Australia to fully phase out incandescent bulbs by 2010
In a world first, Australia will officially make the switch away from incandescent bulbs. Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull said today that the country would phase out inefficient lighting over the next three years, reducing greenhouse-gas emissions hundreds of thousands of tons a year and cutting household lighting costs up to 66 percent. "If the rest of the world follows our lead," he said, "this will reduce an amount of energy ... to the tune of five times as much energy as Australia consumes." Similar bulb-banning campaigns are gaining steam in the U.K. and California, with compact fluorescents -- which cost more up front but last four to 10 times longer and use 20 percent of the energy of incandescents -- appearing as the leading alternative. Critics in Australia pointed out that much more could be done, including focusing on industrial energy-saving measures and ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. But Turnbull defended the move: "It's a little thing," he said, "but it's a massive change."
source: BBC News, 20 Feb 2007
source: Herald Sun, Mark Kenny, 20 Feb 2007
source: The Sydney Morning Herald, 20 Feb 2007
source: Los Angeles Times, 20 Feb 2007
China blasts U.S. climate bill enabling penalties on trade partners
Comments View as Flat
Rulvy Posted 4:14 am
20 Feb 2007
Mandating fluorescent bulbs?
I've had lengthy debates with a friend of mine who could not understand why I could disagree with him on an "environmental" issue. There is no doubt that global warming is a giant problem and that burning fossil fuels in our cars and at our power plants is a major cause of the problem. There is also no doubt that the automobile and fossil fuel industry are doing everything they can to keep their milk train running.
However, just jumping at every idea that visible environmentalists suggest or that are presented by our political compatriots is not good for the environment. The environment deserves our careful and thoughtful consideration of all the pluses and minuses of a policy proposal. It is the environment that matters, not the team.
The commercially available alternative to incandescent bulbs are fluorescent bulbs. Fluorescent bulbs cost more, but they last much longer, and they use less electricity. Sounds like a winner all around, but more analysis is needed. The best light for eyesight is full spectrum incandescent light. That is why many people who work in offices bring in their own incandescent lamps. Fluorescent bulbs also increase the frequency and severity of vitreal floats in the eye.
Perhaps most important, incandescent bulbs contain no hazardous wastes and may be disposed of as normal trash. Fluorescents, on the other hand, contain mercury and have to be disposed of carefully. With existing fluorescent bulbs only 23% are disposed of properly. If incandescent bulbs have a significant presence in society(which one would assume is true, otherwise the ban would be insignificant) then the amount of mercury in every household, every trash can, and ever landfill will significantly increase.
Outlawing incandescents is not an easy decision to make, and probably a bad one.
If we had power plants that did not use fossil fuels, there would be no problem with the extra electricity used by incandescent bulbs. Light bulbs, even incandescent bulbs aren't that big an energy consumer anyway (dishwashing drying cycle, clothes dryers, air conditioners, and even aquariums use more). the problem is with the power plant and the car.
The cost of switching to mercury-filled lightbulbs and possibly hurting the eyesight of citizens are costs that must be weighed in.
Permalink
missym Posted 4:40 am
20 Feb 2007
Mercury issues
Rulvy - I think you are being unnecessarily pessimistic. I agree that we need to consider these decisions carefully rather than make knee-jerk greenwashing decisions. And I agree completely with your point that using renewable energy would solve a lot of these problems - sadly, in Australia, due to a short-sighted and old-fashioned government, that's a long way away from reality despite the country's natural resources (I'm an Australian living in Sweden).
But... power stations are the single largest source of mercury emissions into the environment. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), (when coal power is used -as is often the case in Australia). The mercury released from powering an incandescent bulb for five years exceeds the sum of the mercury released by powering a comparably luminous compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFL) for the same period and the mercury contained in the lamp.
Secondly, some manufacturers such as Philips and GE make very low mercury content CFLs. Hopefully with the increased market they would have with less incandescant bulbs on the market, they could develop the products even further.
Thirdly - if the government is recommending the use of these bulbs then hopefully they would implement recycling or takeback programs.
I think Australia should be commended for this step. Sure, it's not the same as signing Kyoto, but for a country that has until fairly recently been in denial about climate change (at least as far as our PM is concerned), it's a positive step.
Regarding the eyesight issue, again, there must be steps we can take. Since we started using computers so much there has been an increase in many vision symptoms such as astygmas and computer-related short-sightedness as well, so it's not an isolated problem.
Permalink
DragonflyTee Posted 4:52 am
20 Feb 2007
Fluorescent bulb recycling
There are ways to overcome the disadvantages of these bulbs. If Australia is making the effort to mandate the change in light bulbs, hopefully they will set up convenient recycling for the used bulbs. There was a recent NPR story about mercury content of the fluorescent bults where they mentioned that lower mercury bulbs are available from some manufactuters.
I do wonder how much of the mercury can be recovered in the recylcling process and how much will just become waste of another form though.
Permalink
Rob Smith Posted 5:35 am
20 Feb 2007
Fluorescent Bulbs-- Excellent Start; Next: Solar!
Fluorescent bulbs for the entire country is fantastic: part of that has to be recycling the bulbs properly so that mercury does not get into the system. The other part: requiring industry to change (over 5-10 years, as is feasible) from using mercury in this product to not using mercury/neutralizing the mercury by designing better product.
---
NEXT STEPS:
Australia should Phase In Fast solar and wind powered energy. They have these resources in abundance. Phase Out Fast: coal and any other carbon-based fuels.
--
Permalink
Rob Smith Posted 5:58 am
20 Feb 2007
Fluorescent Bulbs -- Choices we have Today
The choice we make today is not what is a better wavelength for reading, or whether to use a recyclable bulb vs. one that currently is not recyclable.
Our choice today is: can we reduce our carbon dioxide production in time to stop the pendulum of global warming before it has so much momentum we may not affect it at all?
We can choose to redesign the product to remove/minimize mercury, to set up systems to recycle the bulbs. Right now, we still have this choice.
We must not delay, or we will find ourselves in the position of Sophie, in William Styron's Sophie's Choice.
Permalink
Rulvy Posted 6:22 am
20 Feb 2007
Here's a little more
The issues involved in shifting from incandescent to fluorescent bulbs are not simple. I'm glad you appreciate that.
There is no doubt that an incandescent bulb will require more electricty and if the electricity that is powering the bulb comes from a plant that burns coal it will necessarily creaate more mercury pollution because coal fired plants generate lots of mercury.
However, that only covers the issue of mercury created through the energy used. when it comes to mercury created by the spent bulbs, the fluorescents are worse becasue incandescents contain no mercury. it is true that the amount of mercury in fluorescent bulbs has been decreasing, but I'm unfamiliar with the bottom line of whetehr that reduction is significant or not. Further research would ahve to be done to determine whether the additional increment of mercury created by increased energy usage outweighs the increment caused by the bulbs themselves.
Furthermore, the source of the energy at the palnt theat powers the bulb is another consideration. If the plant is hydroelectric (Australia has tons of hydro plants http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hydroelectric_power ... ), wind, solar (Australia is good on this count too http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15413317/ ) or nuclear, then there would be little if any CO2 generated. I couldn't find what percentage of Australian power comes from coal, but one site said they had 24 coal plants while the wiki site for hydro plants show more than 50. of course we don't know how much power is generated by these plants.
Yet another consideration is the path the mercury takes. Usually when i read about the harm from mercury pollution it is described as a problem with it getting in water and massing in predator fish that are then eaten by people. So mercury is a localized rathe than an area wide pollutant (which is why it is inappropriate for the "cap and trade" ideas proposed by the Bush administration.
Finally, and this is a new point, I would prefer to see a tax on all electric consumption imp[osed on coal-fired plants so that customers would pay the full price imposed on society (with minimum guarantees for the poor so they aren't priced out). That way consumer choice can be maximized and people can determine for themselves whether the incandescent bulbs are necessary to protect their eyesight.
The real answer is to get off fossil fuels rather than to make common people lower their standard of living and limit their choices.
The issue is not as clear cut as it might seem.
`
Permalink
AAMiller Posted 11:04 am
20 Feb 2007
Manufacturing Energy & Mercury Release
Has anyone seen any information about the energy required to manufacture a CFL or other types of lighting? I would guess that the more complex design of the bulbs might require a greater up-front energy input. There are a lot of potentially confounding factors though; perhaps the greater efficiency of newer plants offsets this effect? I wonder how the magnitude of any difference in manufacturing energy compares to the amount used by the bulb during it's life. The amount of additional energy required to properly recycle a bulb may also be relevant. It would be great if Energy Star would take these "hidden" energy costs into account.
Regarding mercury, I'd like to see a comparison of how much is actually released into the environment (as opposed to total emissions) by consumers of CFLs vs. power plants. Even if power plants have higher "per bulb" total emissions, the material is all in one place, and may be handled more responsibly (due to EPA regulation). For instance, a ton of mercury that is captured and recycled by a plant might not be as damaging as a ton of mercury released into a landfill by thousands of individuals.
Permalink
drocto Posted 9:23 am
08 Dec 2007
Don't choose technologies. Choose incentives!
There are many reasons to be wary of government choosing specific technologies as winners. I won't get into the general discussion here, but remember that it's naive to think that "your folks" in power will make the "right" decisions, while the "bad folks" will sit by. Corruption (lobbying by a firm with a favored technology), incompetence, inadequate analysis, and inability to change with emerging knowledge and technology are just some things to consider.
That said, many people have accepted, actively or implicitly, that government policy should support market rules that improve various dimensions of society. Most people agree that a mythical "free market" without well considered rules cannot adequately handle externalities. Environmental attributes are a classic externality.
So what to do if not ban the classic bulb? Instead of choosing specific technologies, the government can help encourage the desired outcomes.
For instance, the government could impose a tax on bulb manufacturers or sellers (per bulb sold) based on how a bulb model's efficiency (lumens out / watt input) differs from a base case (such as a current benchmark such as compact fluorescent). This tax could be adjusted for light quality, bulb life, and other environmental factors (such as materials of construction like mercury). (See there is something for technocrats to noodle over here!)
This type of structure raises the price to consumers for ineficient bulbs (internalizing the lifetime cost and impact of extra energy used), while seamlessly allowing for new and better technologies and improvements to existing technologies for lighting.
So perhaps instead of 25% of the price of compact fluorescents, traditional bulbs would cost the consumer 70%. A fairly straightforward analysis could provide a very good estimate of the impact of various tax schedules. At the same time, I'd be free to buy a (still) cheaper traditional bulb for a garage, closet, and other areas that I use very infrequently.
Note that implicit in this entire discussion is that utilties' pricing structures do not adequately reflect environmental costs. If non-baseline tiers were taxed at a higher rate, consumers could more easily choose energy efficient products while the poor would continue to receive the implicit subsidy of the low baseline power costs. (To receive subsidies, the truly poor could then be provided with compact fluorescent bulbs directly as part of existing assistance programs.)
Also, remember that a one size fits all policy applied over a strongly heterogeneous population is almost always bound to be mediocre. For instance, for a person living in a cold environment, the "ineficiency" of a traditional bulb provides incremental heat that offsets their demand for other forms of heating. However, in a hot environment, that same bulb increases the person's demand for air conditioning (cooling) by the same amount. Perhaps Ireland should consider that last point: Some of the calculated benefits will be eliminated by Irish heaters running just a bit longer to create heat otherwise created by inefficient incandescents...
Permalink