yada, yada... and has also complained about every CFL I have ever installed in the house.
I did replace the linear fluorescents in the kitchen with T8's and electronic ballasts, she likes those just fine.
Common sense is an oxymoron...
Permalink
kmp Posted 2:09 am
01 May 2007
Armed with a list of manufacturers and brands, I guess I'll have to try again.
Kaela
Permalink
GtoeOne Posted 3:07 am
01 May 2007
Applications for CFL: High use areas in homes that do not have high heating demand.
Applications for incandescent:
Low use areas, like the attic, some closets etc.
Homes with no A/C and located in the north.
I include category 2 because in this case you will get no savings. If you are heating the house during the dark season (Nov-March) the heat from incandescent bulbs adds to the furnace heat. For homes that air condition you need to double the savings from CFL since it takes energy to remove the extra heat. I have not seen a study to determine which areas of the US need CFL's and which do not. I am convinced there should be no CFL's in Canada.
Permalink
A Siegel Posted 3:18 am
01 May 2007
No differentiation between types of bulbs ... I can supply you a bunch of CFLs that anyone/everyone would hate. I have, in my rooms, CFLs that people don't realize are CFLs until I tell them. (My only CFL failures to date are satisfactory dimmables in recessed lights (went LED) and dimmable in a chandelier (remain on incandescents -- rarely used). I had some disasters along the way (vanity lights testing from Wal-Mart -- two packages, three blew up within seconds of going into the wall, other three give very inconsistent and, often, mediocre light) but have found lights that everyone likes (and, this has led me to have different lighting styles in virtually every room to taste/requirements).
Grocery stores -- most grocery stores that I see have very few CFLs within a mainly incandescent mix and the CFLs are typically not given equal footing (bottom of shelf space, just basic CFLs while there are 20+ types of incandescent bulbs). There is no information provided about CFL benefits other than on the package. And, price per bulb is (much) higher than at hardware stores.
I really wonder at 6-month payback period. For my most used lights (kitchen), the payback period was far less than that at 6 cents/kwh electricity. (And, that was with higher priced CFLs rather than discounted package prices now available.) US average is 9.5 cents. Thus, I would expect payback to be far less than six months for most Americans.
Etc ...
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 3:20 am
01 May 2007
Personally I am using TCP (Technical Consumer Products) bulbs. I am moderately happy with them. They start up instantly and warm up fast, but they are prone to humming, especially in multi-bulb fixtures. The main thing I like about them is that I can get them in my preferred color temps (3100K - 3500K), though I had to special order them.
I have used TCP bulbs before, and been happier with them in the past. This latest batch has a slightly different shape, and appears to be of lower quality overall: I'm guessing that they switched to a different factory (probably in China somewhere) and/or a different design, producing a lower quality product more cheaply. Next time, I'll try something else.
A couple of side notes: A prominent architectural lighting designer of my acquaintance has told me that the straight-tube CFLs are superior to the spiral CFLs, because the straight tubes allow for more even vaporization and distribution of the mercury. Ideally, these bulbs are mounted nearly horizontal, with the tubes pointing slightly down, to facilitate the mercury vapor distribution.
He says that spiral CFLs tend to burn out faster because the gas distribution isn't as good. And that matches my experience, with spiral bulbs turning black near the base, before they burn out entirely.
This same fellow recommends GE CFLs. I haven't tried them yet, but I will the next time I have to change out my bulbs.
Permalink
A Siegel Posted 3:29 am
01 May 2007
Low-use areas -- well, for me, those are the areas that get the CFLs that didn't pass muster to be in a bedside lamp.
Permalink
Pandu Posted 4:28 am
01 May 2007
Almost all of the lights in our house are compact fluorescents, mostly the name-brands. In my experience, they last about 1 year. Finally last year I got the idea to write the date on each bulb when its installed, and to write the date and location on the package, with the receipt stapled on. Hopefully then I'll be able to return them when they die so soon. Currently I have a few boxes full of dead CFLs.
My wife has never liked them, except for the fact that I don't complain as much when they're left on. She claims to be able to see and hear the differences. Personally, I don't like them much either, and I doubt I've saved any money by using them all these years. Still, I continue to buy them, in case I get a good batch. (The one that would seem least likely to live long, the one outside on the porch ceiling, has lasted the longest so far, about 3 years.) Hopefully we'll all be using LEDs in the relatively near future.
Permalink
Nyx Posted 4:41 am
01 May 2007
The humming/flicker has as far as I know been phazed out both because of technology (magnetic ballasts v.s. electronic ballasts) and because of education, as long as they are in the appropriate fixtures you should have no problem. Once in a while you can get a bad one, which if you bought at a home improvement store, they will typically replace, or they should have a toll free number to the manufacturer on the ballast.
I recommend them for everyone, the savings are huge, not only do they use roughly 75% less energy but they last 6-10 times longer than a normal incandescent bulb, which means replacing lightbulbs less, not to mention less bulbs in the land fills.
Now for one important note. These bulbs contain MERCURY, not a lot, about 1/10 of a watch battery. So please, contact your local waste management company and recycle them.
Please feel free to send comments/questions.
Thank You.
Permalink
Pandu Posted 4:55 am
01 May 2007
CFLs in previous homes I've lived in were of similar longevity.
Permalink
tico89 Posted 5:26 am
01 May 2007
The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Humanity can't work individually.
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 7:21 am
01 May 2007
2700K bulbs tend to be warmer, but have a red or yellow tinge that I find unattractive.
5500-6500K bulbs are the ones that give a "cold, white" light.
I like bulbs in the 3000K-3500K range. Unfortunately, they are generally hard to find.
Permalink
Nyx Posted 9:17 am
01 May 2007
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 9:38 am
01 May 2007
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
mihan Posted 4:06 am
02 May 2007
What that says, I do not know. I loves me my CFLs, and use about 120 kWh of electricity a month (sadly, my stove is electric).
Permalink