American Households Reject Energy Efficient Lighting

Posted on 29. Sep, 2009 by Ross in North America

At the same time as countries all over the world consider following in the footsteps of Europe’s inefficient lighting ban, American consumers are voting with their wallets against efficient CFL lighting.

Ironically, it’s costing them more money.

Compact fluorescent lighting (CFL) cost as little as $2 per bulb, last 7 times longer than conventional incandescent bulbs and use up to 80% less energy. A decade-long marketing push saw CFLs finally gain a noticeable foothold in the marketplace, but the last two years have seen a remarkable slump in sales.

In a September 18th letter to CFL industry stakeholders, Energy Star products manager Richard Karney said that national sales of the light bulbs have declined 25% from their peak in 2007, with sales in some regions such as Vermont and parts of Massachusetts declining 35-50%. Further, he noted, shipments of CFLs — which are supposed to last far longer than traditional incandescent lights –are down 49% in 2009 over 2007 levels.

Incandescent lighting, which cost as little as 25¢ each, still occupy 90% of US light fittings. Unfamiliar design and toxic mercury components are two reasons why Americans continue to reject CFLs, but cost seems to be the primary deterrent. Rather than seeing CFL light bulbs as an energy-efficient lighting investment, US consumers view them as an added expense.

With such poor take-up of CFL bulbs, the future doesn’t look good for light-emitting diode (LED) replacement bulbs, which are far more expensive than either option. With even longer life-spans and slightly improved energy efficiency over CFL bulbs, LED lighting has managed to generate a lot of hype around its performance and potential, but the US consumers are likely to vote in very much the same way: with their wallets.

Image of a compact fluorescent lighting bulb by Velo Steve @ Flickr/ CC BY-SA 2.0

Find this article useful? You should subscribe to our RSS feed here.

Tags: CFL, energy efficiency, incandescent, lighting

One Comment

Velo Steve

29. Sep, 2009

Some of the building codes unintentionally work against CFL adoption. The economical way to get CFLs in built-in lighting is to install a screw-in CFL in a traditional incandescent fixture. In California at least, this doesn’t meet code. The incandescent fixtures are considered “low efficacy” lighting regardless of what bulbs you use. The cheapest way to pass the building inspection is to put the lights on a dimmer. It doesn’t make the incandescent lights any better, but it meets code. It also means that you can’t install normal non-dimmable CFLs. Dimmable CFLs cost even more than the normal ones, and most don’t work very well.

If not for this perverse effect of the building codes, we would have a lot more fluorescent lighting in our house than we do.