The incandescent light bulb is one of the inventions that has had a profound effect on our civilization. It enabled us to easily beat back the night and create a 24 hour society that no longer needed to rely on the sun. In the new millenium however, the incandescent light bulb has become an instrument of destruction because it inefficiently converts only 5% of the power it uses into light.
This inefficiency has created world in which an estimated 20% of the electricity consumed is used just for lighting; with 60% of that usage due to incandescent light bulbs. Just to give you an idea of the amount of electricity used for lighting, consider last week’s demonstration in Paris to raise awareness of global warming. During the 5 minute “lights out” campaign, the power grid registered a reduction of 800 mW (800,000kW) or 1% of France’s total consumption, in the amount of electricity being used.
According to NRCan, just one 60 Watt light bulb burning in each of Canada’s 11 million+ homes produces more than 0.4 megatonnes of GHGs per year. When you take into account that the average home has roughly 30 light bulbs, the amount of GHGs produced just to light up the night is staggering even before factoring in industrial and commercial lighting.
What’s worse is that there is no longer any reason for this waste. Compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFL), which are 4 times as efficient as incandescent, have been on the market for years. Converting the remaining 60% of all light bulbs that are incandescent to the higher efficiency CFLs would reduce power consumption by approximately 11 billion kWh and reduce GHG emissions by approximately 8 megatonnes per year. (1)
In order to accomplish this goal, legislation banning the sale of incandescent light bulbs (2) in Canada would need to be introduced. The legislation would need a 2 year phase in period to;
- allow existing incandescent light bulb manufacturers to convert their facilities to the production of CFLs or similar high efficiency light bulbs.
allow for the construction of new plants or the expansion of existing ones to accomodate the increased demand for these products.
allow for existing stock to be sold off.
The economic costs of this would be marginal and few, if any, jobs would be lost. All consumers (residential, industrial and commercial) would save a significant amount of money. (a yearly savings of approximately $7 per light bulb used an average of 4 hours/day)
(1) Calculations were conservatively based on;
- -NRCan’s estimate that replacing one 60 Watt bulb in every home in Canada would reduce GHG emissions by 0.4 megatonnes.
-an average of 30 bulbs per residential, industrial and commercial unit with one third in use.
-overall residential electricity usage equal to only 30% of that used in Canada.
-60% of all light bulbs in use are still incandescent.
-(0.4MT X 10 X 10/3 X .6 = 8 MT)
-conversion to kWh based on the GHG emission and electrical output of the Nanticoke plant.
(2) Certain exemptions would have to be made. For example, the incandescent light bulb used inside ovens has no alternate high efficiency replacement that I could find.
For more info visit Ban The Bulb.
Update: Both Australia and California have made moves to ban incandescent lightbulbs.
I haven’t bought an incandescent bulb in the three years I’ve lived in my current house, and slowly we’re getting rid of all of them. We’re also changing fixtures as time goes on.
Does anyone have figures on halogen bulbs? I assume they’re cheaper on energy than incandescent filament bulbs, but I don’t really know — if anyone has a link, mucho appreciado.
Halogen light bulbs are almost as bad as incandescent.
“The economic costs of this would be marginal and few, if any, jobs would be lost.” Really? Who is going to pay for
“allow existing incandescent light bulb manufacturers to convert their facilities to the production of CFLs or similar high efficiency light bulbs.” Will the government subsidize these companies to allow them to make the shift without putting them in financial hardship? I would also assume that if a company has to retrofit it’s manufacturing process it would also remove/automate some of the processes currently being done by people. What are these people going to do if you don’t let them go? Will the government pay the severence associated with these layoffs?
I have fluorescent bulbs where I rarely use them (basement and staircases) because I do not like the light they produce. I know that it’s not the idea, but it is a matter of esthetics, and compensate by leaving no bulb on longer than I need its light.
Manufacturers, give me that old incandescent glow in a compact fluorescent, and I’ll happily replace all bulbs.
Will the government subsidize these companies to allow them to make the shift without putting them in financial hardship?
General Electric made a profit of $18 billion in 2005. I think they can handle the expense.
Now do you have anything intelligent to say? If not, please go back to Kate’s Houze of Komedy where you belong.
Manufacturers, give me that old incandescent glow in a compact fluorescent, and I’ll happily replace all bulbs.
That’s already been addressed. You just have to shop for the right CFL that fits your needs.
Why is it when we talk about doing something positive people get all concerned about specific individuals, at say an incandesant lightbulb plant, who may loose their jobs but if we talk about domestic policy then a 6% unemployment rate is a good thing to keep labor mobile?
Makeing manufacturing more efficient is the point of manufacturing…. It is the only legitimate, sustanable way to make profits. (expanding markets is not sustanable)
An example, know what happened to Canadian pulp and paper manufacturers when we had that whole softwood dispute? Inefficient companies went out of business and the ones that are left are operating 2 to 3 times more efficiently than their american counterparts. Even with the duties they could still out produce… (I’m not disputing that it was overall a bad deal for Canada, just saying it wasnt all bad)
Honestly, it is just frustrating reading comments like John’s sometimes. Is globalism only good when governments give handouts to companies to keep them here?
Employers close shop all the time that is their choice, the real question should be will the CFL production be done here in Canada? That might be an arguement against this plan.
PeterC
the real question should be will the CFL production be done here in Canada?
I couldn’t find a very much info on this, but it looks like most light bulb production is already being done offshore in places like China. Which is why I said there’d be no real impact on employment here in Canada.
I just went and looked at a few of the light bulbs in my house. The CFLs were made in China and the incandescents–which are still in a few places where they barely get used–were also made in China.
Speaking of death and incandescence…Anna Nicole Smith dies in Florida, so life in the Fast Lane ends in slow lane…again!
Oh and when we talk shortages, this has to be the biggest crisis yet A Hype Shortage has been declared!
Oh, and for all wondering how the herd carbon, because you gave up trying to herd cats (a wise choice for sure) we have Kyoto and beyond- Capturing carbon
Yes, trivia is a joy on such a miserable snowy day here in the Muskoka…Home of the Black Flies and Snowsqualls!
In order to accomplish this goal, legislation banning the sale of incandescent light bulbs (2) in Canada would need to be introduced.
Right. We NEED another law on the books, this time covering politically correct light bulbs. No shortage of jobs for lawyers and legislators–and maybe a few “enforcement” types to hunt down errant citizens burning *gasp* incandescents.
We can follow that with a legislated baning of room temperatures over, say, 65 degrees–because after all–no one needs warmer than that to survive, and sweaters cost less than heating a house, and it’d mean a few “heat cops” on the payroll (which counts as job creation)…
what’s next?
When john posted a concern about this: “allow existing incandescent light bulb manufacturers to convert their facilities to the production of CFLs or similar high efficiency light bulbs.” he got this in return: General Electric made a profit of $18 billion in 2005. I think they can handle the expense.…
…so you didn’t really mean “allow existing incandescent light bulb manufacturers to convert…” didja? You really meant “FORCE or be shut down…
As Bernard Henri Lévy noted: “Barbarism with a human face.”.
When you mean “force” Robert, be brave enough–and honest enough–to say so.
…and all my bulbs are CFLs…
every should doesn’t need a law attached to it.
Technology will push the energy savings even further, here. Already we have white LED lights which provide 100 watts of luminosity for 1 watt of power. They’re expensive to purchase, but once you pay the upfront costs, you end up saving more money over the life of the bulb.
I guess leftists will never figure out how the free market works.
Consumers are free to chose a lightbulb as efficient as they want.
There is no need for government regulations when an individual’s choice to save his or her own money is at stake…
The free market that currently costs greenhouse emissions at $0.00?
lenny: that valuation is not a “free market” mistake.
That’s a result of mixed market/governmental decisions that set “allowable levels of pollution” instead of protecting your property rights by legally empowering you to demand: “you can’t bombard my property with your emissions without an agreed-upon payment or my express permission.”
The free market that currently costs greenhouse emissions at $0.00?
Huh? What is this supposed to mean?
How much MORE do I have to pay over on top of the taxes I already pay for energy?
How is a “carbon tax” is something other than raw socialism?
Ron, sometimes you post such nonsensical gibberish. Posts #10 & #15 are prime examples of “Baffle ‘em With Bullshit”.
Stop admiring yourself in your own rhetorical mirror so much and start examining your ideas a little more carefully before hitting that “Submit” button. (I know you’re capable of it.)
“General Electric made a profit of $18 billion in 2005. I think they can handle the expense.”
What does this have to do with anything. That is akin to saying people should pay more of less for a certain product depending on how much money they have in their pocket. As an aside, how much of GE’s profit was from producing lightbulbs? The have diversified a little bit from light bulbs in the last century. Maybe go to their website and have a look to see exactly how much profit they made off lightbulbs last year.
What is your refusal to address an issue head on? I asked not only a simple question but a legitimate one. You claim no jobs will be lost and it will cost nothing to make this change. We both know that is bullshit and your only response is “they can afford it”. It’s the same old shit with you lefties, you don’t really want to address working solutions to anything, you simply want to ram your policy down the throats of everyone irregardless of what the actual impacts and costs may be.
From outside the box, Rob is in fact making valid points. The politicians are all hitting big industry, and we are all falling into the trap of “blame the oilsands” or “blame the power companies”, which is true, but the problem is we are ALL using their products. WE are responsible for for their construction. They are doing nothing more than meeting demand. Either they produce, or we bitch and moan that they need more.
Rob is actually taking a Conservative approach to this without even knowing it. Small easy steps that we can all do, instead of mind boggling ideas like shutting down the oilsands or building 2000 nuclear reactors in 5 years to meet Kyoto..
In the end, Kyoto is going to cost us…..face the fact. We either pay, or if we don’t our reputation on the global market is dirt. Instead of nay-saying every idea that comes across the board…..impliment them. Get the Clean Air Act on board….but keep the right to ratify it. ANYTHING is a start, then build on it. Create a situation where ALL parties can say…..hey we did our part, instead of a situation where they all sit around and point fingers at whos fault it is.
I might have disagreed with some of the math in the previous post Rob, but the fact remains that at least it’s doing something about the problem.
Well done. ( It kills me to say that, so give me some credit at least….)
Dino, I couldn’t agree more but let’s please stop spreading the bullshit like “it won’t cost a thing” and “no jobs will be lost”. Forcing a company to adopt environmental policy is the same thing as introducing a new tax. It costs somebody somewhere. Now obviously the producers and manufacturers will pass that cost down to the end consumer but that pass is not immediate. This means that industry is dealt a blow in the mean time. Some firms will adjust quickly, others will not. Can we simply admit that and stop all this pretending and kid glove approach that kyoto is wonderful and it won’t cost us a thing…. If it was free, it would already be done by everyone, everywhere.
You just want to jam your externalities down the throats of everyone irregardless of what the actual impacts and costs may be. But, you’re right that it’s irrelevant how much money GE makes. If they can’t afford to pay the actual costs of their externalities I guess they’ll just go tits up.
And Arthur, thanks for saving me responding to Ron.
Right, I suppose it’s easier to simply dismiss a contrary point of view with a nice tight and inaccurate “bullshit”. I’m sure it saves you the effort of thinking things through.
That said, here is a link to a primer level overview of free-market evironmentalism. Right now, you’ve already got a nice mixed market economy –and it isn’t exactly keeping things clean, is it.
Ron,
Previous to this you were telling me that government wasn’t necessary to the free market. Now, you’re telling me that the government is to blame for not making sure that free market enterprises pay for externalities.
lenny: No, that’s not what I’m saying. What I am saying, for starters, is that clearly held property rights would allow those impacted by polluters to sue for damages or–for that matter–mere trespass. Right now such companies can simply say “our effluents are within allowed limits so suck it up”.
I’m nominally what you might call a minarchist given that I see problems when there are no objective courts, so I think a case can be made for a minimal government that handles courts, policing and so on but I feel these should be limited to the policing of aggressive acts or acts that one might call reckless endangerment or…trespass.
A simple piling up of ad hoc laws (ban this, regulate that) has got us what we’ve got–and that doesn’t work because corporations and other influence groups can manipulate regulations using the democratic process–(as described in the Wikipedia reference) a phenomenon known as “regulator capture” allowing “large companies [to] play a large role in setting regulations [creating a] system where things are far too biased in favor of large companies.”
Instead, people ought to be protected in principle from neglect and trespass by corporations and the best way I see that happening is by a strengthening, not a reducing, of solid, clearly defined property rights, especially at the level of individual property.
Look at it this way, maybe: the government, instead of trying to figure out ways to tax externalities, might be better off saying “don’t produce externalities or–if you do–be prepared for the consequences”. An example would be that class action suits based on demonstrated damage do at least as good a job of policing pharmaceutical company carelessness as piles of ad hoc regulations.
The Wikipedia reference also made this point, which I think is appropriate to the discussion:
agitfact,
I know what you mean, but the trick is to select the warm versions, not the daylight version. The difference is, like other fluorescents, in the spectral output…red is warmer, blue is colder.
A study done back in 1980’s showed that bluish fluorescents cause a 20% loss of muscle strength in humans. We need the right spectrum of light just like other living beings.
They new CFL’s are a real energy saver. I have found they last far longer run in a normal vertical position than inverted. We have replaced all our incandescents with them and it is the right thing to do economically and environmentally.
As to costing jobs…I think that is wishful thinking on the part of those who deny any responsibility for the environememt. GE, as one example, make the CFL’s just like Sylvania, and a myriad of other manufacturers.
NOMA has a large lead in Canada with their LED decoration lights. A friend of mine manufacturers LED lighting and he is super busy. He makes LED sineage that lasts forever, and draws hardly any current.
For nightlights, like in the bathroom, Canadian Tire, and most other retailers have the offshoot bioluminescent like lights. The U.S. DOD developed this kind of lighting for marker lights on military aircraft.
The reduction if heat output by the incandescent lights is another energy saving during the summer, as it reduces A/C loads.
As to Halogen, and Sodium Vapour lights…they are another story. Halogen and Sodiunm vapour lighting gives off entirely different spectrums. Here in the Muskoka Dark Sky lighting is mandated on all new construction. Even WalMart had to comply in Huntsville. Same with all the new Big Box sites.
To me it is just like the change from the rotary dial telephone to the Princess dial tone phones…an advancement in technology that made life better.
As to laws being required…well…some people are so narcissistic that they never willingly comply to voluntary means so then laws are passed and they wonder why?