Bulb Logic
A couple things jumped out of this item in the Christian Science Monitor on the movement to phase out incandescent bulbs in favor of much more efficient compact fluorescents, or CFLs:
The first is regarding the mercury issue, which many folks (I hate the word 'consumers') are rightly concerned about. The Monitor reports that manufacturers are promoting recycling programs and taking steps to the bulbs' mercury content. Moreover, the California Energy Commission has determined that, taking into account reduced power plant emissions, switching to CFLs actually yields a net decrease in mercury.
The other thing that struck me is GE's insistence that it can and will make incandescents more efficient, and indeed, that by 2012 the standard bulbs will be as efficient as CFLs. Presumably, GE makes a bigger profit margin on incandescents and therefore is reluctant to give up on them. But, hopefully, by 2012 CFLs will no longer be the measure of efficiency, as light emitting diodes, or LEDs promise to raise the standards even higher.
In any event, it's good to finally see some momentum on this issue, as more efficient lighting is one of the lower hanging fruits of energy conservation.
The first is regarding the mercury issue, which many folks (I hate the word 'consumers') are rightly concerned about. The Monitor reports that manufacturers are promoting recycling programs and taking steps to the bulbs' mercury content. Moreover, the California Energy Commission has determined that, taking into account reduced power plant emissions, switching to CFLs actually yields a net decrease in mercury.
The other thing that struck me is GE's insistence that it can and will make incandescents more efficient, and indeed, that by 2012 the standard bulbs will be as efficient as CFLs. Presumably, GE makes a bigger profit margin on incandescents and therefore is reluctant to give up on them. But, hopefully, by 2012 CFLs will no longer be the measure of efficiency, as light emitting diodes, or LEDs promise to raise the standards even higher.
In any event, it's good to finally see some momentum on this issue, as more efficient lighting is one of the lower hanging fruits of energy conservation.
11 Comments:
Pat, I am somewhat ignorant as to the benefit of switching bulbs. Could you explain it to me a bit. From what I have heard lately it seems like the right way to go. Thanks
Sure. In a nutshell: CFLs last 8-10 times longer than incandescents while using about 75% less energy. While they cost more up front, they ultimately save you money.
Because there's little of the waste heat with fluorescents that you get from incandescents, CFLs give much more illumination per watt of electricity. Since most electricity in the US comes from either coal or natural gas, the power saved means fewer CO2 emissions.
CFLs are improving all the time. They used to flicker and buzz and provide lower quality light. The latest iterations, however, eliminate most of the problems.
Hope that helps.
Thanks
Pat, a friend sent me an article from the WorldNetDaily website "Consumers in dark over risks of new light bulbs." The article raises questions about the danger of mercury poisoning in homes if the CFL bulb breaks. I know there is a re-cycling concerns but is the breakage problem a big hazard for homeowners? Thanks
Good question. According to the Dept. of Energy and various state government sources I found on the web, the health risks from mercury exposure due to breaking a CFL is not significant given the small amount (less than .05g of Hg per bulb) present. Still, better not to break the bulb. The rule is to handle CFLs carefully and recycle spent bulbs.
The mercury issue is a considerable one from a public health perspective and I suspect the greatest acute risk may be to those who work in facilities that recycle CFLs and those who live around them. Mercury in landfills is not a good thing, so all CFLs should be recycled. IKEA, among others, has a drop-off program for old CFLs.
To put the mercury problem in some perspective, it has been calculated that the widespread adoption of CFLs will be more than offset by reduced mercury emissions from power plants.
Hopefully, a substitute for mercury can be found and/or the market rapidly transitions to still more efficient LEDs (light emitting diodes).
Hope I've addressed your question.
Yes, you have addressed my question. Thanks very much, I'll continue to buy CFLs!
I would like to know if I should stay with the incondescent bulb for lighting the area in the range hood above my stove top or is it safe to switch to a CFL.
Thanks
Fluorescent bulbs in my home?? Are you kidding me?? They steal your soul all day at work.. I demand a nice warm glow that only burning tungsten can deliver. Who wants to relax in a room thats lit like a cold warehouse.. I'll pay whatever it takes, to keep incandescent glow.
Not until the quality of the light from a CFL is improved would I ever put them in my house. The government and special interest groups have no business dictating what light bulb I place in my bedside lamp!! The Democratic Congressional members we elected to should do just that instead of messing around with the kind of light bulbs we can or cannot buy.
Right On! No flourescents! Incandescents are the only lights for me. I threw out all my compact flourescent bulbs.
Besides, the answer isn't conservation--and conservation should be imposed on the population. We can have all the clean energy we want if we're allowed to do it.
I'll give up my last incandescent when they unscrew it from my cold, dead socket.
Ooops! I should have said, "...and conservation should NOT be imposed on the population." I didn't see a way to edit my last post.
Post a Comment
<< Compass Main