Throw Another Old-Fashioned Light Bulb on the Barbie
Australia’s getting on the energy-efficient light bulb bandwagon, and in a big way. It recently announced it will phase out the use of inefficient, traditional light bulbs (incandescents) and replace them with the highly efficient, often swirly looking bulbs called compact fluorescents light bulbs (CFLs).
By making the switch, Australia could cut global warming pollution by 4 million tons in the next 5 years and cut household electric bills by up to 66 percent with the new legislation. Bulbs that do not meet energy efficiency requirements would be gradually banned from sale. Exemptions would be made for special circumstances like medical lighting.
CFLs use about 20 percent of the power as traditional bulbs to make the same amount of light. With traditional bulbs, most of the energy is lost in the form of heat.
Clean energy supporters applauded the energy efficiency plan as a good first step to cutting global warming pollution, but pointed out that the vast majority of Australia’s emissions comes from industrial sources like coal-fired power plants. To make real cuts in pollution, they argue that Australia must follow up the light bulb legislation with more cuts to global warming pollution from power plants and encourage renewable energy.
Australia’s Prime Minister John Howard is a bit of a newbie when it comes to energy policy: he only recently agreed that humans are causing global warming. But the light bulb legislation is still more than the U.S. government has done, and they’ve acknowledged for years that humans are contributing to global warming.
To get CFLs for your own home, check out your local hardware store or your utility may even sell them. I’ve personally found a good selection of styles at Home Depot. For more info on CFLs, check out Green Options’ Tip o’ the Day and the Green Life Guide.
International Business Times
Groovy Green
UPDATE: There appears to be some discrepency inside the Bush Administration as to whether humans are causing global warming. Although reports from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency link human activity to higher temperatures, Dick Cheney said in a recent interview that it’s still unclear whether humans or “natural cycles” are to blame. Check out the full ABC news story here.
March 6th, 2007 at 3:47 am
This website claims that it will save 800,000 tons of CO2 in Australia. A 400% error from 4 million tons.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21258888-421,00.html
The second website you cite claims this as well.
Also, the image is a bit misleading. Light bulb costs aside (let’s assume a CFL bulb will eventually cost the same as an incandescent bulb), the electricity savings from using CFL would be on the order of 80% (this is your number. I checked it and wont dispute). So if an incandescent bulb is costing you $1.50 in electricity, the CFL bulb would cost you $0.30. Not $0.02 like the picture. A 1400% error.
The most important point I want to make is about the claim that switching to CFL bulbs will save 66% on household electricity bills. This assertion is absolutely false. Household electricity consumption is largely used for heat. According to this website, only 4% of an average household electricity bill goes to lighting.
http://www.franklinpud.com/html/faq_energy.html
So a savings of 80% (due to increased light efficiency) of the 4% (of the average bill) works out to be about 3% total savings (about $60/yr). This represents a 2100% error.
I’m not saying CFL bulbs are bad. I just would like to see a little more open honesty and fact-checking when ‘green’ websites are advocating specific government policies. This is the only article I’ve read on the website so far and I’m disappointed. I’ll be back though.
Also, during the winter, if you were to switch to CFL bulbs, it will cost slightly more to heat your house since traditional incandescent bulbs produce heat (95 watts goes to heat for a 100 watt bulb). And the losses aren’t exactly made up for during the summer by running the air conditioner less.
March 6th, 2007 at 4:07 am
I was recently told by a friend that she had heard that the CFLs would “burn” out or “blow” out after a shorter lifetime if they are used in an off and on manner. She further said that a radio show had quoted a company rep. who said that the lights were not designed for off and on usage. Is this accurate? While some lights in some situations are used for longer periods, it seems to be rather constricting on one’s life to assume that the customer would decide not to turn on a light in their basement or leave it on all the time. Are we going to have to buy different lights for different usage patterns?
If this is the case it would also seem to be a disincentive to develop systems which turn lights on when there are people around and turn them off when they leave.
Also, why don’t they make some kind of cover on these “bulbs” so that we can use old fashioned clip on shades which are extremely common.
Will this government phase in going to take into account that there are fare more forms of incandescent light bulbs than CFLs? Or will large numbers of chandeliers and other decorative and special function lighting need to be ripped out? How much carbon will be produced transporting electricians and new lighting equipment around and disposing of old lighting systems?
I am in favor of energy efficiency gains but I wonder how well this has been thought out.
March 6th, 2007 at 4:35 am
In response to the comment about bulbs burning out or blowing out. According to the Wikipedia article on CFL bulbs, they should last an order of magnitude longer than traditional incandescent bulbs under typical usage. There are probably certain cases that would be different such as rapidly turning it on and off. And from my understanding of incandescent bulbs, they would burn out quickly as well.
Government policies do not need to be well thought out as long as enough people are on board with the idea.
March 6th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
I live in South Africa, a while ago we had some major energy problems due to a fall out at the largest power plant in SA. The government had switch points to which you could take your older lightbulbs, and trade them in for newer flourescent bulbs. They also put a tax on the older bulbs.
The only problem with the flourescents is that they give off a “not so nice” light.
March 8th, 2007 at 6:34 am
Your source says the CFLs will save 800,000 tons a year by 2012. My source says the CFLs will save 4 million tons by the year 2012.
800,000 x 5 = 4 million. It's the same amount explained differently.
July 28th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Hi,
even more efficient than CFLs are LED light bulbs.
They are the white leds sold at 33 cents (us dollar cents) each,often 2-3 cents when purchased in bulk.
These are now appearing as 8 watt bulbs with equivalent illumination of 60 watts incandescent.
A replacement light bulb is around eight dollars,conatining 25 Leds.
My personnal opinion is that light bulbs optimising is penny wise,and neglecting solar is pound foolish,for a desertic country as big as australia.
my home solution is a 12V solar charged deep cycling battery,connected to leds at night.Avoiding Ac-ac adptors increases the efficiency drastically,as transformers use more energy than LEDS.
April 25th, 2008 at 2:32 am
[...] Green Options: Throw Another Old-Fashioned Light Bulb on the Barbie [...]