I read the following letter in the economist labeled “Bright Green,” in which Theo Paradise-Hirst the head of lighting design for Max Fordham Consulting Engineers in London states that using CFL will just cause people to increase their heating bills.
Theo, you may know lighting, but I think you should keep your focus there. I realize that London does not have much of a summer, but for the rest of us who use air conditioning during the summer, we use less electricity if we do not have those incandescents burning away. Also, I hope that your furnace is more efficient creating heat than a lightbulb is. And with forced air heat, the heat gets where you are. My lightbulbs are not at my feet keeping my toes warm, but at the ceiling. If lightbulbs were incredibly efficient at producing heat, then wouldn’t furnaces implement some similar kind of technology in their innards to heat the whole house?
I can assume that you favor incandescents for reasons other than their energy efficiency. Since it is an old, mastered technology, it is more easily manipulated. I have a bathroom with fancy bulbs in it and I know that CFLs would be hideous in there. Fancy small chandelier lights are also a type I can not see becoming fluorescent anytime soon.
But for my lamps and overhead lights, CFLs work very well. I have replaced many incandescents over the years and I am finally getting ready to replace my first CFL which has been on for at least the last 4 years (and since it is in my daughter’s room, it has been left on many days and nights).
Theo, The latest measurements of complete costs of the CFL against incandescents still have the CFL winning even after manufacturing costs and potential pollution costs are weighed in. I hope you look at that data as well. Remember there is mercury emitted when coal is burned to create electricity; so the less coal is burned, the less mercury is released into the air.
I hope this helps bring you up to speed.
Amusing comments sir. Of course lighting is not an efficient way of generating heat, gas heating is far more efficient and by a large factor. Well designed buildings require limited electric lighting in the summer and the heat requirements are low.
The burning issue in my letter is the forgotten costs in terms of environmental, transport & embodied energy costs when producing CFL lamps. The processes, waste and by-products created by manufacturing CFL’s lamps are hideous. I’ve been to the far east and seen the factories where these lamps are produced, the waste toxins and by-products are alarming. Perhaps you can provide the real comparative data on this (not the marketing data you’ve shown)?
Many of these lamps are produced in countries where environmental issues and human rights are just ignored. As we continue to import these products from distant places we are offsetting our environmental responsibility. The production and disposal costs of these CFL lamps need to be accounted for. It takes five more pints of water to wash away the environmental mess left by a standard CFL lamp which is rich in toxins. Our land-fill sites are loaded with the plastics, mercury vapour, and cocktail of metals which are almost impossible to recycle. Perhaps we ought to be looking at our technologies and habits in more detail.
A possible solution to the problem which was the point of my recent letter in the Economist was to acknowledge the work by Ceravision who have produced a lamp which provides more lumens per watt than all other electric light sources, with a projected life much improved than CFL’s and with reduced heat.
As you say… ‘I hope this helps to bring you up to speed’
Please discuss the issue of mercury in these CFL bulbs.
Mr. Paradise-Hirst,
Thank you for your insights. I will research these issues for my own and others’ enlightenment.
I do wonder if CFLs are just a stepping stone to even more efficient lighting. Just like an electric typewriter with memory was a bridge between the manual typewriter and a computer.
I would love to hear more about the manufacturing of CFLS from you and your first hand experience as most people would.
Again, thank you for bringing up these other aspects of CFLs and other lighting alternatives.
More on the same…..
Mr. Paradise-Hirst,
I read your letter to The Economist concerning CFLs with great interest. For several years now I have questioned the claimed savings (based on a CFL life of 10,000 hours, which in more than ten years of use I’ve found to it to be more like 3,000 operating hours when used for outdoor lighting) but more importantly, there is the the invested energy of production. As you aptly point out, CFLs are much more complicated than a standard incandescent bulb and the complications require more energy for producing the the parts. I’ve never seen any analysis addressing this issue.
The environmental issues you raise are also ignored by most of those who champion CFLs. Here in the state of Oregon some disposal sites require a $2 charge per bulb (if they know of the attempted disposal) for bulbs that are now being sold for $0.99! A further fact ignored is that most CFLs are now produced in China which has a lower energy efficiency than Europe or North American and the power is almost all produced with their very dirt coal – another environmental issue not addressed in the CFL press.
If you should know of any sources that do address these issues I would appreciate it if you could share them with me.
Ken Self
Lake Oswego, Oregon
This goes back to a couple of my previous posts:
I can recall this one:
https://www.energyrefuge.com/blog/why-we-are-not-switching-to/
As long a greet is the driving motor of economy, the best solutions won’t be accessible to the public for problems.
For example:
Oil is so cheap, easy to get, and so profitable, it does not make sense to switch.
Services, Goods, Machinery are produced not in the best way, but in the cheapest way, that can be created. which usually is not energy efficient or clean.
The problem where what is truly the best, in terms of cleaningless, efficiency, and price will continue to be presented to the public in a way that makes nature friendly, and cheaper, products that are not so good.
Just wanted to say that I read your blog quite frequently and I’m always amazed at some of the stuff people post here. But keep up the good work, it’s always interesting.
See ya,
Dear All,
An interesting debate, but I wonder at its usefulness. I have found that actually dimmer environments are more interesting and mysterious, and that candles, once the 30 minutes or so required for the human eye to adjust to the gloom have elapsed, that a calm atmosphere is created that also generates heat as well as a delightful flickering that stimulates the rods as well as the cones.
Further, candles safely used, go out even when the user has forgotten to ‘switch them off’
I haven’t done an environmental analysis, but surely getting the human eye and brain practiced in using lower levels of light is a win win on all levels.
I regularly go to JD wetherspoons and in those environments, even with the associated intoxication of many of the site users, lower lighting conditions seem to add rather than detract from the experience.
Also I note that places look cleaner in low-light conditions, so there might even be other associated cost savings of moving forward in this way. I dread to think how much the underground cleaning costs are now that the lights are almost clinical in their brightness.
Hope this helps.
BW