Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

Wal-Mart Is Pushing Compact Fluorescent Bulbs

Journal written by anaesthetica (596507) and posted by kdawson on Wed Jan 03, 2007 12:12 AM
from the bright-idea dept.
While we all know from reading the internets that Wal-Mart is irredeemably evil, the world's largest retailer has committed to get compact fluorescent lightbulbs into 100 million homes this year. CFLs are found in only 6% of households today. These energy-saving bulbs use 75% less electricity than incandescents and produce far less greenhouse gas to manufacture and use. Wal-Mart seems determined to use its marketing prowess to do what hasn't successfully been done in the CFL's 25-year history: to convince consumers to pay more upfront for large savings over the product's lifetime.

Related Stories

[+] Apple: Can Music Survive Inside the Big Box? 90 comments
_randy_64 writes "In a story that ties in nicely with a recent discussion about the possible reprieve for Net Radio, the Wall Street Journal asks Can Music Survive Inside the Big Box? The article discusses how the 'big box' stores (e.g. Wal-Mart, Best Buy) are cutting back on space and acceptance of music CDs. With 85% of music sales still coming from CDs, maybe this is another thing to push the music industry towards better online sales models? 'Thanks largely to aggressive pricing and advertising, big-box chains are now responsible in the U.S. for at least 65% of music sales (including online and physical recordings), according to estimates by distribution executives, up from 20% a decade ago. Where a store that depends on CDs for the bulk of its sales needs a profit margin of around 30%, big chains get by making just 14% on music, say label executives who handle distribution. One of these executives describes the shift as a tidal wave.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Wal-Mart Is Pushing Compact Fluorescent Bulbs 25 Comments More | Login /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login
Keybindings Beta
Q W E
A S D
Loading ... Please wait.
  • Oh come on... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jarjarthejedi (996957) <bookreader13@ c o x .net> on Wednesday January 03 2007, @12:19AM (#17439700) Journal
    "While we all know from reading the internets that Wal-Mart is irredeemably evil"

    What is that? Sure, the majority of people don't like Wal-Mart, but why do you feel the need to mention it in an article where Wal-Mart is doing something good?

    As for the article it's mostly a "duh" thing. It's main points seem to be that Wal-Mart's trying to sell a lot of these bulbs, the people who make money off of incandescents don't like it, and then it goes into the history of the light bulb.

    I'm glad Wal-Mart's doing this, too many people refuse to buy them, if Wal-Mart does what they always do (cheap) then their plan should work and power consumption should drop.

    ((Why do I see myself losing Karma here...?))
    • Re:Oh come on... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by aardvarkjoe (156801) on Wednesday January 03 2007, @12:27AM (#17439786)
      Sure, the majority of people don't like Wal-Mart...
      No, the majority of slashdotters don't like Wal-Mart. The majority of people, in general, either like it or don't have any feelings for it one way or another. Same with Microsoft, SCO, and the RIAA.
      [ Parent ]
      • by adolf (21054) <adolf@phreaker.net> on Wednesday January 03 2007, @01:42AM (#17440410)
        As long as we're explaining general viewpoints for karma, here's how I see things:

        RIAA is evil. They're suing their customers.
        Microsoft is evil. They lock people into their products and make my job difficult with obscure licensing requirements and feature omissions.
        SCO is evil. Sure, UNIX(r) was great and all, but we got over it years ago.

        Wal-Mart? Come on. All they do is sell products that people want, for less money than the competition, and offer correspondingly little in the way of customer service. Just like Newegg, Amazon, or any of most of the other faceless online entities who are struggling to charge as little as possible in an attempt to get ahead. This might hurt the local specialty merchants, but then, so does Newegg limit the market of a brick-and-mortar specialty PC parts store, who stands no chance at all at matching the pricing, availability, or product diversity such a beastly online merchant.

        That said, I'm an informed sort of fellow, and I don't really want to pay someone to hold my hand while I make a purchase, anyway. The decisive lack of knowledgeable sales representatives at Wal-Mart and Newegg is, to me, a clear advantage, because I don't have to pay extra for supposedly-clued people to stand around and bullshit me.

        Right then. So you say that they only sell stuff made in China. But so do all of the other places where I can actually afford to shop.

        And so, at the end of the day: I could either pay less for those cheap Chinese goods, or I could pay more. Obviously, I'd rather pay less. Just like I'd rather get a raise, than continue toiling away undercompensated. Just like I'd rather sit, than stand. And I'd rather lay down, than sit. And so on, and so forth.

        So now, they're making a concerted effort to boost CFL lighting, so as to cause people to spend less money on electric lighting instead of more money on more money on electric lighting. A boon for everyone. Cool!

        [ Parent ]
      • Re:Oh come on... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Monkelectric (546685) <slashdot@NOspaM.monkelectric.com> on Wednesday January 03 2007, @01:50AM (#17440464)
        A subject that nobody *EVER* discusses is the limits of human perception. Our brains our designed to make quick evaluations about things. This is the *ONLY* strategy that works because you have to evaluate thousands of things in your life.

        When we give a name to something, an entity as large as walmart for instance, that allows us to sum up the hundreds of thousands of people and millions of actions they take on behalf of walmart as one concept. But in reality, walmart is hundreds of thousands of people and millions of actions.

        Add this to a blurry concept of good and evil, and you've got a real mess that can't be summarized easily and thus can't be easily comprehended by our brains.

        The truth about walmart (and every other thing) is it is neither evil nor good. Some of the people are evil, some of the policies are evil, some are good, some of the people are good. I worked for walmart after college during a hard time in my industry ... I met all those people, good, bad, evil, and the majority just people trying to feed their families. Most aren't even capable of understanding the damage walmart as a hole does to the country (wage depression which leads to manufacturing outsourcing which leads to more wage depression)

        [ Parent ]
  • by Heir Of The Mess (939658) on Wednesday January 03 2007, @12:20AM (#17439710) Homepage
    I've found that replacing my 100watt bulbs with the equivalent in CFLs was ok, but light coming from them somehow seemed dimmer due to it being a colder temperature light. What I would like to see is really bright CFLs, like 150W equivalent, which would use about 30W. I think this would encourage people to buy them more because as well as only using 30% of the electricity they also get bulbs that produce 50% more light, not to mention the immediate wow factor of having brighter bulbs. Unfortunately things seem to be going the other way, as at my local store I can now only buy 18W CFLs.
    • by Belial6 (794905) on Wednesday January 03 2007, @12:38AM (#17439910) Homepage
      I don't think it is the color of the light that makes them seem dimmer. I think it is just a case of over exaggerating the benefits. When they say the bulb is equivalent to a 100 watt bulb, you can expect to actually get the equivalent of an 80 watt bulb. This wouldn't be so bad if they, as you said, sold 150W equivalent bulbs.

      There are two issues I have with CFLs though.

      1) I have had problems with them interfering with IR remotes. The first time it happened to me, I thought I was mistaken about the TVs channel changing on it's own, as I wasn't really paying attention. The second time it happened, I freaked me out, because my wife was out of town, and the idea of my lights changing the channel never occured to me. I had to do a complete check of the house with a golf club to make sure there wasn't someone in the house. When the house checked out empty, I started looking for other possibilities. Over the next few weeks, I figured it out. Having the remotes stop working when the lights were on was the final determination. This may be better know, but it has kept me from using CFLs at all in any room that needs the use of an IR remote.

      2) The county dumps in my area have declared the CFLs to be toxic waste. This makes it illegal to throw them in the garbage when they do die. The stores that sell the bulbs are not collecting them, so the only legal way to get rid of them is by driving them to the dump.

      I don't know the actual toxicity of the CFLs, but I have to wonder what the actual environmental impact is when you account for the bulbs being toxic, and the extra trips to the dump to dispose of dead bulbs. Anyone with real data on this care to chime in?
      [ Parent ]
  • Simple Economics Alright (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Joebert (946227) on Wednesday January 03 2007, @12:51AM (#17440034) Homepage
    If it succeeds in selling 100 million compact fluorescent bulbs a year by 2008

    They will also have converted about 28% (nearly a third) of their yearly lightbulb sales to somthing that is 8 times as expensive.
    Given that profit margins normally work on percentages, that should roughly octuple 28% of their profit margin on lightbulbs.
    They should be making 2.96 times as much selling light bulbs, of course they want to push this.
    • Re:Brilliant! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by omeomi (675045) on Wednesday January 03 2007, @12:20AM (#17439714) Homepage
      I'm somewhat embarrassed to say that the reason I don't use them has nothing to do with their cost. I had one once, and the delay between the time that I switched on the light and the time the light actually turned on really annoyed me. I know it's stupid, but that's why I haven't bought any more. That, and it didn't really last all that much longer than other regular bulbs that I have. It didn't ever burn out, but it started flickering to the point that it would give just about anybody a headache.

      Personally, I'm hoping LED-based lightbulbs become more common in the near future...
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:Brilliant! (Score:5, Informative)

        by exploder (196936) on Wednesday January 03 2007, @12:24AM (#17439748) Homepage
        The delay is pretty much a thing of the past. The ones in my house turn on instantaneously, as far as I can detect. If they are very, very cold (way colder than you'd ever let it get inside your house), it can take maybe half a second.
        [ Parent ]
        • Re:Brilliant! (Score:5, Informative)

          by Mad Quacker (3327) on Wednesday January 03 2007, @12:34AM (#17439878) Homepage

          The delay is pretty much a thing of the past. The ones in my house turn on instantaneously, as far as I can detect.
          I just bought 2 packs from (speak of the devil) Walmart last week.

          Guess what? There is a delay.. maybe a second or so - and then on top of that it takes them about a minute to get up to full brightness. So the 100W equivalent CFL's I have put out (guesstimate) 20W of incandescent equivalent light. I keep my house at 70F. When the bulbs have been operating and are up to about (guesstimate) 100F, they turn on with about a 1/4 second delay. Who keeps their house at 100F?

          This makes them inappropriate for stairwells, bathrooms, and any place with automatic light sensors.
          [ Parent ]
          • Re:Brilliant! (Score:5, Informative)

            by DDLKermit007 (911046) on Wednesday January 03 2007, @01:16AM (#17440204)
            Just need to spend a buck or two more per bulb. The cheapest ones do, and always will have a delay (Walmart has to be there to serve the cheapass market). Best way to have instant on bulbs is to look for ones that specify "instant on". I've had a few friends & family that switch after seeing mine, but end up buying the cheapest ones they can get their hands on. It's no surprise they end up trashing them once they learn their lesson (bicker over a buck, and get what you pay for) or go back to normal bulbs.
            [ Parent ]
          • Re:Brilliant! (Score:5, Informative)

            by swv3752 (187722) <swv3752.hotmail@com> on Wednesday January 03 2007, @01:19AM (#17440222) Homepage Journal
            I have several and it really varies from manufacturer to manufacturer as to how bright they are when they turn on and how long it takes to turn on. Some are instant on with about 75% of thier max brightness and only take about 15 seconds to reach thier full brightness. I believe the brand was NuVo, I know I bought them at Home Depot. A real cheap set from Big Lots, take a good minute to reach thier full brightness and take a half second or so to turn on. The rest fall somewhere inbetween. The real good ones will cost you about 4x as much as a good bulb, but they last 8-10x as long and cost about 1/4-1/6 as much to run.

            There is a secnod bonus to CFL, they produce less heat. This is particularly important in Southern Climes where your cooling bill is considerably higher than your heating bill. Even those areas where it is frosty outside, electric heat is very inefficient so you are still better off.
            [ Parent ]
      • Re:Brilliant! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by radtea (464814) on Wednesday January 03 2007, @12:27AM (#17439802)

        Zero delay on modern bulbs. My only current complaint is that they don't play nice with dimmers. I use them everywhere else.
        [ Parent ]
    • Re:Brilliant! (Score:5, Informative)

      by rolfwind (528248) on Wednesday January 03 2007, @12:25AM (#17439760)
      Regular bulbs are cheaper to produce - namely because they don't need a ballast (what is hidden in the base in CFLs) like all fluorescents do. Price a replacement ballast at homedepot for a digital (T32?) fluorescent - it costs between $16-25 for four tubes, sometimes more. So I'm surprised they CFLs got so cheap.

      BTW, 60 watt equivalent CFLs cost roughly $1.50 a piece (8 pack) at Costco. Much cheaper than Walmart. Nice, bright, instant on.

      (A while back, in my dad's new garage, within 3 weeks - 6 of his fluorescent tube fixtures broke. It was a batch of bad ballasts in them. It would have been a bitch replacing just the ballasts - lots of cutting wires, tying the new one together, tearing the fixture apart and putting it back together again - in other words a PITA. We decided to go with regular bulb fixtures with CFLs because we would get the fluorescent cost benefits but the screw in bulb convenience.)

      Anyway, the upfront cost is not worth complaining over - with regular use you got your money back within 3-5 months.
      [ Parent ]
          • Re:Brilliant! (Score:5, Insightful)

            by 10Ghz (453478) on Wednesday January 03 2007, @01:24AM (#17440268)
            Uh, I live in Finland, and if anyone told here that they are using a hot-running lightbulbs so they would save some money on heating, they would be officially titled as the village idiot. Instead of using lightbulbs as your source of heat, I recommend that you use them for their primary purpose (ligthing), and heat your home through regural means. The heating in your home is designed for heating, so use it. It would be same if I ran my radiators red-hot so I could use the red glow as a nice source of ambient light. Hey, at least I would be saving some money on lighting, right?
            [ Parent ]
    • by Fallen Kell (165468) on Wednesday January 03 2007, @01:31AM (#17440328)
      LEDs are here. Even MythBusters did an episode on lights and costs. In it, they created a testing device to simulate the abuse a light takes turning on/off with it cycling every 2 minutes. After 2 weeks in that, only the LED lights still worked, traditional, florescent, and CFL's all stopped working by that point, with traditional going first, the regular florescents and the CFL's going approx the same time (the edge went to the CFL's). The LEDs also produced more lumens per watt power consumption as well as used the lest amount of energy to turn on, whereas the traditional florescents had a 7x power spike for turn on, and the traditionals had a 1.5x spike, even the CFL's had a power spike. Everything says to use LED lights now.
      [ Parent ]
      • LED not ready (Score:5, Informative)

        by oohshiny (998054) on Wednesday January 03 2007, @01:01AM (#17440084)
        I have a bunch of LED lights, and they are not a replacement for CFLs or regular light bulbs quite yet: too dim and not really full spectrum.
        [ Parent ]
        • by Kadin2048 (468275) <slashdot,kadin&xoxy,net> on Wednesday January 03 2007, @01:49AM (#17440456) Homepage Journal
          You may have to look a little harder to find them in the compact (screw-in) styles, but there are a lot of color temperatures available in fluorescent bulbs. The "cool white" (CW) that you are probably imagining is one of the most common ones, but it is by no means the only color available.

          Typical CW fluorescents actually produce a slightly greenish light, not blue (and if you look at a spectrometer's output, you'll see a big spike around 550 nm, which is green), and have a correlated color temperature somewhere around 4000K. I say "somewhere around" because, since they are really producing a number of fairly distinct wavelenths rather than a continuous distribution, they don't have an exact black-body radiator equivalent. But the general consensus is that it's somewhere around 3400-4200K (depending on phosphor), with a greenish cast. It's this green cast that's the real killer, and makes CW fluorescent light so unflattering to most people's skin; the color temperature itself isn't the major issue.

          If you want warmer (lower color temp) light, it is possible to buy "warm white" fluorescents. They have a correlated temperature of somewhere around 2950-3000K, or about the same as a 100W bulb. To most people, it looks a lot like an incandescent. They're still spectroscopically different (again, fluorescent produces peaks and valleys at various wavelengths, as will anything that's not actually heated to several thousand degrees), but they're designed so that the human eye perceives them as a warm 3000K source, rather than the usual green.

          To be honest, I think "warm" lighting is vastly overrated. I agree that the CW fluorescents are obnoxious, but what I discovered is a far better option than trying to approximate the 3000K yellow glow of a bulb, was to jump up in color temperature, rather than trying to go down. Personally I've found that the high-temperature (5000K) "Daylight" fluorescents are the most pleasant. They don't have the green cast that the 3200K CW ones do, but they also don't have the false yellow tinge that the 'warm' ones do. They really are the closest thing to sunlight, if you get the right bulbs. (Some people also find them very handy for Seasonal Affective Disorder, in fact they're the key component of those pricey therapeutic lamps.)

          Until I changed to 5000K lights, I never realized how yellow incandescents made everything appear. Walking from a room lit with the high-temp fluorescents to incandescent bulbs is like going from the outside into a cave; it's really striking. Rather than trying to produce crummy imitations of what are really a limitation of incandescent bulbs (their low color temperature), I think fluorescent light manufacturers should really be extolling their high-color-temperature, "full-spectrum" bulbs, because once you've lived with them, there's no going back. Unfortunately, it's going to take a while to rid people of the idea that 'high color temperature' means the cruddy, unflattering, green light they've grown accustomed to in office buildings and other institutional locations.
          [ Parent ]
    • Re:They're still evil... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jlarocco (851450) on Wednesday January 03 2007, @12:25AM (#17439772) Homepage
      I'm not seeing how this makes them any less evil. If they sell the bulbs for less profit, then I'd say maybe a little less evil.

      Selling things for a profit isn't evil.

      If you want to complain about Walmart, complain about their shitty service, or how their employees are morons, or the over all low quality of the products they sell, or how they treat their employees like dirt. There's no shortage of reasons why Walmart could be considered "evil", but selling things for a profit isn't one of them.

      Everytime you get a paycheck that isn't negative, you've sold your labor for a profit. Get over it.

      [ Parent ]
    • you've got this all wrong (Score:5, Funny)

      by commodoresloat (172735) * on Wednesday January 03 2007, @12:55AM (#17440048) Homepage
      It's not that Walmart is suddenly "good" for selling compact fluorescent bulbs.

      It's that compact fluorescent bulbs are now irredeemably evil.
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Plop (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MillionthMonkey (240664) on Wednesday January 03 2007, @12:27AM (#17439792)
      It's a great move by WalMart. This gets them great press with people calling them "not evil" on Slashdot and everything, and it cost them practically NOTHING.
      [ Parent ]