Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFLs), more commonly known as energy efficient bulbs hit the market about 20 years ago as THE solution to the world's energy problems. A 11W bulb delivered the same light as a 60W old-fashioned Edison-era bulb. That's almost an 80% reduction in energy use. Sounds like a no-brainer - right?
Over time, these clunky, mini-tubes were shrunk & packaged to look more like household bulbs and could fit into a standard lamp. Adoption rates increased, volumes increased and prices dropped. These days you can buy a CFL bulb for not much more than a glass bulb. Problem solved - right?
It's not quite that simple. There's a fly in the soup. First, let's look at the energy efficiency argument. Edison found a way to turn electricity into light and heat. A household tungsten bulb typically converts 40% of the energy consumed into light and the remaining 60% into heat. Unfortunately, in most cases, we're only interested in the light. The heat goes to waste. Or does it? Not if it's freezing outside and you have the heating on. The heat from the bulb simply offsets the heat that would otherwise be generated by the furnace.
Secondly, let's look at the environmental impact of making CFLs. These are not simple devices by any means. The light-emitting piece is a thick glass coated on the inside with toxic chemicals and filled with a trace amount of mercury. The base consists of complex electronics that charge the tube. Some CFLs are then encased in special plastics. Overall, each CFL is a complex piece of technology that draws heavily from the petrochemical industry. Compare this with a simple glass bulb that's nothing but tungsten, glass and tin. I'm betting that the environmental cost of the former is much greater than the latter. And this is only at the manufacturing stage. After the CFLs fade away, there's a huge disposal cost as illustrated here.
Yes, CFLs do make sense in hot places. Yes, they do help shift heating loads from the electricity grid to other fuel sources like gas and oil. However, we must move forward cautiously while looking at the overall environmental impact of this technology.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
That has to be one of your geekiest posts ever :-). Though you do make a very interesting point. A reiteration of nothing comes easy and sometimes we have to choose the lesser of the evil.
I like geeky posts.
I get your point about the heat. I have certainly used the heat from regular lightbulbs. Obviously, as a grad student, I have no freaking money. So I've found if I shut the door to my room while I'm using the computer and have the lights on, it actually gets close to a pretty comfortable temperature in here, without having to turn on the heater.
Geeky posts are what happen when it's -20C outside and you have too much time to think.
wow. days without a peep and then loads o' peep - all at once. does the principle in this post (i think andy captured it) apply to cars? should i get an SUV and not a Prius?
Costs associated with everything, nothing is free :-/
Maybe fewer carbon emissions from less electricity used?
james: my point is that CFL's don't really save anything during the cold months, but create an environmental burden elsewhere. So it really boils down to how many hot vs. cold months you have. To use your analogy, if you have a family of 6, you're probably better off buying an SUV rather than making multiple trips in a Prius.
sanjay: Sure you use less electricity, but if it's cold, you're running the furnace to provide the extra heat. So your net carbon emissions are the same.
Hell, you are bored. I've never felt that geeky even when I have been in sub-zero temperatures!
Nice to have you back in the world of bloggin, though!
Post a Comment