Fluorescents to replace incandescents Down Under
Australian federal Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull has announced plans for a national switch from incandescent bulbs to more efficient technology such as compact fluorescent bulbs in a bid to save enormous amounts of electricity. Inefficient standard light bulbs use approximately five times as much electricity to produce the same amount of light as compact fluorescent bulbs. Mr. Turnbull said that the switch in lighting technology would reduce greenhouse gas emissions at an annual rate of around 8000,000 tonnes to 2012. But this could rise to as much as four million tonnes a year by 2015 as more households and industry make the change. Lighting represents a large portion of greenhouse gas emissions in Australia - around 12 percent of household emissions, about 25 percent of commercial sector emissions, and 25 percent also of public and street lighting emissions.
Wal-Mart is trying to instigate a similar revolution in the U.S. through its scheme to sell every one of its regular customers--100 million in all--one compact fluorescent bulb.
Analysis: We have much better things to use our electricity on, such as PHEVs and pure EVs. Why blow our energy on 19th century technology when we can use 20th century instead? And one day we might even see the widespread adoption of white LEDs that will save even more juice.
Related:
[Source: Sydney Morning Herald]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
mobile_army_sugical_hospital 12:22PM (2/22/2007)
In regards to Wal-Mart. I was there just yesterday. They had a HUGE section of compact fluorescents. I was really surprised. I got a 6 pack of 60w bulbs for $9.00. Another customer was picking up incandescents. I mentioned some of the benefits of CFs (cheaper to run, last longer). They promptly picked up a pack. People just need a little education to make a wise decision.
Reply
Anton Lang 6:06PM (2/22/2007)
This is a really smart move.
These bulbs are touted as being more efficient than the incandescent bulbs, and they are if the principle is followed, that being to turn them on and leave them on. Use them like a normal incandescent bulb, constantly switching them on and off, and they will then only last the same time.
Walk around your house and count the existing bulbs and work out how much it will cost you to replace them. Those from the mid middle class down will find other more pressing ways to spend their dollars.
A replacement fluorescent bulb costs on average 15 times as much. True, it runs on a quarter to a fifth of the power. So, selective advertising telling you that that they last longer, not quite true, and that they are cheaper to run is just that. Selective.
The fact that they tell us that it's saving you money on your power bill, the big seller, but that money amounts to probably $10.00 per year, or, spreading that over the average household power bill, approximately just less than one percent. So, extrapolating that out to power production, it sound a lot when you say it's saving X amount of Tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere from coal fired power plants, the most prevalent, it still only amounts to that same percentage, just less than one percent.
Fluorescent light bulbs are a great start but the real savings will come when they tell us that we need to do without home air conditioning and dishwashers. Try selling that one.
Yeah! Right! Light bulbs maybe, but aircon and dishwashers, No way, mate.
Tony
Reply
Murc 7:55PM (2/22/2007)
I think its a dumb move.
Personally, I want what ever is cheaper...I dont care about greenhouse gases...its not even a fact that they are the cause the this so called "global warming"...this light bulb thing is a lot like normal cars that use regular gas, and hybrid cars...yes you buy less gas with a hybrid...but they cost more (I read somewhere that you need to own and use (daily) your hybrid for 10-12 years before the money adds up to the same as the "other guy" who bought the normal gas version, and paid more money one gas through that amount of time, then the other guy did).
If they were teh same price then yes...I would buy them...but their not, and the left media has not and will ever convert me to being a weak minded anti-war tree-huggin hippy.
Reply
Chris M 11:28PM (2/23/2007)
Sure, fluorescents are more expensive - but not much more, and in most cases the savings on electricity quickly make up the difference. After that, it's pure savings.
However, there are a few instances where substituting fluorescents for incandescents is not a good idea. Some appliance lights, like in ovens, dryers, and refrigerators, cannot use fluorescents as they get far too hot or too cold. Most compact fluorescents will not work with dimmers, and may not work with some types of light fixtures. Dimming a fluorescent requires a special ballast, and maybe a special dimmer. For applications that are on for only short times at infrequent intervals (like an attic light) the energy savings would be trivial and not worth the additional cost.
For those reasons, I think fluorescents should be encouraged, but incandescents should not be banned.
Reply