Popular Mechanics just tested seven common energy-efficient, compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) for brightness, color, and power use. Can they compete with the traditional incandescent light bulbs that most of us use?

They sure can. Although the old-fashioned incandescent bulb measured slightly brighter than the equivalent CFLs, the test subjects in the Popular Mechanics study couldn’t see any significant difference. In fact, when it came to the overall quality of light, every single CFL scored higher than the incandescent: “In other words, the new fluorescent bulbs aren’t just better for both your wallet and the environment, they produce better light.”

To track the results, PM used a Konica Minolta CL-200 chroma meter to measure color temperature and brightness, and a Watts Up? Pro ammeter to track power consumption. They performed a double-blind test with three Popular Mechanics staffers and a lighting expert from Parsons The New School for Design in Manhattan. They put the participants in a color-neutral room, turned on the light, and asked them to examine colorful objects, faces and reading material, then rate the bulb’s performance.

The N:Vision Soft White bulb got the highest score of an “A.” The study found it to be “one of the top bulbs for reading and illuminating faces, the best-in-test N:Vision was noticeably ‘slow to warm.’ Still, it was ‘nice, pleasing and good overall.” The N:Vision has an average cost of $5.97 each.

CORRECTION: I had previously noted that the Sylvania Double Life Soft White was the lowest rated CFL. This is incorrect: The bulb is not a CFL but the incandescent against which the other CFLS were measured. It received the lowest score of all bulbs.

The lowest rated CFLs were the GE Soft White (which produced “accurate” color but made details hard to distinguish) and the Westinghouse Soft White (which was an average scorer overall but hurt one person’s eyes while reading). Both bulbs earned a B+.

I regret the error.

See a comparison of all the CFLs tested here.

Popular Mechanics

Carbonfund.org is a nonprofit organization that educates the public about the impacts of global warming. They also promote solutions by selling low-cost carbon offsets that individuals, businesses, and organizations can purchase to reduce their carbon footprint.

When a customer buys a carbon offset, Carbonfund.org purchases and then retires the carbon, taking it out of circulation.

Eric Carlson is the Executive Director of Carbonfund.org, and co-founded the company with his wife, Lesley. Eric has more than 15 years of experience in energy efficiency and global warming policy and project work. He was worked for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Energy Star program and has advised companies like Gillette, AT&T, and IBM on energy and money saving opportunities. Carbonfund.org’s motto is: “Reduce what you can, offset what you can not.”

I spoke with Eric by phone on March 23rd.

Green Options: There are a lot of companies and organizations out there selling carbon offsets, or Renewable Energy Credits (RECs). What makes Carbonfund.org different?

Eric Carlson: Our distinction is that we’re a nonprofit and that we let our customers decide for which projects their money is used. We also retire the carbon credits that we buy for our customers. Some companies buy them and then trade them, which doesn’t reduce the overall amount of carbon dioxide.

GO: What sorts of choices do your customers have?

EC: We offer three types of projects from which customers can buy RECs: renewable energy, energy efficiency, and reforestation.

GO: By the way, how do you “retire” carbon?

EC: We often just ask that our account with a particular project be closed, so that credits we’ve bought can never be used again.

GO: There’s a lot of discussion around the term “additionality” and carbon offset projects. Can you explain what that is?

EC: If a project would not have happened without someone buying the RECs to support it, then it is considered additional and a meaningful carbon reduction.

GO: How important is additionality to Carbonfund.org?

EC: We absolutely make sure that projects are additional. At the same time, I’m afraid that the controversies around additionality are slowing people down from just doing the right thing and reducing their carbon impact.

When you buy a REC, you are buying the environmental attributes of that electricity. There are so many variables that go into renewable energy projects, like leasing costs, interest rates, etc. RECs are a part of that, and by purchasing credits, you’re telling the market to buy and set up more renewable energy, and that’s additional.

Carbonfund.org cares a lot about additionality, we work on it every day, but we can’t let it get in the way of the prize.

GO: Some carbon offset companies don’t consider reforestation additional, or even a valid carbon offset.

EC: A tree is 100 percent additional. We buy that tree, so it would not have been planted without someone buying it. The Kyoto Procotol allows for reforestation as well, as does the Chicago Climate Exchange and tens of thousands of scientists around the world have endorsed reforestation as a meaningful way to cut CO2 pollution.

GO: Can you explain that a bit more?

EC: Think of renewable energy, energy efficiency, and reforestation all working together, playing distinct roles. Energy efficiency first brings down the demand for energy, then renewable energy ensures that the energy we need is clean and nonpolluting. Finally, reforestation sucks the carbon dioxide that’s already in the air back down and into its roots. It all has to work together.

GO: That’s the best argument for reforestation that I’ve heard yet.

EC: I just perfected that argument, actually.

GO: With so many renewable energy projects going up, how do you make sure yours are additional?

EC: Renewable energy is only 2 percent of our total energy – or, 98 percent of all new electricity generated since 1997 has been nonrenewable. So we can assume that 98 percent of the RECs out there are additional also, because if renewables could have happened without the RECs, we would have more than 2 percent renewables. So most renewable energy can be considered additional.

GO: How many customers does Carbonfund.org have?

EC: Over 22,000 people, plus over 160 companies and nonprofits.

GO: Have you ever been approached by a traditionally unlikely company wanting to buy carbon credits?

EC: Absolutely. We’ve worked with a large trucking company and even a private jet company, for example. These are not your typical “green” companies. They emit a lot of carbon dioxide and so this is a big financial commitment for them. These particular companies also don’t have big advertising budgets to talk about how green they are, so they weren’t just doing it for good PR.

GO: What are the questions people should be ask when looking to offset their carbon emissions?

EC: First, they should make sure that the projects are certified, verified or audited by a third party. At Carbonfund.org, we support Green-e and Environmental Resources Trust (ERT) certified renewable energy projects, our energy efficiency offsets are certified by the Chicago Climate Exchange and ERT. Our reforestation projects and methodologies are audited by ERT (in lieu of a certification standard) and our entire portfolio is audited by ERT to ensure we are offsetting what our supporters are asking us to. Our 2004 audit is up and our combined 2005/06 will be up in the next week.

After making sure the projects are certified, verified or audited, determine the cost per ton of CO2. The Chicago Climate Exchange’s website shows what companies, nonprofits, cities, and the State of New Mexico pay.

After pricing, decide on the project type from which you want to buy the offset, like renewable energy, efficiency, or reforestation.

GO: Speaking of pricing, there’s a lot of talk about why the price of carbon varies so much. Why do different companies charge so differently?

EC: Carbon doesn’t cost a lot and it doesn’t need to be painful. The cost varies according to the type of project. If you want to support solar energy in Seattle, then it’s going to cost you more than a wind farm in Kansas.

At Carbonfund.org, you know exactly what our markup is. Right now, carbon is being sold for $3.50 on the Chicago Climate Exchange. We sell the carbon credits for $5.50, while other companies charge up to $10 or $12 a ton. You’re getting the exact same product but are paying more for it.

GO: So why are some folks paying more for the same carbon credits?

EC: There’s a lack of education out there, and the media is often not clear about how this all works. But I think people are beginning to pay attention and understand it better.

In the end, the real cost of cutting CO2 is less than zero because it’s saving money. For example, you buy an efficient, compact fluorescent light bulb for $5 but you save $40 over its lifetime. So the bulb costs nothing. It is profitable to cut CO2 and we’re going to see more and more individuals and companies taking advantage of that.

The United States may take real steps towards a greater energy independence and a stronger economy with the Program for Real Energy Security, or PROGRESS Act. The bill – first introduced in the previous 109th Congress and reintroduced last week in the 110th - aims to jumpstart a massive national effort to diversify U.S. energy sources to include more renewable energy and implement energy-efficient and environmentally friendly technologies.

Authored by Congressman Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD) and co-authored by more than 100 House members (so far all Democrats), the PROGRESS Act is designed to complement the House Democrats’ Rural Working Group’s Biofuels Plan. Representative Hoyer explained:

“Fostering a safer, cleaner, and more prosperous America requires that we reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It is past due time to achieve real progress for America. I hope to work with my colleagues in the new Congress as well as with President Bush to pass this critical legislation and take action once and for all to achieve energy independence that strengthens our national security, boosts our economy, creates more jobs, and protects our environment for future generations.”

The PROGRESS Act includes five major proposals:

• Establish a National Energy Security Commission that would bring together government, industry and academic leaders to develop national goals and recommendations that Congress would have to act upon under expedited rules.
• Establish a National Biofuels Infrastructure Development Program that would include development of retail pumps, tanks, etc for biofuels.
• Promote Transit Use & Develop a Rail Infrastructure Program that would create a stimulus package to promote public transit and upgrades to the freight rail system to get an affordable and reliable supply of biofuels to market.
• Ensure Federal Government Leadership in the Use of the Alternatives to Oil by increasing the use of alternative fuels in federal and state fleets, developing biofuel plants in every region of the country, and speeding development of biofuels standards to promote use.
• Establish a New Manhattan Center for High Efficiency Vehicles to develop and promote technologies to double the average vehicle efficiency, diversify fuels, and continue to develop fuel cells and hydrogen.

All of the proposals appear to be a strong step forward, although it’s unfortunate that the last one is named “the New Manhattan Center.” Alluding to the development of the atomic bomb doesn’t really inspire me as much as, say, “the New Apollo Center” would. And it’s ironic that Toyota – a Japanese automaker – blazed the trail for efficient hybrid vehicles, and we’re now trying to surpass them with a program name connected with their nation's destruction!

Although the bill failed in last year's Congress, Rep. Hoyer is hopeful that it will get to the House floor this year with such strong support.

Congressman Steny Hoyer
Southern Maryland Online

Here’s one to make you think: Webpages that are mostly black take less energy to view on your monitor (59 watts) than mostly white pages (74 watts). So the folks over at EcoIron did some math and determined that if Google’s homepage – mostly white – were to transition to mostly black, and taking into account about 200 million hits a day and about 10 seconds per viewing, Google could save nearly 750 MWh per year in energy (that’s about enough to power roughly 75 homes for a year).

This idea got a lot of discussion going in the blogosphere, as you can imagine. Readers debated everything from the size of the average monitor to whether reading white on black is really easier than black on white. Mark Ontkush, the author of the piece, did a follow up post on EcoIron here.

Although the math can be debated, this idea is a good example of how efficiency is the cheapest, easiest, and fastest way for us to cut our global warming emissions. It's not about shivering in dark; it's about doing what we're already doing faster, easier, better.

EcoIron
cmh blog