In just under two weeks, standard 100 Watt incandescent light bulbs will be officially banned in the US, in the first step of a gradual phaseout of Edison's technology. However, as a result of recent Congressional action, enforcement of this regulation has been delayed by about a year, leaving the bulbs and the retailers who sell them in a temporary limbo. This change adds to the confusion consumers now face when purchasing lighting products, as our choices have multiplied to include compact fluorescent lights (CFL), LEDs, halogen incandescents, and shortly another new option, the "electron stimulated luminescence" (ESL) bulbs produced by VU1 Corporation. The lighting efficiency standard of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 helped to create this diversity, although it remains to be seen to what extent the desired improvement in household energy consumption will actually appear, and whether it will be accompanied by unintended consequences such as a black market in outlawed light bulbs.
When considered carefully, the lighting efficiency standard contains a paradox: It has had the effect of multiplying consumer choice, but by means of a mechanism that will actually limit choice, once it is fully implemented. Nor is this just a US concern. One reason we're seeing so many new lighting technologies on store shelves is that incandescent lights are being phased out in much of the developed world. As shown in Exhibit 17 of a recent report by McKinsey & Company, the phaseout of incandescent lighting is even farther along in the EU and Japan, with Russia and Brazil also winding down sales of these lights. The new lighting options that these measures helped stimulate didn't appear out of thin air; they occurred as a result of significant investments in technology and manufacturing by various companies, all of which are looking for a return on those investments that could be jeopardized by delaying the implementation of the standard.
The ESL bulb is a case in point. The market for it might not exist without the congressionally mandated lighting standard. I learned about VU1's technology through a press release and was immediately intrigued, because the company seems to have circumvented some of the biggest drawbacks of the CFL bulbs that have become the de facto alternative to incandescents in the last few years. ESL lights work like miniature cathode-ray TV tubes--the kind we had before flat-screen TVs became popular--and they apparently contain no mercury. That makes them inherently much safer than CFLs, particularly in households with children or pets. (Anyone unconvinced of the mercury hazard of CFL bulbs should visit the EPA web page providing instructions for how to remediate a broken one.) At an expected price point just under $15 for a 65W-equivalent R30 bulb at Lowe's hardware stores this winter, they should at least be competitive with CFLs.
In addition, the manufacturer claims that ESLs are not susceptible to overheating. That's a valuable feature, because heat buildup in recessed and other fixtures has shortened the life of several of the CFL bulbs I've bought, particularly in "can" fixtures. Without multiple years of additional service, compared to conventional light bulbs, the already situationally dependent economics and environmental benefits of expensive alternative bulbs turn sharply negative.
Economics are a key factor for all these new light bulbs. That even includes the halogen bulbs that are the nearest substitute for conventional incandescents, in both lighting quality and cost. Like many other energy efficiency technologies, advanced light bulbs trade higher initial costs--in some cases dramatically higher--for reduced operating expenses in the form of electricity savings and less frequent replacement. If you can afford to pay cash for them and your opportunity cost is a bank savings account yielding 1% or less, they're generally a good deal, paying for themselves within several years--or even quicker if you live in a region with high electricity rates. However, if your rates are near or below the national residential average of $0.12 per kilowatt-hour, or if you install them in fixtures that aren't used for at least a few hours each day, the payout will take longer. And if you purchase them on a credit card that you don't pay off in full every month, the advantage compared to conventional bulbs can disappear after tallying finance charges.
I plan to try out the ESL lights once they're readily available, but I also believe Congress was right to impose a delay in enforcing the lighting standard, although I would have preferred a less ambiguous method for achieving that. Mandates like the lighting standard, the federal Renewable Fuels Standard and the state Renewable Portfolio Standards for electricity are effectively taxes. In this case, the tax isn't paid to the government or utilities but to retailers and manufacturers. And while such mandates can be effective at achieving environmental targets, they also tend to be regressive, affecting lower-income consumers disproportionately. With a bi-partisan consensus on the undesirability of raising taxes on the middle class in the current, flat economy, the lighting standard delay arguably falls into the same category. The losers from this step will be companies that made investments on the assumption the standard would go into effect as planned. Let's hope their planning included some contingencies for regulatory risk, or some of our new lighting choices might be jeopardized, even as existing choices are preserved.
Showing posts with label compact fluorescent lights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label compact fluorescent lights. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
The Anthropocene and Other Topics
For the first four years of this blog I published nearly every weekday, and as time went on occasionally struggled to find suitable topics. Lately, I've been running across more good blog topics than I could conceivably cover. I think more is at work in that than my having scaled back the blog's frequency; energy has become an integral part of so many crucial conversations in the meantime. So instead of my customary single topic, today's post includes three essentially unrelated ones, all of which I thought merited sharing with my readers.
The first item concerns compact fluorescent lighting, those "CFL" bulbs people seem to either love or hate, and upon which many base unrealistic expectations of energy and emissions reductions. According to the tracking of NEMA, the Association of Electrical and Medical Imaging Manufacturers, US demand for CFL bulbs has declined for four straight quarters, while demand for the incandescent bulbs that are being phased out by law has revived to 79% of the market. This shift begs for deeper analysis. Is it the result of consumers stocking up on 100 Watt incandescents before they disappear from store shelves next January 1 and become a new kind of black market commodity, or is it more along the lines of what happened to tire sales after steel belted radials were introduced? Like the latter, CFLs last a lot longer than the traditional product they're replacing, and at some point one would expect sales to plateau at a much lower level than incandescents previously held. Or is it the case, as in my household, that CFLs are simply not viewed as a satisfactory replacement in all the fixtures where they could be placed, because of a combination of lighting quality, cost effectiveness, and concern about potential mercury contamination?
Now let's turn to plastics. Two stories, both involving Dow Chemical, caught my eye. In the first, Dow is investing in a facility to make polyethylene, a very common plastic, from ethanol in Brazil. As the article in Technology Review notes, Brazil is one of the few places that would make sense. The process of producing ethanol from sugar cane is so energy-efficient and cost-competitive that ethanol can sensibly be substituted for the petroleum products from which it might otherwise be produced there. In the other story, Dow recently announced a process for extracting most of the available energy from non-recycled plastic waste. Taken together, these two items challenge our traditional view of the relationship between oil and plastics: not only does oil no longer have a lock on the feedstock market, but it could face competition from waste plastics in end-use energy applications, or possibly even as a potential source of synthetic oil, as I noted a couple of years ago.
Finally, I'd be remiss if I didn't recommend an article from the May 28, 2011 issue of The Economist, which had been in my reading pile for weeks. It suggests that we are living in a new epoch of the earth called the Anthropocene, signifying humanity's having become the equivalent of a force of nature in our effect on the earth and its systems. I'm intrigued by this not just because it dovetails with my view that essentially everything we do on a civilization-wide scale, including energy production and consumption, agriculture, transportation and public works, has consequences for the entire planet, but also because of its implications for what sustainability is likely to mean going forward. If the cited scientists are correct, we influence the earth's systems as much as the climate does, with climate change only one example of our impact.
The corollary to that is that an earth restored to the conditions that prevailed in the Holocene epoch from which we emerged--before we started messing with the nitrogen cycle, the carbon cycle, and other key processes--could not support the population expected by mid-century. There's just no going back to our bucolic roots, but neither is that a justification for the large-scale destruction of the environment needed to sustain humanity. The other interesting twist to this is that it's possible we will need the energy from the large-scale harnessing of solar power to conduct the intentional geoengineering that might be necessary to get the global climate back on an even keel. It's the sort of thing that gives environmentalists nightmares but makes believers in an approaching Technological Singularity nod sagely.
The first item concerns compact fluorescent lighting, those "CFL" bulbs people seem to either love or hate, and upon which many base unrealistic expectations of energy and emissions reductions. According to the tracking of NEMA, the Association of Electrical and Medical Imaging Manufacturers, US demand for CFL bulbs has declined for four straight quarters, while demand for the incandescent bulbs that are being phased out by law has revived to 79% of the market. This shift begs for deeper analysis. Is it the result of consumers stocking up on 100 Watt incandescents before they disappear from store shelves next January 1 and become a new kind of black market commodity, or is it more along the lines of what happened to tire sales after steel belted radials were introduced? Like the latter, CFLs last a lot longer than the traditional product they're replacing, and at some point one would expect sales to plateau at a much lower level than incandescents previously held. Or is it the case, as in my household, that CFLs are simply not viewed as a satisfactory replacement in all the fixtures where they could be placed, because of a combination of lighting quality, cost effectiveness, and concern about potential mercury contamination?
Now let's turn to plastics. Two stories, both involving Dow Chemical, caught my eye. In the first, Dow is investing in a facility to make polyethylene, a very common plastic, from ethanol in Brazil. As the article in Technology Review notes, Brazil is one of the few places that would make sense. The process of producing ethanol from sugar cane is so energy-efficient and cost-competitive that ethanol can sensibly be substituted for the petroleum products from which it might otherwise be produced there. In the other story, Dow recently announced a process for extracting most of the available energy from non-recycled plastic waste. Taken together, these two items challenge our traditional view of the relationship between oil and plastics: not only does oil no longer have a lock on the feedstock market, but it could face competition from waste plastics in end-use energy applications, or possibly even as a potential source of synthetic oil, as I noted a couple of years ago.
Finally, I'd be remiss if I didn't recommend an article from the May 28, 2011 issue of The Economist, which had been in my reading pile for weeks. It suggests that we are living in a new epoch of the earth called the Anthropocene, signifying humanity's having become the equivalent of a force of nature in our effect on the earth and its systems. I'm intrigued by this not just because it dovetails with my view that essentially everything we do on a civilization-wide scale, including energy production and consumption, agriculture, transportation and public works, has consequences for the entire planet, but also because of its implications for what sustainability is likely to mean going forward. If the cited scientists are correct, we influence the earth's systems as much as the climate does, with climate change only one example of our impact.
The corollary to that is that an earth restored to the conditions that prevailed in the Holocene epoch from which we emerged--before we started messing with the nitrogen cycle, the carbon cycle, and other key processes--could not support the population expected by mid-century. There's just no going back to our bucolic roots, but neither is that a justification for the large-scale destruction of the environment needed to sustain humanity. The other interesting twist to this is that it's possible we will need the energy from the large-scale harnessing of solar power to conduct the intentional geoengineering that might be necessary to get the global climate back on an even keel. It's the sort of thing that gives environmentalists nightmares but makes believers in an approaching Technological Singularity nod sagely.
Wednesday, February 02, 2011
Do Light Bulbs Matter?
The edition of USA Today delivered to my hotel room yesterday morning included an interesting point/counterpoint concerning legislation that has been introduced to repeal the federal ban on incandescent lighting and the accompanying mandate for energy-saving light bulbs. Both sides included reasonable arguments but missed some key points. It's also important to recall that Congress did not specifically require the use of the compact fluorescent lights (CFL) that have become a focus of controversy, although it did set lighting efficiency standards that CFLs were best positioned to meet at an acceptable cost. Lost in the process is the larger question of whether the impact of more efficient light bulbs is really worth the associated risks and effort, including the economic and employment dislocation of offshoring a large portion of US light bulb manufacturing.
The lighting standard in question was just one provision of the 310 page Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), which also gave us the national Renewable Fuel Standard and more aggressive vehicle fuel economy rules. The case that the editors of USA Today made in defense of the bill's lighting efficiency provisions, which would be repealed by HR.91, the Better Use of Light Bulbs Act, was that it was a small but important step in the direction of saving energy and reducing emissions. They also lauded the bill for eschewing "picking winners" and instead focusing on the outcome of increasing the energy efficiency of lighting by whatever means could achieve that. I'm very sympathetic to that argument, though in this case the deck seems to have been stacked in favor of CFLs, in the absence of another widely-available and low-cost alternative bulb technology compatible with standard screw-in household lights. I'd also question their characterization of the payoff as "huge". I've looked at this before and concluded that the total energy savings involved in the switch amounted to just 2% of our annual electricity consumption--more than offset by higher usage from new devices. Emissions savings looked even smaller, at around 1%. The NRDC analysis cited in the editorial came up with emissions savings of 2%. Either way, more efficient lighting won't turn the US green.
With regard to the CFLs available today we are starting to see evidence that their performance has not measured up to claims, particularly concerning endurance. I have already had to replace a couple of supposedly long-life CFLs in applications involving frequent switching, wiping out any savings that might justify their higher cost. Of much greater concern is the health risk posed by the small quantity of mercury in each bulb. If you've read the EPA's instructions for remediating a room contaminated by a broken CFL bulb, you'd certainly think twice about putting one in any fixture that a child, elderly person or pet might knock over.
In his response to the editors, Representative Barton (R-TX), the author of HR.91, highlighted this risk and emphasized the intrusion of government into what ought to be a normal consumer decision concerning what kind of light bulb to buy. He also cited the transfer of much of the US lighting industry offshore, which is related to the technology of CFL bulbs. The phosphors they use require rare earth elements, for which China is the dominant global supplier. Unsurprisingly, China has gained a leading share of the global CFL industry, and US factories producing incandescent bulbs have closed, leading to higher imports of light bulbs from China and elsewhere.
Time to change course is running short. As of next January 1, the first tranche of the EISA efficiency standard will ban 100-Watt incandescent bulbs, mandating replacements that use at least 28% less energy to produce the same light output. The rules hit standard 75 W bulbs a year later, and 60 W bulbs on 1/1/14.
In my view the problem is less the federal lighting efficiency standard than the fact that CFLs are a poor technology. If it were oil companies, rather than the government, effectively forcing us to put these things in our homes, we would see protests in the streets against the health risks--and by many of the same environmental groups that now back CFLs but are trying to shut down coal-fired power plants that create less mercury exposure than a single broken CFL bulb in your house would. Instead of throwing out the entire lighting standard, we should focus on the most objectionable parts of these rules. Better lighting is on the way, with halogen bulbs now available for more applications, and much more efficient light-emitting diodes (LEDs) likely to become much cheaper in the future. We should stretch out the deadlines for phasing out incandescents to allow time for that to happen. I'd also like to see a "mercury deposit" charge applied to each CFL to ensure the bulbs are properly recycled at the end of their lives, along with a cigarette-style health warning on the packaging, warning consumers of the hazards. The modest energy and emissions savings CFLs produce simply don't justify overriding consumer choice and prudent judgment about where to use them and where not to.
The lighting standard in question was just one provision of the 310 page Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), which also gave us the national Renewable Fuel Standard and more aggressive vehicle fuel economy rules. The case that the editors of USA Today made in defense of the bill's lighting efficiency provisions, which would be repealed by HR.91, the Better Use of Light Bulbs Act, was that it was a small but important step in the direction of saving energy and reducing emissions. They also lauded the bill for eschewing "picking winners" and instead focusing on the outcome of increasing the energy efficiency of lighting by whatever means could achieve that. I'm very sympathetic to that argument, though in this case the deck seems to have been stacked in favor of CFLs, in the absence of another widely-available and low-cost alternative bulb technology compatible with standard screw-in household lights. I'd also question their characterization of the payoff as "huge". I've looked at this before and concluded that the total energy savings involved in the switch amounted to just 2% of our annual electricity consumption--more than offset by higher usage from new devices. Emissions savings looked even smaller, at around 1%. The NRDC analysis cited in the editorial came up with emissions savings of 2%. Either way, more efficient lighting won't turn the US green.
With regard to the CFLs available today we are starting to see evidence that their performance has not measured up to claims, particularly concerning endurance. I have already had to replace a couple of supposedly long-life CFLs in applications involving frequent switching, wiping out any savings that might justify their higher cost. Of much greater concern is the health risk posed by the small quantity of mercury in each bulb. If you've read the EPA's instructions for remediating a room contaminated by a broken CFL bulb, you'd certainly think twice about putting one in any fixture that a child, elderly person or pet might knock over.
In his response to the editors, Representative Barton (R-TX), the author of HR.91, highlighted this risk and emphasized the intrusion of government into what ought to be a normal consumer decision concerning what kind of light bulb to buy. He also cited the transfer of much of the US lighting industry offshore, which is related to the technology of CFL bulbs. The phosphors they use require rare earth elements, for which China is the dominant global supplier. Unsurprisingly, China has gained a leading share of the global CFL industry, and US factories producing incandescent bulbs have closed, leading to higher imports of light bulbs from China and elsewhere.
Time to change course is running short. As of next January 1, the first tranche of the EISA efficiency standard will ban 100-Watt incandescent bulbs, mandating replacements that use at least 28% less energy to produce the same light output. The rules hit standard 75 W bulbs a year later, and 60 W bulbs on 1/1/14.
In my view the problem is less the federal lighting efficiency standard than the fact that CFLs are a poor technology. If it were oil companies, rather than the government, effectively forcing us to put these things in our homes, we would see protests in the streets against the health risks--and by many of the same environmental groups that now back CFLs but are trying to shut down coal-fired power plants that create less mercury exposure than a single broken CFL bulb in your house would. Instead of throwing out the entire lighting standard, we should focus on the most objectionable parts of these rules. Better lighting is on the way, with halogen bulbs now available for more applications, and much more efficient light-emitting diodes (LEDs) likely to become much cheaper in the future. We should stretch out the deadlines for phasing out incandescents to allow time for that to happen. I'd also like to see a "mercury deposit" charge applied to each CFL to ensure the bulbs are properly recycled at the end of their lives, along with a cigarette-style health warning on the packaging, warning consumers of the hazards. The modest energy and emissions savings CFLs produce simply don't justify overriding consumer choice and prudent judgment about where to use them and where not to.
Friday, December 21, 2007
A Greener Christmas
I'm fascinated by the shifting emphasis this holiday season towards "greener" practices and greener presents. There's a growing trend toward holiday lights employing LED technology, which is much more efficient than incandescent bulbs, but without some of the drawbacks of the compact fluorescent lights (CFL) that are appearing in millions of homes and businesses. I've even received email solicitations suggesting emissions offsets as suitable holiday gifts. Now, I don't want to sound like the Grinch, here, but although these modest steps are all to the good, I think they still fall short of a genuinely greener Christmas. Efficient holiday lights are fine, but they're not going to halt global warming in a month's usage each year. If we're serious about solving the vast problems of climate change and energy security, the evolution of "green" into a marketing strategy can only be one element in a much larger effort.
Consider the presents we give and receive. I heard a statistic on the news the other night indicating that Americans would give out $8 billion in gift cards this year. As enthusiastic about emissions trading and voluntary offsets as I am, I don't see emissions credit gift cards overtaking the cash kind any time soon. Then consider the energy profile of some of last year's popular gifts, including those we gave ourselves. As I've noted before, one plasma TV wipes out the energy savings of multiple CFL bulbs. Even more modest consumer electronics such as cellphones, iPods and digital cameras make their own small contributions to higher energy consumption and the growing strain on our electrical infrastructure, particularly when we leave their recharging transformers plugged in all the time.
A truly Green Christmas would be one for which the most popular "gadget" gifts were either energy-saving devices themselves, such as the Kill-A-Watt meter, or more efficient replacements for existing gadgets with high energy consumption. And all gifts would come with clear disclosures of the energy used and emissions released during their production. If we're ever going to begin reducing energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions in absolute terms, achieving a net carbon-neutral holiday season would be a great place to start.
We are a long way from that now, nor should we necessarily be consumed by guilt over this. A cultural change that deep can't happen overnight. Taking off my Scrooge hat, the good news is that it's not nearly as hard to imagine such a thing as it would have been only a couple of years ago. Perhaps we're starting to see climate change as our all-too-real Ghost of Christmas Future. Today, suggesting a carbon-neutral holiday season probably wouldn't get you laughed at, though it's not going to attract many invitations for eggnog and cookies. In that spirit, I would like to wish all my readers the joys of the season, even if it's not yet as green as it might be.
Energy Outlook will be on holiday break until 12/31.
Consider the presents we give and receive. I heard a statistic on the news the other night indicating that Americans would give out $8 billion in gift cards this year. As enthusiastic about emissions trading and voluntary offsets as I am, I don't see emissions credit gift cards overtaking the cash kind any time soon. Then consider the energy profile of some of last year's popular gifts, including those we gave ourselves. As I've noted before, one plasma TV wipes out the energy savings of multiple CFL bulbs. Even more modest consumer electronics such as cellphones, iPods and digital cameras make their own small contributions to higher energy consumption and the growing strain on our electrical infrastructure, particularly when we leave their recharging transformers plugged in all the time.
A truly Green Christmas would be one for which the most popular "gadget" gifts were either energy-saving devices themselves, such as the Kill-A-Watt meter, or more efficient replacements for existing gadgets with high energy consumption. And all gifts would come with clear disclosures of the energy used and emissions released during their production. If we're ever going to begin reducing energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions in absolute terms, achieving a net carbon-neutral holiday season would be a great place to start.
We are a long way from that now, nor should we necessarily be consumed by guilt over this. A cultural change that deep can't happen overnight. Taking off my Scrooge hat, the good news is that it's not nearly as hard to imagine such a thing as it would have been only a couple of years ago. Perhaps we're starting to see climate change as our all-too-real Ghost of Christmas Future. Today, suggesting a carbon-neutral holiday season probably wouldn't get you laughed at, though it's not going to attract many invitations for eggnog and cookies. In that spirit, I would like to wish all my readers the joys of the season, even if it's not yet as green as it might be.
Energy Outlook will be on holiday break until 12/31.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Half Measures
Friday I wrote about the prospects for achieving significant emissions reductions in time for the 50th anniversary of Earth Day in 2020. After watching the 38th Earth Day pass almost without notice, I'm a little more pessimistic. My local paper, the Washington Post, hardly mentioned the event. Included in their limited coverage were some blog excerpts from a pair of entertainment personalities who seem to think the solution to our environmental problems might be found in steps such as rationing toilet paper. Even the Post's list of ten things we can do to help the global and local environment, while entirely sensible, was hardly consistent with the scale of impending catastrophe that is conveyed elsewhere in the media. If climate change is as serious as the scientists are telling us, it won't be solved with a few well-intended and painless half measures.
The second item on the Post's list, for example, related the following "fact" about energy-saving light bulbs: "If every American home (114 million of them, at latest count) replaced one standard bulb with an energy-efficient one, it would save enough electricity to light 2.5 million homes for a year." Actually, some reasonable assumptions yield a much more impressive comparison, along the lines of lighting 12 million homes, based on the national average of 940 kW-hrs of electricity for lighting per year. However, these savings pale to insignificance at the national level, where they represent only 0.3% of the electricity we use. That doesn't mean efficient light bulbs are a bad idea, though a recent story about the hazards of cleaning up the mercury from broken ones gives pause for thought. But instead of simply jumping on board the compact fluorescent bandwagon, why didn't the Post think to admonish us about the impact of all those households buying plasma TVs, with their average 180 watts of extra power use versus the cathode-ray TVs they are replacing? At 8 hours per day of average usage, that would amount to 1.5% of annual electricity generation, or five times as much power as one efficient light bulb per household would save. That also equates to an additional dozen or so power plants, most likely burning coal or natural gas.
Compare this to the announcement yesterday of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's ambitious plan for a 30% reduction in NYC's emissions footprint, based on the city's recently-completed greenhouse gas inventory. Including such measures as congestion fees and expansion of the already extensive mass transit system, the mayor's plan at least conveys the right sense of proportion.
We've heard a lot of criticism that Americans weren't asked to make any sacrifices after 9/11. So far, though, requests for sacrifices to avert a global "climate crisis" are thin on the ground, despite the fact that this problem results largely from the aggregation of billions of choices by individuals. The Congress is considering a national cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emissions, and California has already enacted such a program, with a target of reducing emissions by 25% by 2020. While I generally favor this approach, I recognize that it will lead to profound and potentially costly changes in our economy. So if we're seeking voluntary measures to help mitigate climate change, shouldn't we ask people to do something that might actually matter, or even reduce the scope of regulations that will be necessary to address the problem?
The second item on the Post's list, for example, related the following "fact" about energy-saving light bulbs: "If every American home (114 million of them, at latest count) replaced one standard bulb with an energy-efficient one, it would save enough electricity to light 2.5 million homes for a year." Actually, some reasonable assumptions yield a much more impressive comparison, along the lines of lighting 12 million homes, based on the national average of 940 kW-hrs of electricity for lighting per year. However, these savings pale to insignificance at the national level, where they represent only 0.3% of the electricity we use. That doesn't mean efficient light bulbs are a bad idea, though a recent story about the hazards of cleaning up the mercury from broken ones gives pause for thought. But instead of simply jumping on board the compact fluorescent bandwagon, why didn't the Post think to admonish us about the impact of all those households buying plasma TVs, with their average 180 watts of extra power use versus the cathode-ray TVs they are replacing? At 8 hours per day of average usage, that would amount to 1.5% of annual electricity generation, or five times as much power as one efficient light bulb per household would save. That also equates to an additional dozen or so power plants, most likely burning coal or natural gas.
Compare this to the announcement yesterday of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's ambitious plan for a 30% reduction in NYC's emissions footprint, based on the city's recently-completed greenhouse gas inventory. Including such measures as congestion fees and expansion of the already extensive mass transit system, the mayor's plan at least conveys the right sense of proportion.
We've heard a lot of criticism that Americans weren't asked to make any sacrifices after 9/11. So far, though, requests for sacrifices to avert a global "climate crisis" are thin on the ground, despite the fact that this problem results largely from the aggregation of billions of choices by individuals. The Congress is considering a national cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emissions, and California has already enacted such a program, with a target of reducing emissions by 25% by 2020. While I generally favor this approach, I recognize that it will lead to profound and potentially costly changes in our economy. So if we're seeking voluntary measures to help mitigate climate change, shouldn't we ask people to do something that might actually matter, or even reduce the scope of regulations that will be necessary to address the problem?
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Much Ado About Lighting
The Australian government has apparently decided to start phasing out incandescent light bulbs by 2010, a move California is also apparently considering. This is big news for many reasons, including the fact that it's occurring because of concerns about climate change in a country that hasn't ratified the Kyoto Protocol. I'm a bit surprised, because I always think of "Oz" as the land of rugged individualists. Even here in the US, switching to compact fluorescent lights (CF) that are interchangeable with standard incandescent bulbs has rapidly become a motherhood and apple pie notion. Nevertheless, I'm not sure it's worth all the fuss. In the hierarchy of things we can do to save the planet, residential CF lighting falls pretty far down the list to force it on people. It's a nice thing to encourage, but is mandating it worth the resentment and pushback this could create for more important measures to address climate change?
Here are the numbers: In 2001 residences used 30% of total US electricity generation, and lighting accounted for under 9% of residential consumption. So even if we converted all existing incandescent light bulbs in homes to CFs--ignoring those that have already been switched in the last five years--at an indicated energy savings of 66%, we're talking about a theoretical maximum of 1.8% of our electricity consumption, equating to less than 1% of our total carbon dioxide emissions. That's not insignificant, but there are good reasons why the real-world savings are likely to fall well short of that maximum.
First, unless we mandate it as Australia has, not everyone will switch to CFs, for reasons including aesthetics, cost and convenience. I also wouldn't be surprised to see a version of a phenomenon that has been reported in Europe, where owners of thriftier diesel cars are apparently driving more kilometers, because the cost per km is much lower than for gasoline. As a case in point, I'm fanatical about turning off lights in unoccupied rooms. But I'm a little less likely to take a few extra steps to turn off the CF lights, because I know they aren't costing much to run, and they have that annoying delay when you turn them back on. And as with cars and fuel consumption, what counts most here is not the lower wattage but the actual kilowatt-hours saved. In other words, if a CF bulb is 2/3 more efficient, but I use it twice as much as the incandescent it replaced, the net savings are only half as big, and the payback twice as long.
My other concern is the risk of the government selecting an inferior technology and making it a standard. Based on my scanning of the science and technology media, it's apparent that we are on the verge of a major revolution in lighting. Compact fluorescents are only the tip of the iceberg, with silicon-based LEDs, organic LEDs and other technologies coming on fast, some without CF's drawbacks of start-up lag and harsh light. Superficially, this is similar to the competition between hybrid car models that are available today versus plug-in hybrids that are some years off. The difference is that the incandescent light "fleet" turns over every year or so, the cost of waiting for a better technology is low, and this creates lots of future options. Once most of these bulbs switch over to CFs, however, with their much longer turnover times, the next lighting technology will face tougher hurdles, and consumers will have a bigger investment at stake.
None of this means I'm against CF lighting as a green choice. Businesses are choosing it in droves, driven by economics, and this is a big component of the thriving energy services business, making hotels, offices and other public and commercial spaces more energy efficient. That's happening because there's money to be made. Consumers are doing the same thing, when it makes sense. Meanwhile, it will be interesting watching Australia make this switch. Having known more than a few Aussies, I wouldn't be surprised if a black market in imported incandescent lights sprang up, in response.
Here are the numbers: In 2001 residences used 30% of total US electricity generation, and lighting accounted for under 9% of residential consumption. So even if we converted all existing incandescent light bulbs in homes to CFs--ignoring those that have already been switched in the last five years--at an indicated energy savings of 66%, we're talking about a theoretical maximum of 1.8% of our electricity consumption, equating to less than 1% of our total carbon dioxide emissions. That's not insignificant, but there are good reasons why the real-world savings are likely to fall well short of that maximum.
First, unless we mandate it as Australia has, not everyone will switch to CFs, for reasons including aesthetics, cost and convenience. I also wouldn't be surprised to see a version of a phenomenon that has been reported in Europe, where owners of thriftier diesel cars are apparently driving more kilometers, because the cost per km is much lower than for gasoline. As a case in point, I'm fanatical about turning off lights in unoccupied rooms. But I'm a little less likely to take a few extra steps to turn off the CF lights, because I know they aren't costing much to run, and they have that annoying delay when you turn them back on. And as with cars and fuel consumption, what counts most here is not the lower wattage but the actual kilowatt-hours saved. In other words, if a CF bulb is 2/3 more efficient, but I use it twice as much as the incandescent it replaced, the net savings are only half as big, and the payback twice as long.
My other concern is the risk of the government selecting an inferior technology and making it a standard. Based on my scanning of the science and technology media, it's apparent that we are on the verge of a major revolution in lighting. Compact fluorescents are only the tip of the iceberg, with silicon-based LEDs, organic LEDs and other technologies coming on fast, some without CF's drawbacks of start-up lag and harsh light. Superficially, this is similar to the competition between hybrid car models that are available today versus plug-in hybrids that are some years off. The difference is that the incandescent light "fleet" turns over every year or so, the cost of waiting for a better technology is low, and this creates lots of future options. Once most of these bulbs switch over to CFs, however, with their much longer turnover times, the next lighting technology will face tougher hurdles, and consumers will have a bigger investment at stake.
None of this means I'm against CF lighting as a green choice. Businesses are choosing it in droves, driven by economics, and this is a big component of the thriving energy services business, making hotels, offices and other public and commercial spaces more energy efficient. That's happening because there's money to be made. Consumers are doing the same thing, when it makes sense. Meanwhile, it will be interesting watching Australia make this switch. Having known more than a few Aussies, I wouldn't be surprised if a black market in imported incandescent lights sprang up, in response.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)