Start
with a simple whole-life, cradle-to-grave cost comparison:
in one corner champion and most-favored light source
incandescent bulb.
In the other corner, the challenger, a first
generation compact fluorescent (CF) lamp.
Considering only the standard economic consideration,
equipment cost, the champion wins first round easily: Who
would buy a light for $25 when you can buy a package of four
equally bright champs for under $3?
But wait!
The cheaper bulb lasts only 1,100 hours, one-ninth as
long as the challenger, and more than two packages of four
are required to compare fairly, so the challenger appears to
be four times as expensive past the checkout counter.
If you mean to buy a light with only $3 in your
pocket, study no more: Initial equipment cost decides the
contest.
For the longer, whole-life view, look again.
The CF package bears a startling claim: The
new-fangled light source consumes only a quarter of the
electricity drawn by the conventional bulb.
Doesn’t someone pay for all that extra electricity?
Over the whole life of the competing lights, which
one costs more?
Assuming that electricity and light bulbs will not
increase in price – an exceedingly unlikely assumption –
incandescent bulbs (it will take about nine) will use so
much more energy over the life span of the compact
fluorescent that the champion’s overall equipment plus
operating cost will be almost twice (188%) the challenger’s.
CF costs are dropping while incandescents are going
up slowly, but judging by recent trends, a 10% annual
increase in operating cost is reasonable, and the champ’s
whole-life cost may approach two and a half times (236%) the
challenger’s by the time the CF burns out.
