Are you GREEN - or are you going to boycott those screwy little bulbs?

David Henderson - Let There Be (Incandescent) Light





By David Henderson

Friday, October 2, 2009



What would Thomas Edison say?



Last month, stores in Europe stopped acquiring new stocks of Edison's brilliant invention. In truth, the traditional incandescent light bulb is terribly inefficient: Only about 10 percent of its energy output is in the form of visible light; the rest is emitted as heat. Switching everyone to alternatives such as compact fluorescent lights (CFLs) will result in fairly significant reductions in energy consumption, which will help Europe meet its targets for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions.



A similar ban, written into energy legislation a few years ago, is to take effect in the United States in 2012. Though it has distinct improvements over the European legislation, this ban is still a bad idea.



While the European Union outlawed a particular technology, Congress set minimum efficiency requirements for lighting. Old-fashioned (regular) incandescent bulbs do not meet this standard, but by 2012 there may very well be some improved incandescents on the market that will.



That this change is manifest in our daily lives makes it a meaningful and encouraging option, but it should be just that: a voluntary option. Light bulbs are a poor choice for regulation. Is there an overriding reason to regulate how Americans light their homes?





It's true that compact fluorescent lights are widely appreciated among those with heightened %26quot;green%26quot; sensibilities. They are a welcome option for those who are trying to reduce their environmental impact. Replacing bulbs may be a small measure, but it is also something that can be done by people who may feel powerless or frustrated before the larger problems besetting our planet.



But many people also have a decided dislike of CFLs and will greatly resent the ban. While they may last longer than incandescent bulbs, the upfront cost is high; the light produced is not as bright as that of incandescent bulbs; they are slow to achieve full brightness; the bulbs don't fit in many old lamps; they can't be dimmed; and their lifespan is greatly shortened by using them for less than 15 minutes at a time. The manufacturers of compact fluorescent lights have made improvements on some of these issues, but their reputation is not yet vindicated.



The environmental benefits of using only compact fluorescent bulbs are indirect -- and less than what could be realized by changing standards governing, for example, coal use. Consider: The benefit of %26quot;reducing inefficiency%26quot; depends on where the energy is coming from. Improving efficiency without eliminating a harmful source may just free energy that is then used elsewhere. If there is no net reduction in energy use, where is the benefit? Direct regulation of harmful activities, such as putting firm limits on carbon emissions, is more likely to achieve the desired environmental result. (And this would only indirectly influence my bedroom decor.) A great deal of the wasted energy in lighting comes from excessive nighttime lighting in public spaces, which is an excellent issue for government to address. Banning traditional light bulbs as used in private homes seems an effort in the name of environmental protection that has very little payoff.



There is more political will behind environmental reform than is generally appreciated, but it is not unlimited. We should invest our political capital where it will be most effective, not burn it in compact fluorescents. Congress should regulate matters that require the force of law, such as banning mountaintop removal in coal mining and new coal-burning power plants. Leave people to change their own light bulbs.



The writer teaches environmental ethics in the philosophy and religion department at Western Carolina University.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conAre you GREEN - or are you going to boycott those screwy little bulbs?those screwy little bulbs sometimes only last a week in this house. we have yet to get 6 months out of one, and they are very temperamental. if struck by sudden cold from an opened door, they will crack into very tiny pieces. in our rural area they are very costly 1 @ $8.99 where as a regular bulb is 3 for a $1.00. the light is nice and white, very slow to illuminate, but the cost does not yet offset. even if left on continuously we have yet to see the green savings. the Mercury is a whole other concern. especially with autism. so until the technology is improved we are against them. we can punch wholes in our atmosphere but we can't yet light the dark effectively.Are you GREEN - or are you going to boycott those screwy little bulbs?I have two complaints with them:



(1) I have had numerous early-life failures. They should last several years yet some have lasted less than one.



(2) My house hase several built in light fixtures that will not accept them due to the big collar around the base.Are you GREEN - or are you going to boycott those screwy little bulbs?It's amazing and sick how our government can be pro-choice on murdering babies, but not on letting people choose their light-bulbs.



The CFLs have dangerous levels of mercury.

They don't produce as much heat- which is actually helpful in winter.

They make irritating noises, flicker at an annoying rate, and can cause headaches.

They cannot be easily disposed of.

They don't work well with dimmers.

And as already pointed out

Many don't last as long as they should.

Many don't fit in traditional spots.Are you GREEN - or are you going to boycott those screwy little bulbs?Paul,

Seriously, your answer is to shut down coal power plants, without placing a form of energy to meet the need? You wonder why people think you greeners are crazy? Ok Paul, without power all of the people on life support will die, is that acceptable? Without energy, the modes by which which get food and water will be shut down and people will starve, is that acceptable? Without electricity most businesses would be forced to shut down and people will be without jobs, is that acceptable? Most importantly, without energy you won't be able to post your stupid comments on YA, then where would the world be?Are you GREEN - or are you going to boycott those screwy little bulbs?That's an interesting point, is the value of providing the environmentally conscious a sense of empowerment in being able to choose CFL's more valuable than the greater market penetration of mandating the efficient lighting.



We know from seatbelts that even with their own lives on the line, many people will not voluntarily use them unless it's mandated by law. With seatbelts, the very real benefits of saving lives outweighed the intangible benefits of motivational management and there is really no downside to using the belts. Likewise the real benefits of energy savings outweighs the more intangible personnel management benefits of leaving people with a choice and the downside is that EasyBake Ovens will have to be redesigned.



With the abortion debate, the downside to not allowing abortions is to destine the pregnant girls and their children to a life of poverty and to undergo great personal risk simply for a lapse in judgement based upon a questionable criteria for what constitutes an individual life and perhaps for being an involuntary victim as well as encourage a grey or black market of unregulated and dangerous medical procedures. The abortion debate is much more troubling and definitely not clear cut, to say that it is clear cut would be arrogant and judgemental.



Is the enforcement of law required more when there is a large population over which regulation is to be enforced or when there is a small population over which to enforce said regulation. You can be certain that out of the millions of peoples in the country, some people will not do what they should unless forced to do so but there's a chance that a small group of companies might see fit to be good citizens albeit a small chance given the profit motivation.



The Mercury issue is overblown, there's only a few milligrams of elemental mercury in each bulb if that. There's several orders of magnitude more in your thermostat or thermometer and even more in the coal that we burn. If you BBQ with Kingsford charcoal, which augments charcoal with coal, you'll have much more mercury. It's methly mercury that's bioavailable and bioaccumulates in the food chain so the danger with CFL's is if they get into landfills because mercury gets biomethylased by anaerobic bacteria found in anaerobic environments like landfills. Unless your home is devoid of oxygen, releasing the mercury from the occasional CFL is not dangerous.



Dimmable CFL's are one the market now.



The geo-engineering concept favored for reflecting solar energy from the atmosphere is to increase sulfur emissions at high altitudes not aluminum oxide particles which would settle out quickly. The sulfur would cause water droplets to be smaller and hence more reflective and is a proven mechanism for increasing the reflectivity of clouds. Aluminum and aluminum oxide particles are just something shiny that the uninformed gravitate towards as a way of increasing reflectivity.



With seatbelts and CFL's, there's no sane reason not to other than EasyBake ovens. With abortion, it's almost always a complicated and emotional decision that should not be devalued by exhortation.



Thomas Edison was more of a profiteer than an advocate of technology and progress. He wouldn't care about efficiency, just about profit margins and marketability.Are you GREEN - or are you going to boycott those screwy little bulbs?I will use the bulbs I deem appropriate.



I have many lightbulbs in my house that are on for less than ten minutes per year( Attics, little used closets, etc.). Switching these to CFL's is silly on all counts.



Not being retarded, I will use cfl's to save money when they will be on enough to justify the initial expense.



If incandescent bulbs are outlawed, I will stock up on them and be in continuous violation of the law--nothing new for me.Are you GREEN - or are you going to boycott those screwy little bulbs?They don't give off the same light - it's kind of a faint glow. The super handed them out and my girlfriend has them in her apartment and there aren't any windows in her bathrooms - I can't see well enough to shave. The purpose of a lightbulb is to provide light.



As for saving money, my electric bill is about $25/month. And what drives it is the fridge and the computer, not the lights. We're talking pennies here unless you've got a banquet hall or something - in which case, again, you'd think you'd want people to be able to see their food.



And then there's the mercury....... Ok we got rid of mercury-thermometers because the same nanny-state types didn't think we could handle one drop of mercury in a glass tube that would be replaced maybe once in fifty years - - so instead we're going to have high mercury levels in consumables? What's the logic in that? And we have all these radio ads - %26quot;don't put mercury in the trash.%26quot; Well, what do you think will happen with these new lightbulbs? 3/4 of people, at least, will just toss them in the trash. Maybe if you have a %26quot;bottle bill%26quot; type program, nickel or dime per lightbulb, you can reduce that to 1/2. The landfills will be full of these things and the mercury levels in drinking water will skyrocket. But they'll blame it on power plants so what do they care?Are you GREEN - or are you going to boycott those screwy little bulbs?They're a poisonous waste of time.



Wait for LED lights to reach the next hurdle, then you'll have efficient, nonpoisonous light that will last for a long time.Are you GREEN - or are you going to boycott those screwy little bulbs?No bulbs should be allowed, only gas laterns.



Also, all the cotton we are using for clothing is starving out the boll weevils and people should start going naked.