A majority of Americans believe that doing away with traditional incandescent lightbulbs is a good idea, despite a campaign to roll back government policy for the upcoming phaseout of inefficient bulbs, research shows.
The finding was one of several surprises in results released yesterday by EcoAlign, which conducted online interviews of 1,000 Americans last month. The study -- the tenth EcoPinion survey by the strategic marketing agency -- focused on consumer perceptions and expectations of energy efficiency lighting.
"We expected to find some traction and greater market penetration for more energy efficient lighting; yet the findings point to much greater levels of support for energy efficient lighting than originally anticipated," said EcoAlign CEO Jamie Wimberly in the report entitled "Lighting the Path Forward for Greater Energy Efficiency."
"Americans really like CFLs," Wimberly wrote. "We also expected that LEDs would hardly be registering ... yet the findings show that consumers are ahead of expert opinion in many ways for LEDs."
Other key findings detailed in the report include:
- A majority of respondents said they installed energy efficient lighting in their homes in the past year. Two-thirds said they installed CFLs, and 27 percent said they installed an LED fixture for general lighting.
- Americans are "receptive to and highly satisfied" with energy efficient lighting options including CFLs and LEDs. Two‐thirds of the respondents gave CFL bulbs a "top‐three box" overall performance rating and more than half the respondents gave their highest ratings to LEDs.
"This is not the first EcoPinion survey, so all this accumulated data and facts continue to come in despite a drumbeat against energy efficiency standards, " Wimberly told GreenBiz.com and GreenerBuildings.com.
Not to mention that with all
Not to mention that with all these talks about FORCING people to ONLY use CFL's...
No one mentions that there is not a single US company that produces them..
EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM IS IMPORTED FROM CHINA
I too share the concern about
I too share the concern about concentrations of mercury in the household after breakage. I also feel though that as much as possible more efficient bulbs should be made "standard". I'm just not sure total prohibition is the answer. In addition to the Hg and the questionable light quality there is also a small amount of UV given off by CF bulbs. While this is negligible and harmless to most people there are folks with medical issues that this is a problem for (such as my wife). We are right now stocking up on essentially a 20 year supply of incandescent bulbs. Thing is we should not have to. A tax, a levy, something to make the old bulbs more expensive, sure, and give the money directly to universities that research alternatives, but don't do away with them altogether, there are plenty of legitimate reasons to use the incandescent bulbs. More carrot, less stick...
I support fazing out all
I support fazing out all lighting. 100% energy efficiency.
I don't see myself ever
I don't see myself ever changing from using incandescent bulbs. If they were phased out, I would be willing to go through the extra cost and effort to buy them from overseas shops, ebay, black market, whatever.
Mostly because I dislike the light produced by florescent bulbs, but also because I am so sickened by the whole "green" movement, and their self righteous initiatives to ban plastic bags or phase out incandescents.
I think the LED is a lot
I think the LED is a lot better and safer than CFL's due to issue of the mercury contained in them. I'd go so far to say that if you put up a poll that the overwhelming majority would not vote for CFL's. But, LED's yes, however LED lights are expensive and so perhaps more needs to be done to support 'light bulbs' that are as non-toxic as possible and contain no mercury.
I use CFL's for most
I use CFL's for most applications and I find them indistinguishable from incandescent bulbs. I do, however have a decorative fixture that requires smaller bulbs than your standard size, and the CFL's that fit proved to be a complete waste of money. They took too long to come on, and way too long to get to full power - they performed more like metal hallide bulbs, not so good for a hallway light.
Also, my CFL's haven't been lasting well. The indoor ones seem fine, but outdoor porch lights have been burning out as fast if not faster than their incandescent counterparts, definitely not the 10,000 hours people were throwing around. It wouldn't be as big a deal if they didn't cost three or more times the price.
I won't get on the mercury. Too many people here have already commented on it.
CFLs are never to be used
CFLs are never to be used outdoors or under damp locations and never in enclosed fixtures unless open at the top.
They need ventilation or they won't last; enclosed fixtures and wet locations also present a fire hazard with CFLs.
Since they are far more harmful to manufacture than incandescents (30x the greenhouse gases, many toxic substances involved in the components) if you're not getting the life, you should stick with incandescents in those locations.
I use incandescents
I use incandescents specifically for their heat output. I built myself a dehydrator box using 100 Watt light bulbs (7) as the heat source. It has a fan, air flow rate control, and temperature control. The light bulbs are mounted in ceramic sockets in their own chamber. They are much safer than any open-filament heater, cheap, and easily replaced.
The 95% supposed wastage as heat is exactly what I want. No other light bulb can substitute.
I'm ditching CFLs. All that
I'm ditching CFLs.
All that mercury China is exporting here. Joke's on us for saving a quick buck.
Unfortunately I'm losing my
Unfortunately I'm losing my eyesight, and CFLs don't provide enough light for me to read by, much less keep from knocking into the walls and furniture. Haven't tried LEDs as they are crazy expensive here in Canada. Hopefully someone will bring the prices of Halogens, LCDs and brighter CFLs down (or at least, manufacture enough of them) so that people in the North with no vision in dimly lit rooms will be able to see...
I could do without the
I could do without the mercury, thank you.
I assume you're referring to
I assume you're referring to the additional mercury released from coal-fired power plants in order to power incandescent bulb instead of CFLs, a quantity of mercury which vastly exceeds the amount of mercury used to make a CFL *and* and form of mercury that is released vaporously into the atmosphere which we drink, eat, and breathe as opposed to being physically contained within a CFL's structure.
There is the side-argument that CFLs thrown in the trash distribute mercury into landfills, but even if every single CFL were thrown away instead of recycled, it would still be slightly less mercury than that associated with an incandescent, and with each CFL that is properly recycled, the benefit only increases.
I agree with you completely, we all "could do without the mercury, thank you."
Except that mercury from the
Except that mercury from the CFLs is released directly into your home where you drink, eat, and breathe each time a CFL structure fails. That's every time you drop one, it cracks, its housing breaks, it burns out in its socket.
Mercury levels have been measured in places where CFLs have broken. Levels above 0.1 mg/m3 in the air is considered unsafe. There are 5 mg in a single CFL.
Sure, it will dissipate in your home to hopefully safe levels after awhile. But if you have babies, they are like mercury sponges, and even low levels will impact their brain development.
There will be no CFLs in my home. When they stop making incandescents, I will switch to LED lightbulbs.
So 2/3 of ECO ALIGN readers
So 2/3 of ECO ALIGN readers support a green product? Gee, imagine that. Thats like going to a T-Mobile store for a 'random poll of americans' and asking which service provider they use. Of course the data will be slanted towards the audience, when you select from a biased group. I would like to see the same poll results from a non eco site.
Personally, CFL's, LED's, and Old fashioned bulbs all have their place. I use CFL's in units that don't require much light, and have a low heat rating (ie: main indoor lighting). But when working on small electronics, you need a full spectrum bulb. When working in an office without natural lighting, you need full spectrum bulbs just to keep you awake. Photographers need high wattage full spectrum bulbs to get decent pictures taken indoors. A lot of reptile setups use old fashioned full spectrum bulbs for cheap heat, and to help digest calcium.
An old fashioned full spectrum bulb is 3 or 4 dollars (compared to 59 cents for a 'normal' old bulb). I haven't had to buy a new one in over 6 years.
Full spectrum CFL's are 20 to 30 dollars EACH. While the bulb itself has a 10 to 15 year life span, the control unit in the base is only rated for 4 years, so they don't even last as long, unless you are able to replace the control unit, which I can, but I doubt most americans could/would.
You may personally not agree
You may personally not agree with the results, but I can assure you that the survey was done professionally and in an above board manner. We use Russell Research which many of the biggest companies in the country also use. 1,000+ Americans were surveyed and the survey is guaranteed to be balanced by demographic segments and geography. There is a 95 percent confidence level in the results.
To be honest, we didn't know what we were going to get in terms of the results. In fact, given the politics around light bulbs now and the many stories pointing possible issues with CFL performance and the mercury issue, we actually thought the numbers would be much lower.
But our survey findings are not the only ones to point to the same conclusion: Americans increasingly use CFLs, think they perform well and are supportive of higher efficiency standards.
USA Today did a similar poll a few weeks ago and came to the same conclusion. Here is a link to those results: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2011/02/poll-ame...
Thanks for your input.
Jamie
Jamie Wimberly
CEO, EcoAlign
www.ecoalign.com
Jamie, I was surprised if not
Jamie,
I was surprised if not skeptical with the results of the survey as well but upon reading the sampling and survey methodology was much more confident with the findings. At Bulbs.com we work with thousands of commercial and residential lighting customers throughout the U.S. whose opinions span a broad spectrum of understanding. Despite the ongoing efforts by the lighting industry to provide information to the public we still have much to do to educate users about the qualities of both existing and emerging technologies.
Nice job on the study.
Mike Connors, CEO
Bulbs.com
I do think that incandescents
I do think that incandescents do need to remain available for certain applications where CFLs and LEDs are not useful or suitable. For general use in my hall way, CFLs are fine, but try giving one to a photographer or artist. Try putting one in your garage door opener. Incandescents have their place and are useful in certain circumstances.