Is it true that CFLs use more energy overall (in manufacturing them) and aren't the used CFL's waste worse?

I've heard that it takes 70-80 times the amount of energy to manufacture a CFL as it does a conventional light bulb. Is this true? Also, I've heard that the old CFLs in the landfills contain far more toxic matter than regular light bulbs. Is the CFL campaign just a scam?Is it true that CFLs use more energy overall (in manufacturing them) and aren't the used CFL's waste worse?
Nope. The amount of energy used in manufacturing a light bulb is insignificant compared to the amount it uses.





And CFLs reduce toxic mercury pollution. Fossil fuels contain mercury. Using incandescent bulbs causes more mercury to be emitted from power plants. More than the tiny amount (0.005 grams or less) that is in a CFL.





It's better if you dispose of old CFLs properly so that even the tiny amount of mercury is not released. But, no matter how they're disposed of, CFLs reduce mercury pollution.





http://www.cityofberkeley.info/sustainab鈥?/a>





http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/cfl鈥?/a>





The bad raps on CFLs are just nonsense.Is it true that CFLs use more energy overall (in manufacturing them) and aren't the used CFL's waste worse?
Bob is right the amount it save offsets the amount it contains or takes to make!!!
you may be just right, do research the topic and if true lets all combine and launch an awareness campaign.
They're not really any better for the environment than regular light bulbs, but they aren't any worse either and they save you some money.
No, the CFL campaign is not just a scam. Did you do any research?
if it cost 70-80 times as much energy to create them, wouldn't the bulbs be costing $20 each instead of 1.75 or less? - I bought a couple of cases of CFL's on ebay and they cost me less than $1.25 per bulb including shipping. I have enough for a lifetime
WHOA THERE partner.





You're referring to the 5mg mercury content, which is being phased out as fast as it can be - it's the Chinese manufacturer's fault, and it's going to be eliminated in about 5 years. Just like any technology, it has a ramp up, and early adapters like me have to pay a little more to help start everything up. Since it is reasonable to assume about a 5-6 year life span for the bulbs in service, and 5 years additional for the ramp up to no mercury at all, we should continue to recycle if possible, but that's no reason to stop using them altogether. Landfills are already there, and this is a temporary problem at best - let's reduce our energy usage NOW, rather than just be scared.





As far as the amount of energy to produce, remember that this is all done in China, both incandescent and flourescent. The energy cost per part will go down as demand goes up and better methods of production occur. Otherwise, let's just keep making cars like we did in the 60's instead of ramping up electric cars, right?
i dont think they are as eco friendly as they are cranked up to be.
Yep, thats true, but sense Gore susports the cfl, that makes it ok. Aint that a hoot.
You have gotten some varried, and wrong answers to your question. I've actually done a lot of research on CFL's.





Almost every single CFL is made in China. We are transporting raw matterials to China to have the bulbs made, and then transporting bulbs back. The amount of fossil fuel used in the simple transportation of the CFL's is staggering.





CFL's are all packaged in plastic. Incandecents very often come in earth friendly and totally recycable cardboard. If you buy CFL's you now have the plastic packaging that will be around for oh...1000-5000 years. Once plastic is made, it is always plastic...it breaks down and enters our food chain as plastic.





The energy used (not even including the shipping costs!) to make CFL's will never equal the amount of energy saved by the bulbs. In effect we are simply transfering the energy usage and polution to China, and reaping the bennifits of a lower power bill in our own Countries.





Each and every CFL contains mercury. Some of the first CFL contained as much as 60mg or mercury! The newest ones usually only contain about 3.5 mg of mercury. Combind the amount of mercury the CFL contains, plus the amount of mercury produced by the fossil fuel energy like a coal plant to run that bulb, and over it's life it produces about 7.5 mg of mercury.





An incandecnt bulb would produce 10 mg of mercury if it's energy came from a coal fired plant.





The reduction in mercury is not that great for the CFL's. The main difference is that the coal fired plants have filters and scrubbers to try and trap that mercury, and not release it into the air.





CFL's are routinely tossed in the trash by uncarring and careless consumers. So as the bulbs break, the mercury the CFL bulbs contain is being released ALL OVER, with no thought to what it's doing to our groundwater, and air quality. So now instead of the mercury being mointored at the coal fired plants, it's been spread out all over many different countries. Of course if you have old CFL bulb in your house, they may contain a great deal more mercury than you are expecting!





CFL bulbs MUST be recycled as HAZZORDOUS WASTE!





Incandecent light bulbs do NOT cotain toxic mercury or gasses. If you are not responsible enough to recycle the CFL bulbs properly, you would be much more environmentally friendly to use the old fashioned incandecent bulbs (packaged in cardboard, and made in America!).





The true earth friendly wave of the future will be the LED lightbulbs. They are about $45 a piece right now.





Using a CFL bulb is like replacing 5 incandecent bulbs.


Using an LED bulb is like replacing 80 incandencent bulbs!





~Garnet


Homestead/Farming for over 20 years