A Bright Idea: Ban the Bulb
by Collin Dunn, Corvallis, OR, USA on 02.27.06
Over at the BBC's Green Room, Dr. Matt Prescott has a bright idea: ban traditional incandescent light bulbs. Their replacements would be TreeHugger-friendly compact fluorescents, which, Dr. Prescott notes, "produce[s] the same amount of light as an incandescent light bulb whilst being responsible for the emission of 70% less carbon dioxide. It also saves money; about £7 ($12) per year in the UK, more or less in other countries depending on electricity prices. They waste so much energy that if [incandescents] were invented today, it is highly unlikely they would be allowed onto the market." Further, "It has been estimated that if every household in the US replaced just three of its incandescent light bulbs with energy-saving designs and used them for five hours per day, it would reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by 23 million tonnes, reduce electricity demand by the equivalent of 11 coal-fired power stations and save $1.8bn." Sounds pretty good to us; how are we going to achieve this?
Dr. Prescott wants the price of light bults to include the full environmental costs of carbon emissions and pollution; this could be accomplished through a tax on bulbs according to their energy use. The tax level would vary between countries; in the UK, "a rate of one penny per watt, or £1 ($1.77) per bulb, should suffice." We mentioned this "sin tax" idea for the UK last week, which pretty much went over like a lead balloon, though the study's results suggest that the bulk of UK residents think small changes in their domestic lives can make a difference in the health of the planet.
This taxation program would generate funds that could be used to further invest in energy efficient technologies, but the movement would need some cash to get off the ground. Dr. Prescott thinks the answer is in the government: "Given the huge subsidies awarded to the nuclear industry and to coal production in western nations, it is clear that the funds necessary to provide a financial kick-start certainly exist. In 2002, the UK government spent £410m on bailing out its near-bankrupt nuclear sector. That would be more than enough to supply every household in Britain with three energy-saving light bulbs." He concludes, "If we cannot deny ourselves incandescent light bulbs, which would require minimal sacrifice, how are we ever going to do the really difficult things such as cutting our reliance on fossil fuels, buying smaller cars or reducing our use of finite natural resources? Ending the life of this inefficient and obsolete technology is not enough to prevent damaging climate change; but it is an easy first step, and one the world should not hesitate to take." To this end, he has founded banthebulb.org to encourage and promote energy efficiency.
We think this a fabulous idea. As we have noted time and again, alternative energy and energy efficiency won't happen overnight, and whatever small changes we can make on a large scale will help get the ball rolling. With this particular solution, we'd all use less power, spew fewer climate-changing emissions and spend less money. It's a win-win-win situtation. ::Ban The Bulb via ::BBC
Where would one go to dispose of/recycle compact fluorescent bulbs?
This has plagued me for a while, and this seems like a good place to ask.
Let's say I decide I'm going to replace 10 bulbs in my house with CF. What to do with the old bulbs? Certainly not throw them away?
I hate to think of people throwing away perfectly good light bulbs.
Banning incandescents is problematic on so many levels, it's hard to even begin.
One, CFLs are not perfect substitutes for incandescents. Though there have been advances with the technology, any incandescent out of the box is dimmable, can be put in enclosed or recessed fixtures, has a nice "warm" quality of light, etc. There's also far greater variety in bulb types among incandescents (and halogens etc).
Two, CFLs are radically more expensive upfront, so there's a capitalization issue there. Payback periods are a superfluous concept to people who live week-to-week, and even for people who have the means, it's still a hard sell when the competitive product is factors cheaper and more readily available.
Three, even though CFLs have claims to long lives, my personal experience has shown it's hit or miss. I've had two or three small CFLs go out on me in the past year, well before they should have ever burned out.
Four, there's disposal issues, because of the toxicity of CFLs (mercury being the primary). So, instead of just being able to toss it in the trash, you have to get in your car and drive to the local household toxic waste processing center (if your town has one) and possibly pay for disposal.
Fifth, banning things is usually frought with all sorts of difficulties, first of which is provoking an immediate reaction about "freedom" and the sort -- and rightly so. And unless this is some sort of global ban (good luck with that), then are we going to get into criminalizing the possession of a certain light bulb? You think about it just a little bit and it's silly to even consider.
I'm a big convert to cap-and-trade mechanisms. Instead of trying to micromanage people's decisions when dealing with a global issue (eg, CO2 emissions), you can get away from all that and let people work within limits and find means of dealing with those limits. And so there's no need for value judgments about the objects we choose to possess or use, and rather get down to simple economics -- ie, incentives, rewards, costs, etc. For example, I pay a small premium for wind power for the electricity in my home. So why exactly should I be prevented from using an incandescent if I'm not causing any CO2 emissions? The guy next door could buy a bunch of CFLs, but he'd still be burning coal, natural gas, and nukes to light them up. Which is better in relation to the goal of reducing CO2 emissions?
You're proposing an interesting thought exercise, but as soon as you cross the line into a "movement" to ban light bulbs, it just reinforces the notion that people who care about the environment are really a bunch of closet control freaks and socialists who want to take away people's freedoms and increase their taxes - whether that's true or not.
And in the end, it's that image which hinders green progress more than anything else.
I'm against banning them as well. I'm of the opinion that nothing should be "banned."
However, the externalities of using something should be reflected in the price. If you want to use an incandescent "heat" bulb, go ahead. But the producers of the bulbs are charged a fee based on how many they produce. As usual, this is passed on to the consumer. The consumer then has a more realistic price that takes into consideration waste and CO2 emissions and can make better decisions.
Joseph Willemssen's comments are on the money. A lot of people use dimmer switches, and while some CFLs are compatible with those, the ones I typically see in stores aren't. Not only that but I have some lamps that use switches designed for three-way bulbs, and those seem to shorten the lives of CFLs when I've tried them. Apart from that, I have had very good luck with longevity; I've only just recently had to replace four CFLs that I bought in 1991.
In response to GarbageMan's question, I would put those incandescents in your closets, or in other places where a light is used for only short periods of time. CFLs don't make much sense in those applications.
Ban the Bulb and the Compact fluorescent. They are both expensive and obsolete. CFL's are also not CRT monitor friendly, the flickering will give you a major headache.
LED bulbs are the future. 100,000 hours of use, not fragile, minimal wasted heat, no gasses or glass structure needed to protect the element.
Any push to keep CFL's in the picture is purely big business trying to push a product with a short usage life, keeping you buying their product.
A few additional points:
- The commonly-stated break-even point on cost for CFL is twenty minutes of continous use. If you typically use a bulb for shorter periods of time, flipping it on and off, you'll degrade the electrode in a CFL more quickly than continous use. Using a CFL in such an application will cost you more than using an incandescent.
- To answer a previous post, yes, you should just throw out the old bulbs, or even new ones, when you replace them with CFLs. Say a 60W incandescent lightbulb costs you a dollar, and you can replace it with a CFL that uses 20W for the same amount of light. With electricity at 10 cents per kWh, you'll make back the full cost of the incandescent in 250 hours by replacing it immediately with the CFL and just throwing the incandescent away. If that still bugs you, then recycle it into applications where the light gets turned on and off all the time.
GarbagMan - I would think that the best approach would be to replace bulbs as needed. It'd be incredibly wasteful to junk working bulbs, just like if everyone threw away their cars to buy hybrids.
Why not replace 5 of those bulbs now (the most heavily used of course), and save the working incandescents? Like mentioned by the other comments, CFs don't work everywhere, so you'll likely still need some incandescents around anyways.
CF bulbs seem like a go-between to bridge the gap between incandescents and LED lighting. I'd much rather see subsidies and benefits for LED tech than see an outright ban on the old tech. Banning incandescents doesn't seem practical.
-Riskable
http://www.riskable.com
"I have a license to kill -9"
The trouble with CFL's is that their life isn't (or shouldn't) be measured in hours.. its measured (or should be) in a number of turn on's. The more you turn it on the less time it will last. I've noticed that in the US people like to turn lights on and off a lot they turn the light off realize they've forgotten something then turn it back on. A lot and that will shorten the life of the bulbs.
I think banning wouldn't really work because then you get that whole people fighting for their right to hold on to what they know thing. What would work is making CFL's seem cool by having expensive places that rich people go to use them. The marriott marques in times square had them in the room and that made my parents wonder about them. I had been using them in my house for 2 years and trying to get them to try them. It took seeing them in a nice hotel for them to think about it. Thats what will get through to people.
No government will ever decide for me what kind of light goes into my eyes.
I have done a quick search on the mercury in a CFL compared to mercury generated by incandescent bulbs using electricity from coal fired power plants. The source I found, an EPA fact sheet, says that a CFL has 4mg of mercury and that the electricity used by a CFL (if it comes from coal) will generate an additional 2.4mg of mercury; a total of 6.4mg of mercury (assuming the CFL is not recycled or disposed of properly). However, the amount of mercury generated using a comparable incandescent light bulb is 10mg of mercury.
There you have it, if the source of electricity is a coal fired generator, CFLs would be responsible for less mercury in the environment compared to using incandescent bulbs. And if CFLs are recycled or disposed of properly (thrown out in a sealed plastic bag: EPA recommendation) they are an even better choice.
Here's the source of the info:
http://www.nema.org/lamprecycle/epafactsheet-cfl.pdf.
With regard to the recycling of CFLs, the same EPA fact sheet has the following info,
Resources for Recycling or Proper Disposal of CFLs. (Note: Residential recycling programs are not yet available in most regions.)
1. Earth911.org (or call 1-800-CLEAN-UP for an automated hotline): Online, enter your zip code, press GO, click "Household Hazardous Waste" then "fluorescent light bulb disposal." The site will identify your nearest residential mercury recycling facility or mail disposal method. If you find no specific information on CFL disposal go back and click on the link for "Mercury Containing Items."
2. Call your local government of the Web site and Hotline number above does not have your local information. Look on the Internet or in the phone book for your local or municipal government entity responsible for waste collection or household hazardous waste.
I hope this helps. I checked out the website and it came up with a lot of options for a trial zip code I entered.
Finally, here's a link to an alternative "bright idea" to the outright banning of incandescents.
http://thebrightidea.blogspot.com/
Regards.
One thing I haven't seen on the market is a replacement for chandelier style conventional lights. Does anyone know of an alternative (other than the obvious of getting a new fixture) to traditional bulbs for fixtures that have 6-8 small, incadescent bulbs?
Mark, you can go to a site like bulbs.com and see some of those chandelier bulbs.
http://bulbs.com/products/product.asp?page=products&class=817
I was looking for some, too, a couple years back, but we use a dimmer on that fixture (as it's in our dining room), so I couldn't find a CFL solution that would work with that, as well as produce a light quality that worked well with food colors for an appetizing, warm appearance.
There are some dimmable CFLs out there, but I don't know about for a chandelier fixture.
Go to,
http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=pd_sl_aw_tops-1_blended_11548769_1/002-3900616-9855235?search-alias=aps&keywords=dimmable%20fluorescent
http://www.nolico.com/saveenergy/dimmable_lamps.htm
For more general tips go to:
http://www.eere.energy.gov/consumer/tips/lighting.html
I think the definition of "waste" needs to be carefully considered here.
First, there are the issues that many others have brought up, that CFLs are more hazardous to dispose of, and there is also the fact that they have more plastic in them than light bulbs, which have about zero plastic in them.
Second, when you talk about a waste of energy from incandescant bulbs, it should really depend on the climate you live in. If you live somewhere where it's cold, the "waste" heat is actually helping a tiny bit to heat your house.
Banning is a nice goal. But just getting people to choose CFLs is better. We're doing it in Canada's capital by giving every household one free CFL. Project Porchlight is run by a few volunteers. We've raised $1,000,000 to buy bulbs that will be delivered by volunteers -- 350,000 CFLs. In a test last October-November, we've found that if you can get people to change one bulb, they are much more likely to choose CFLs and other energy efficient products when next they buy...
We've got an awesome thing going here, and a portable campaign. We're ready to share it with other places.
www.onechange.org
What about Light Emitting Diodes(LEDs) in bulb form? Does anybody know if they are on the market yet? I've seen pictures of them in clusters(pure white/blue white/yellow white in single and/or mix) inside a toughened plastic bulb-housing,and they seem to be perfect -low energy consumption,virtualy ever-lasting,non-polluting,unbreakable etc.Does anybody have more info?
Hello,
I am an engineering student studying in Liverpool.
I have a project to investigate the crystal structure of the materials used in the manufacture of light bulbs.
could you possibly send me any relevant links or information you may have.
thank you greatly.
Ben Kilpatrick
It ammazes me. All these thoughts about light bulbs. Wait till there isnt any electricity, then we wil be glad of candle if we can find one. I'm speaking as one who has just realised the implications of peak oil which kind of puts things into perspective a bit
CFL's are loaded with mercury. use LED's!!
www.permlight.com
LED's are in full scale use for general lighting, in the USA. Applelec in the UK distributes and sells the product. LED's have been replacing neon for years, and are now beginning to replace traditional light sources.
Permlight's Enbryten line of residential and commercial fixtures won Green Building product of the year for 2005
Stephanie, LEDs are indeed quite cool, but see http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/06/what_about_merc.php
MGR - thanks for the info. i still say use LED's. I did , and I save about $30 per month on my energy bill. Furthermore,
In California since Feb 8th 2006 it is illegal to dispose of any fluorescent lamps in the trash. ( title 22)
Fluorescent lamps contain small quantities of mercury, cadmium and antimony. The National Electrical Manufactures Association has estimated that over 600 million fluorescent lamps are disposed of in the United States each year. This puts over 30,000 metric tons of mercury-contaminated waste into the nation's landfills(1).
please ck out fact sheet -
http://es.epa.gov/techinfo/facts/ca-htm/htmfact2.html
Oh you Brits and your taxes ! Here's a thought.
Use the Tax on Incandescent bulbs to lower the cost of the CF or LED bulb replacements.
I proposed a ban of incandescent bulbs because I felt that this was the quickest and easiest way to save 1 million tonnes of CO2 per year in the UK.
LEDs are not bright enough yet to be a good substitute for incandescents, but I am sure they will be soon.
I feel that a phased ban (over 5-10 years) would be the best way to drive innovation and unleash a new generation of low-carbon lighting solutions.
Some things are worth banning. These include dangerous chemicals, crimes against people and property and hazardous electrical products.
CFLs need to be responsibly recycled, but incandescents release more mercury into the atmosphere and this is something which should not be overlooked or ignored.
Anyway, thank you for the interesting comments on this page. I have taken all of your thoughts on board.
Warmest regards
Matt
www.banthebulb.org
We have an industry attempting to convince us that we are all evil for using incandescent bulbs and that we are pumping tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere to light our homes. Therefor, should switch to Chinese-made CFLs and save the planet. Rubbish! Homeowners use only tiny amount of generated electricity to light our homes. Industry is responisble for the vast majority of CO2 production. These CFLs are made in China for a reason: the production of them requires far more energy than the production of incandescent bilbs and is many, many times more polluting. The U.S.'s and the E.U's environmental protection laws are to prohibitive.
We are all being sold a bill of goods, being made to feel guilty, and having our desire to reduce pollution manipulated so that the CFL manufacturers can make windfall profits, while the real polluters trade CO2 credits.