Banning the bulb - Incandescent vs Compact Fluorescenct

[Kernos]

A number of countries are considering banning incandescent light bulbs, and requiring the use of the new compact fluorescent or even LED lighting:

EG: http://www.photonics.com/Content/ReadAr ... leID=36269

Is this really a positive environmental practice? Some scientists are questioning this assumption"

Compact fluorescents:

•are manufactured using at least 10 times as much energy as used in making incadescent bulbs.

•contain poisonous mercury and therefore have to be disposed of as a hazardous waste

•produce electrosmog (electromagnetic radiation like cell phones, computers, TVs...) that is many times greater than the TOC standard for video screens (according to the Swiss magazine K-Tipp No. 18, 2007) - the effects of electrosmog on plants an animals is not really understood.

•produce an unnatural and inhomogeneous light spectrum with irritating light flicker frequencies, many distinctive harmonics and strong blue pulse peaks. (hard on the eyes, not anti-seasonal depression and causes headaches in some)

•have light output that greatly decreases over their lifetime due to the number of switching actions. They don't last as long as claimed.

Environmental concerns are never simple nor do simplistic laws and regulations ever consider the whole story (which has never been written). What is the real environmental cost of switching bulbs. Even using silicon in LEDs has a carbon footprint that must be considered. Silicon has to be mined, refined, wafers grown... all in expensive environmentally controlled factories.

My point in bring this up is that one must be cautious when embracing a new technology and look beyond the hype and politics. And, all of this ignores the real problem. There are just too damn many humans on this planet.

[claireandaisy]

I have poor eyesight and I`ve had to switch back to old-style bulbs in areas where I need to be able to read. It`s not as simple as you`d think.

[Dryadia2]

Thanks for sharing this Kernos.

I've been using the compact fluorescent bulbs for the last couple of years now, and hope I'm doing my part to lessen the environmental impact while I'm here on earth.

And you are correct (IMO) when you say:

...There are just too damn many humans on this planet.

/|\

[Jingle]

I think you're right Kernos. We do need to be careful and understand that there are trade-offs with anything, but we also need to read into the slant on the sides of both the proponents and opponents of the issue. "There's no such thing as a free lunch". Better than switching bulbs, we can switch off. Gently. For example, do you really need both bulbs in a two bulb fixture? Reading and working lighting aside, I think we'd all be better off dimming the lights, turning them off, and eliminating multi-bulb fixtures.

[Aelfarh]

It's not simple, that's for sure. I'll need to have more data on the carbon footprint of incandescent vs compact fluorescent bulbs not just for manufacturing but in it's lifetime to give an opinion.

I use only class A energy saving bulbs in my flat, obviously turning off the ones I'm not using, at least that I can do. The ones I have give very good lumen power, so I have no complains about them. But the great deal about light is how it's produced, a lot of power generation still depends on carbon or LPG around the world, or even atomic one, that even when there's no NOx or SOx emissions, the radioactive residuals are a big problem to handle.... and wind, solar, maritime and geothermal are just a minority, sadly. So I think that more than a law banning incandescent ones, governments shall focus on their power generations sources.

[Romelia]

Hi all,
We converted to new energy saving bulbs, and I have to admit I get more headaches. I also feel more frustrated working under the light, as I don’t feel the bulb illuminates enough. For years I have used candles and have decided that when my bedside lamps standard bulb goes ill replace it with a few candles! So much more relaxing I find.

And, all of this ignores the real problem. There are just too damn many humans on this planet.

Ha! I have been saying this for years! It’s the most simple and cost effective way to balance out. Here is a link to an organisation called Optimum Population Trust http://www.optimumpopulation.org/index.html
David Attenborough is their new patron and has said

“I’ve never seen a problem that wouldn’t be easier to solve with fewer people, or harder, and ultimately impossible, with more. That’s why I support the OPT, and I wish the environmental NGOs would follow their lead, and spell out this central problem loud and clear.”

I think it’s a good idea to limit the amount of children per couple. I also think IVF should be limited to those who have no chance of natural conception, if at all. I have seen accounts of families who already have a child but want their only child to have a brother or sister! I feel that the time and money that goes into these procedures could be spent in creating a better world to actually live in for the whole planets children. We are so used to the system taking responsibility for our actions and choices that we have become lazy, insular and arrogant. Its time we all took responsibility and looked beyond our own tiny existence, to the future of the generations to come.

BB
Claw

[claireandaisy]

The best way to `limit` the number of children in a family is to raise the expectations and living standards of that family. The big families, you`ll find are in areas of deprivation with poor health and social provision. Poor people need lots of children because (a) not all survive, and (b) they will support the parents in their old age.
There are many studies which show an increase in living standards (and I`m not talking about being rich, just having some sort of security, like a house and a job) leads to couples limitinmg the size of their family.
The Chinese experiment has led to dreadful abuses - girls killed or aborted because boys are more `valuable`.
Yes we need to limit the population. Why not do it with a fairer distribution of wealth?

[mwyalchen]

For years I have used candles and have decided that when my bedside lamps standard bulb goes ill replace it with a few candles! So much more relaxing I find.

I like candles too (though not for reading...)

Just wondering, though: modern candles tend to be made from petrochemicals (and beeswax is pricey!).

So, how do they stack up for resource use vs. useful light?

[Aelfarh]

For years I have used candles and have decided that when my bedside lamps standard bulb goes ill replace it with a few candles! So much more relaxing I find.

I like candles too (though not for reading...)

Just wondering, though: modern candles tend to be made from petrochemicals (and beeswax is pricey!).

So, how do they stack up for resource use vs. useful light?

Candles are great to read.... if you want to end up blind at 60

And yes, most of candles are made of petrochemicals, as all plastic, etc, etc. And it's not all about light bulbs. People hardly wash their clothe by hand, but using a machine, the same is happening to the dishes... as we become more lazy, we need more electricity.... also for entertainment.. there are every day bigger "home cinemas" that are used on a regular basis, etc.

As for population... I think it's the proportion across the planet the real problem. The UK has more people with more than 60 than less than 18... Australia has a huge area with a low density of inhabitans, and so and so forth

[Kernos]

Good discussion. I am not convinced these new bulbs are better or worse than the older ones. What I am concerned about is being forced by legislation that is done by naive politicians or those who are influenced by light bulb lobbies. I am sure there is a bigger profit margin on the new vs the old bulbs.

Candles or oil lamps - romantic, and certainly save electricity, but everything that burns creates H2O + CO2 + SMOG (everything else but carbon dioxide and water). It is OK for you and I do do it. But when billions do it...

We have replaced most of our lights with the compact fluorescent on the basis of prior hype. I dont like them as well and we have yet to find good outside bulbs, bug bulbs etc. IN the new house we are slooooowly building, we are putting in low voltage lighting and have master dimmers on all conventional lighting. It is difficult to make the "best" choice.

As for population... I think it's the proportion across the planet the real problem. The UK has more people with more than 60 than less than 18... Australia has a huge area with a low density of inhabitans, and so and so forth

So the obvious solution is to take people in high density areas and move them to the Outback, where they will die for lack of water and lack of survival skills, thus decreasing the human carbon and methane footprints

I see some ways for us to control population, before Nature does it for us: war, pestilence, plague, famine. Make it too expensive to have children, put anti-fertility drugs in food and water, but trillions and quadrillions of money into space exploration and colonize other planets (putting our eggs in more than 1 basket), etc.

In fact I do not really think the current lifestyles on the Earth are sustainable for the long term. I think it not unlikely that something bad will happen that will kill billions and a new dark age will occur. And we will just start over. It has happened to every other civilization Man has created. Ontology recapitulates phylogeny... And the Phoenix will rise again.

Or - maybe I read and watch too much dystopian, post-apocalyptic literature.

[Saule]

In terms of burning things, it is a necessary evil (at least for those of us that live out side the 30th parallels) but using a renewable source, aka something that grows and absorbs carbon before its burnt, is a decent solution. But as they say there aren't enough renewable sources these days for the population, but i think the link romalia provided is the best to cover that particular problem.


Anyway, with all that said I don't remember how but I found this link:

http://www.judyofthewoods.net/lamp.html

It's about making "candles" out of renewable oils. I tried it, it works great. Gives as much light as a candle, doesn't smell and is renewable!. I made it out of the bottom of a pop can like it shows at the bottom (didn't have any wire) and canola oil since its easiest to get around here. The can bottom fits very nicely and tightly in a wide mouth mason jar meaning you can use the least amount of oil for the floating wick.

Just thought I'd share. As for the light bulb debate, I'm undecided. I currently have all incandescent but thats thats what I had when I moved in and non of them have burn tout yet. I'll probably go CFL when the time comes as I've done the math on the energy cost to me directly, but I don't know if thats the best choice. I really wish companies had to label their products with an independently estimated carbon foot print or something. It would make life much easier.

[Jarvisfamily4]

I tried one of these oil lamps, too, and loved the results. It DOES seem to burn brighter, somehow, with a 'thicker' flame, if that makes sense. Also, more stable - less flickering, like a 'heavy' flame (?) difficult to explain.

100% agree with jingle - the solution lies in turning off the lights. I read about the history of candles, when even THEY were prescious and rare (candle boxes to keep the servents from stealing them!) as late as the 1700's and early 1800's. People did not light every room in their house. They did not light a room to glaring brightness. They conserved their light.

Another thing not mentioned is passive light during daylight hours - Imagine if you had windows along your eaves that let in the light, but not the direct sunlight. Imagine not having to turn on a light AT ALL DURING THE DAY! That is my goal with our new construction, if I can manage it.

PS - and Kernos - GREAT post. I did not realize that it took more energy to produce them than incandescent. Another concern I have about legislation is that some people have adverse health effects to either the 'buzz' of florescents or the subtle flicker of the light. It can cause terrible headaches, ADHD-like symptoms and more. Will these people need a 'diagnosis' and 'prescription lightbulbs'? Will insurance cover these coveted incandescents? The idea is absurd, isnt' it?!

[pworrell]

I am glad to see this discussion. Too many people buy into certain hype without looking at the total picture. I like to know the entire "cradle-to-grave" process in things that are manufactured before buying them, unfortunately that isn't always totally available.

Another thing I take into account is economy. If something costs me more money but is more environmentally friendly, is that better than me buying the cheaper thing and using the money I save on somethign nice for the environment?

I agree with many of you - if it isn't being used, turn it off.

[Kernos]

After much research, we have decided to use incandescents for not, but are wiring our house to use low voltage DC LED lighting.

[badgerbadger]

It doesnt help the planet much when a power company in UK is accused of trying to fiddle its Carbon Emissions Reduction Target by sending out unsolicited low energy lightbulbs to its customers instead of paying more for encouraging things like loft insulation in homes! I got a box of them through the door, and like many customers may not get to use them as they have all one fitting!

[Jalking]

One aspect to consider is that small changes like the light bulb ban is a big part in changing the public opinion towards a more environmental way of thinking.
An example: 10 Years ago in Denmark you had to go to special stores to get ecological food - or grow it yourself. Ecology was expensive then, but a sudden hype made a growing demand for ecological food and some supermarkets started to sell it.
Now every shop have a nice selection of ecological food and the prices are more affordable - which means that a lot more people are buying ecological.

A hype isn't so bad when it turns the public opinion and make consumer demand forcing the industry to rethink what they are making and how they do it.

In Denmark there is currently some talk about making it possible to buy electricity solely produced from windmills - it that can be a new hype it will force the power-companies to meet that demand and produce less from fossil fuels and more from environmentally healthy sources.

just my two cents

[Kernos]

Welcome to the board, Jalking!

Your point is well taken. We used to call this "conscience raising". And you are right, for a voluntary change to be accepted, it must be convenient and not much more expensive. I have changed from CFLs to screw-in LEDs where possible. They are simpler and have no Mercury.

Europe is way ahead of the US in renewable energy use, I think. My electric company (a rural coop) is bombarding us to call our representatives in congress to defeat anything that requires them to decrease CO2 emissions. They burn coal and use the scare tactic of higher electric bills. I fight back, but few around here agree with me. I have been pariah-tized locally.

[Ainevar]

[quote][quote="Dryadia2"]Kernos wrote:
...There are just too damn many humans on this planet.[/quote][/quote]

If you ask some Catholics there apperantlly is a rapid decrease in human population....appereantlly mostly in the white population. I love you all as friends and I have many close family members and friends but if humanity dies out...It's just part of the earth's life cycle. Back to the subject at hand...I have had issues with the newere bulbs breaking while being put in or taken out which has left me with a lamp that can't be used anymore.