Please.
As Andrew Leonard writes in his "How the World Works" blog, this all began with a column by ...
Toronto Star energy reporter Tyler Hamilton that itself had summarized the conclusions of a study raising questions about whether it always makes sense to replace incandescent light bulbs with CFLs. The nub of the argument was that in some cases the heat generated by the incandescent light bulbs could be useful.
Tyler is a friend of mine and a great reporter, so I sent him an email explaining why this is not true, which was not written for publication. Then Leonard himself summarized the column on his blog. So, as Leonard explains:
This excited a storm of comment, and even inspired Joseph Romm, author of "Hell and High Water: Global Warming -- The Solution and the Politics," energy expert, blogger extraordinaire, and regular Salon contributor, to pass on a copy of an e-mail he sent directly to Hamilton.
[That Leonard comment is, I believe, the blogging equivalent of make-up sex. Note to parents: that link is PG-13 -- but I digress.]
Anyway, here is my email:
From either an energy or a CO2 perspective, incandescents are a big loser. If you really like electric resistance heat, buy the best portable forced air heater -- it's is still infinitely better than using an incandescent for heat from a CO2 perspective. It doesn't really matter what the source of your electricity is, since energy around Canada and North America is fungible (and we don't yet have an oversupply of zero carbon electricity).
But again if you really prefer heating your house with electricity because you have zero-carbon electricity, then buy an electric heat pump -- if you have one, then dump your incandescent, the heat pump is much more efficient. For a new home or gut rehab, get a geothermal heating and cooling system. Plus better insulation of course.
This is especially true if you do any significant amount of air-conditioning during the year -- which certainly most commercial office buildings do in Canada -- and I'm guessing many people run air-conditioning in your homes in Toronto during the summer (certainly that will become more common thanks to global warming).
I can assure you that if you were to do the life-cycle analysis in detail, you'd find that keeping incandescents for the heat value is an energy/climate loser.
Leonard also notes,
A similar argument was made in a prominent letter to the editor published in the Star on Saturday.
(Incidentally, a very nice life-cycle analysis comparing incandescents to compact fluorescents can be found here. The answer: CFLs win.)
The bottom line: As traditional incandescents get phased out and replaced by CFLs, LED bulbs, and more efficient incandescents, don't get all hot and bothered. They had their moment to shine.
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Ask Umbra on trash, toxics, and tots
Comments
View as Flat
Sam Wells Posted 3:05 pm
26 Mar 2008
The cheaper ones from China, forget it, you'll have mercury all over your house. They sputter and have strange tints and don't really generate as much white light. The good ones are made by the same company that made old light bulbs but they just cost more - no duh.
Now try to heat your chickens or your car battery on a cold night with a CFL. Obviously, some people don't think of such things, like heating with incandescent lights. White tower folks, I guess.
Onward through the fog
Permalink
naught101 Posted 5:39 pm
26 Mar 2008
Low pressure sodium gas discharge lamps are MUCH MORE efficient than fluorescents (2-3 times, according to wikipedia, and sodium is much safer for health and the environment, and since it's a major part of salt, I would imagine that it's much more available...
Seems like a much better solution
check out http://www.envirowiki.info, the knowledge database for environmentalists and activists.
Permalink
scatter Posted 7:27 pm
26 Mar 2008
If you don't like the cheap rubbishy imports Sam, spend a bit extra and get quality long life CFLs with fast start up times and 2700K light. Simple.
Mandation is required now because it's important that the shift from incandescents happens quickly.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 9:18 pm
26 Mar 2008
Couple things to watch:
Don't use screw-in CFLs in standard recessed can lights (these are very inefficient fixtures in any case). If you must absolutely must have cans trade out the fixtures for CFL-happy versions. Not a huge investment.
You have to get special dimmable CFLs to use with dimmer switches. Standard CFLs will blow the switch.
Otherwise CFLs generally make a very good like-for-like trade with your old Edison glowies. Home Depot sells a sample pack with different color rendering so you can experiment to get the light that's right for you. You can even get 3-way CFLs for use in 3-way lamps.
Many people find the equivalence rating printed on the box a tad optimistic, depending on the color rendering, so you may want to uprate by maybe 10% - they still represent a huge energy saving, one of the few energy upgrades you can make for less than a hundred bucks that will start saving you money right away.
Now if only there were a good energy-efficient replacement for those small halogen floods and spots... Yes, I've tried the LEDs, haven't found any with half-way decent color rendering yet. If you know of any, please share.
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
scatter Posted 10:09 pm
26 Mar 2008
http://www.megamanuk.com/products/product.php?sid=2
LEDs are on the cusp of breaking out. Give it a couple of years and we'll be there.
Permalink
ac5p Posted 12:05 am
27 Mar 2008
Permalink
gzuckier Posted 12:08 am
27 Mar 2008
Permalink
Easterbunny Posted 1:48 am
27 Mar 2008
Now, granted I'm an unusual case, but here it is:
I have zero-carbon electricity, but have a gas furnace for heating. I only use an airconditioner for maybe 2-3 weeks per year, but use heating for 6-8 months of the year. My house is reasonable well insulated.
If I replace all my incandescent bulbs with CFLs (and do nothing else) my carbon footprint rises, because I've switched some heating from (zero carbon) electricity to natural gas. Joe argues I could then also buy some high efficiency electric heaters to switch that heat back to electricity. Well sure, but now I've had to buy new bulbs and new heater(s), when I would almost certainly have been better off spending that money on better insulation, replacing the furnace with electric, swapping my car for a hybrid, etc. The lightbulbs seem to be irrelevant.
Or did I completely misunderstand what "efficiency" means for electric heaters?
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 1:49 am
27 Mar 2008
given that 100% of the energy of either a cfl or an incandescent ends up as heat
100% of neither ends up as heat.
But the technologies are vastly different.
In an incadenscent bulb, light is a by product of electrical resistance in a filament (which is actually being heated, just like in your toaster or wallboard panel).
In CFL the electricity is gapped across a gas whose atoms kind of "resonate" and give off electrons. The electricity is a kind of catalyst rather than being directly applied to a filament.
"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." -- Galileo
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 2:25 am
27 Mar 2008
Easterbunny, few of us have access to zero-carbon electricity - far from it - and those who do should still use it wisely so that surplus may be retained in the grid to reduce carbon emissions elewhere. Heating your house with incandescent bulbs in the summer and then removing that heat with a/c is not wise use. Even in winter I doubt that the balance of gas vs. non-carbon electricity to which you refer is likely to make your total environmental impact favor retaining incandescents over CFLs. Simple rules still apply: use efficient heaters for necessary heating, use efficient lights for necessary lighting. Now that vastly better options are available, incandescent bulbs make for both inefficient heating AND inefficient lighting.
And remember that even though the electricity may be generated without direct carbon dioxide emissions, it still always comes at some environmental cost: even renewables like hydro, solar and wind have adverse ecosystems impacts.
Please conserve.
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 3:16 am
27 Mar 2008
The point about CFL is that they don't generate heat, which is wasted energy. That means lower electric bills. If you count up all the residential light fixtures in the US it's a huge deal - don't get me wrong - but to me and my household it's no big savings as claimed.
I'm going to upgrade to a heat pump or advanced HVAC unit instead of the 1970 air conditioner so that will save TONS of money. This means a lot in 100-degree territories like Texas. Over about 90 F my computer servers might start frying.
So with all deference to Mr. Romm's article, on one hand we have this mandate for CFL which really doesn't help me personally, but on the other have HUGE energy draws for HVAC, water heating, and other large appliances. I see little help there except some communities have a rebate program based on CEER or something of that ilk. Not here in my town, though. -sam
Onward through the fog
Permalink
2wheeler Posted 4:03 am
27 Mar 2008
LEDs are now becoming available and the brightness, color rendering etc is quite good. My issue is the price is still 5-15 times what a CFL; but they don't have the warm-up lag and they are dimmable. Good for special situations where those features are desired. Also the durability is awesome.
The advent of LEDs will also challenge our notion of what a light fixture should look like, and how it should function. We will start to see distributed lighting, aimed just where it is needed (for tasks, accent highlights, etc.) and it will be very efficient. Yay!
I'm going to use LED bulbs in some Malibu lights (low voltage DC for outdoors use) when I get around to installing the light fixtures themselves. I expect the power usage will be minimal, if I switch off the transformer when not in use.
I agree with Spaceshaper above. Conserve!
Moving toward sustainability with hopefulness, one revolution at a time.
Permalink