President Obama is not only having Nobel laureate physicist Steven Chu manage the replacement of bulbs in the White House to more energy efficient models, but has also announced he's shaping a national new efficiency standards for fluorescent and incandescent lighting that will affect both homes and businesses...
As reported by NPR's blog The Two-Way this morning, Obama remarked:
The first step we're taking sets new efficiency standards on fluorescent and incandescent lighting. Now I know light bulbs may not seem sexy, but this simple action holds enormous promise because 7 percent of all the energy consumed in America is used to light our homes and our businesses. Between 2012 and 2042, these new standards will save consumers up to $4 billion a year, conserve enough electricity to power every home in America for 10 months, reduce emissions equal to the amount produced by 166 million cars each year, and eliminate the need for as many as 14 coal-fired power plants.
Like the water rationing happening here in Southern California, we see mandatory energy efficiency a very likelyhood on a national scale coinciding with the public's desire to wean the US's dependence upon foreign oil (whether actual or perceived, since neighbors Canada and Mexico provide a large amount of our imported crude). The question is whether the public will willingly accept a required change to energy-efficient light bulbs, since there's still open debate about the perceived light quality of CFL bulbs and the affordability of LED lighting. For now, in our own household, our interior lighting is a hybrid of CFL with standard incandescent bulbs, which provide the warmth of light we're used to, so an all-or-nothing solutions isn't yet needed. We always tell friends, "just begin with replacing with one bulb and take it from there". No Nobel laureate needed.
Read more at Obama Unveils New Lighting Efficiency Stand
Comments (8)
'bout time. Though I wouldn't call 7% an "enormous" promise.
And...looks like he just took a stab at coal plants ("clean coal" being a prime topic of pre-election jibber-jabber by both candidates). Ouch.
I absolutely hate those energy efficient light bulbs. The light they give off is horrible and they don't last nearly as long as regular old light bulbs. Not to mention they are ridiculously expensive. Plus, 7% isn't a significant enough amount to really constitute change for me.
Also, I think it is total bullshit when they try and pin green conservation on consumers. Shouldn't it really be large corporations being held responsible?
i'm with meowsk!
is the world going to be under a white/blue glow in the near future? ugh.
i'm going to start hoarding light bulbs, along with my polaroid film. IS NOTHING SACRED?
The light they give off is horrible and they don't
last nearly as long as regular old light bulbs.
I replaced all of my incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs back in 2001 or so. This year I finally replaced a couple those aged compact fluorescents. I don't know where you're getting your bulbs from, but the el cheapo ones I've gotten from IKEA have been more than worth the money. Way more. The color's not bad, either (and the newer ones are even better).
Not to mention they are ridiculously expensive.
IKEA has 11w bulbs for $4 a three-pack. If you can't afford that, I'd recommend turning the lights off entirely, because you're obviously broke.
Plus, 7% isn't a significant enough amount to
really constitute change for me.
Well, since 7% doesn't really constitute "change" for you, I guess you'd be happy to sign over 7% of your income to me. I mean, since you can't afford $1.33 light bulbs anyhow . . .
I think it is total bullshit
If only we could light our homes with the warm glow of irony.
I'm with sunspot. You can buy CFL bulbs in a variety of color temperatures. It sounds like those who complain about them made up their minds many years ago when they were, admittedly, pretty bad. Try them again, and you'll be surprised.
Corporations respond to consumers' demands. That's how capitalism works. Demand something different, and the corporations will follow.
More important than the energy use, I think, is the mercury content of CFLs. I know, they currently use very little, but any is too much. I hope Obama addresses this issue.
i'm with sunspot and charmac - well said charmac especially, on the corporations responding to consumers' demands. that's why green consumerism works... as long as you don't start buying *more unnecessary stuff* just because it's green.
in the case of CFLs, the performance has really improved in the last several years, and consumer demand as well as government regulation will drive innovation towards more even efficient, cheaper, greener, *better* bulbs. the major issue with CFLs as charmac said is the mercury content. however, the mercury content of a CFL is much less than the amount of mercury that would be emitted by a coal burning power plant from the amount of power that would be demanded by an incandescent... so the mercury in a CFL is more in-your-face, but is still very little compared to what the coal plants are emitting from the use of a regular bulb.
the key to the mercury issue from the consumer's viewpoint is having enough convenient places to safely recycle them, and knowing what to do when one breaks in your home. the EPA has some long-winded guidelines for cleanup (http://www.epa.gov/hg/spills/#fluorescent) but basically, ventilate the room with outside air, sweep things up, wrap the broken bulb, and take it to a disposal place. right now IKEA, Home Depot, and I believe most Ace Hardwares will take them, in addition to your local hazardous waste facility (check first).
anyway, the color/feel have made huge improvements, prices are getting lower (and you will make up the higher upfront cost with energy savings... and come on, it's just a lightbulb, not a freaking water heater or something, people!), it's not super inconvenient to recycle them, and really, there's just no excuse to not use CFLs! :)
charmac- you're right i did make up my mind years ago. and i'm relieved to know they've improved. so no ugly light?
>More important than the energy use, I think, is the
>mercury content of CFLs.
Recycle them and that becomes a non-issue. IKEA takes them back, as do the other places vyzl listed above.
Even if you pitch them in the trash, they'll still release less mercury into the environment than an incandescent bulb typically would, just because the incandescent will burn at least 5 times as much energy to produce the same amount of light, and the bulk of that energy (at least in the US) comes from burning coal. Burning coal is the #1 source of mercury pollution by far.
Worse, mercury from coal goes everywhere. Whereas most of the mercury from a CFL, assuming you did throw it out, would end up in a landfill. Those tend to be watertight, meaning much of it would be sequestered for centuries.
Also, CFL's contain elemental mercury, which is far less easily absorbed by the body than the organic methylmercury found in things like tunafish. It's not especially dangerous to adults - just ventilate the room to blow out any vapor, and dispose of the broken bits of bulb without touching them. Obviously, don't vacuum, but do sweep up and then wipe up the area well before disposing the papers and paper towels used in the process. The amount of mercury in a modern CFL is really of little concern to most adults, but it could represent an issue for small children.