Australia to phase out incandescent bulbs by 2010

While some US cities like Raleigh are already planning steps to cut back on energy wastes by converting to more efficient lighting systems, it looks like the entire continent of Australia could be following suit. Claiming to be the "world's first" national government to phase out incandescent light bulbs in favor of the more "fuel-efficient, compact fluorescent bulb," environment minister Malcolm Turnbull is hoping to "cut Australia's greenhouse gas emissions by four million metric tonnes a year by 2015." Citing the "climate changes" the world is facing as a "global challenge," Turnbell also urged other nations to follow suit in making a difference, but didn't exactly open up his personal wallet to stock our households with those uber-pricey bulbs. Interestingly, some environmentalists feel that the bulk of greenhouse gas emissions come from government and business-related activities, which should presumably take priority over swapping out a country's light bulbs. Still, we've got no complaints with hooking homes up with LED / fluorescent options to help Mother Earth, but shouldn't Australia (and America, too) ink its name on the Kyoto Protocol before getting all high and mighty about saving the planet?

[Riod @ Feb 20th 2007 1:30PM]

"uber pricey light bulbs" -
I use lightbulbs like that that I bought from IKEA.
They really aren't that expensive... this isn't that "LED-bulb" we're talking about.

[Christian Martin @ Feb 20th 2007 1:32PM]

Some of us are adversely affected by fluorescent lighting. Personally speaking, prolonged exposure to strong overhead fluorescent lighting (out of the corner of my eye, for example) gives me a blinding (no pun intended) headache. Seem to be okay with LEDs though.

I guess this kind of thing doesn't happen in Australia? Calling Professor Xavier...

[Karl @ Feb 20th 2007 1:41PM]

Australia is a country, not a continent.

I like the decision, though. Hopefully Philips will start rocking some of those flasy LED bulbs we sw back in 04/05.

[James @ Feb 20th 2007 1:57PM]

Sorry Karl, but Australia is a continent. I live there. I would know. But alas, it also is a country. We are a lucky island continent/country, but we usually call ourselves a continent because it sounds better. I mean what other country can claim it is a continent also? Theres a few but i'm too tired to think right now. Post a reply of some if you like. Personally I think its the right idea, but I think the LED/OLED bulb may have been a smarter alternative. Either way, the bill is designed to open up alternatives, not just to flogg off CFLs, so hopefully the energy saving market will boom after this, and our non-kyoto signing arse will be spared from the firey depths of hell :)

And now to cut energy from industry and gov't departments......

[Karl @ Feb 20th 2007 2:28PM]

ok, my bad.

But then, what continent is New Zealand in? I always thought the two together were Australasia (called Oceania by the Americans).

[John @ Feb 26th 2007 4:13PM]

New Zealened isnt in a continent as such. It is a seperate island

[chasing @ Feb 20th 2007 1:41PM]

They're hardly "uber-pricey", Australia isn't being "high and mighty", and being a Kyoto signatory doesn't mean much when signing countries aren't meeting targets.

[elam110 @ Feb 25th 2007 2:26AM]

I'm pretty sure no countries had standards to meet until the end of 2007...at least, that is what I said in my project on Kyoto...I hope I wasn't wrong...

[oscar @ Feb 20th 2007 1:42PM]

the thing is, ALL fluorescent lightbulbs (including compact fluorescents) contain mercury, which is possibly just as bad for the environment. there is ongoing research being performed to develop solid state lighting, which contains no mercury and still runs cold to the touch. just give it a few years, it's being developed by mitsubishi as we speak.

[D @ Feb 20th 2007 1:50PM]

If your house is powered by a coal plant, you're causing more mercury emission by running an incandescent light than you would by running a mercury-containing CFL (including emission from powering the CFL and the mercury in the CFL itself). The mercury in the CFL's also a lot easier to isolate.

[eliot h @ Feb 20th 2007 1:44PM]

I've been seeing a lot of jabber about flourescents and how countries states and cities are planning to force users to get rid of incandescents.

While the concept is certainly tempting, as with any sweeping generality, isn't it a little short sighted? Not all incandescents are created equal, and the same holds for flourescents and even LED lights.

1) I use flourescents whenever possible, but many brands and types have that bothersome flicker. This can cause headaches that can easily be avoided using incandescents.

2) Many flourescents contain toxic substances like mercury gas that are bad for the environment when disposed of, and can be harmful to people if the bulbs are broken.

3) Flourescents also typically use a lot more glass than incadescents. I don't know what environmental impact that has, but insiting on their use without considering it (which appears to be the case here) seems short sighted.

4) Incandescents give off heat, whereas most flourescents don't. Sometimes that heat is desireable.

5) What is the failure rate of flourescents? depending on brand, I have seen some less expensive flourescents (and some of the priciest full spectrum lights) go out almost as fast as incandescent bulbs.

6) What of long life incandescents? I have used some bulbs that have lasted for 3 or 4 years. That's a pretty long time.

7) Finally, and this effects me the most, flourescents give off typically a different color and quality of light. I record video, and while there are flourescent bulbs out there that have the correct color temps, those systems typically are a lot more expensive because the flicker has to be compensted for. So what would I do?

In my mind, the answer isn't an abrubt phase out. The answer is to increase the longevity requirements for incandescents, and perhaps to tax them, to pay for development of things like LED and OLED lighting. That kind of lighting lasts a very long time, doesn't have the flicker issue, and can be any color desired.

But it seems to me tht there would always be a place for a small niche of incandescents. The solution to all the worlds consumption problems is not to make the things we dislike illegal. At worst, perhaps a government could switch to one type of bulb to set an example and bring down price by increasing a market. But prohibition? It didn't work with alcohol, it won't work with other goods, either.

[Homer J @ Feb 20th 2007 1:48PM]

Living in NYC we pay about $.20 per kwh - almost 3 times what some other places in the country pay. Swapping out regular bulbs for CFs saved me a bundle on my electric bills, and a multi-pack from HomeDepot comes in pretty cheap. My only complaint so far is that dimmable versions of CF bulbs are a) hard to find b) cost an arm and a leg. Otherwise I am sold on CFs - color was hard to take at first, but now prefer it.

Total watts before CF = 840
Total watts after CF = 182

[Colin B @ Feb 20th 2007 1:49PM]

Actually Karl, most elementary schoolers would be glad to inform you Australia is indeed the only country that is also its own continent.

If I missed some weak sarcasm intending to demean Australia...my bad.

On topic, I think that this is a perfectly rational idea that will make a small but useful impact. Once you phase out the sale of incandescents, the rapidly increased demand will result in much cheaper fluorescents, which shouldn't be a problem.

[Connor @ Feb 20th 2007 1:56PM]

Unfortunately, elementary students are often wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_%28continent%29

"The Australian continent is the smallest and lowest-lying of the Earth's continents, having a total land area of some 8,560,000 square kilometres. Though the Commonwealth of Australia occupies much of the continent and is often mistaken for being the entire continent, Australia and adjacent islands are connected by a shallow continental shelf covering some 2,500,000 square kilometres including the Sahul Shelf[2][3] and Bass Strait and half of which is less than 50 metres deep.

As Australia the country is largely comprised of a single island, and comprises most of Australia the continent, it is sometimes informally referred to as "the island continent", especially for marketing purposes. [4] Pedagogic simplification also results in many school children being taught that the continent and the country are synonymous, resulting in the misconception being perpetuated."

[Jeff Lipes @ Feb 20th 2007 1:51PM]

The lightbulbs are an expensive upfront investment, however they pay for themselves (in energy savings) after a few years (because I forget the actual figure, I will omit it). Also, this is just plain the "right" thing to do. More countries need to start with these (relatively) small energy saving initiatives. Though individually small, our actions will be collectively significant. The US needs to get on-board with something like this!

[flipper @ Feb 20th 2007 4:56PM]

James...

Country of Australia = Continental Australia + Tasmania

=> Country of Australia != Continental Australia

[TK101 @ Feb 20th 2007 2:05PM]

Can fluorescents be dimmed? My whole house has dimmer switches, and I'd never give that up :)

[Tek @ Feb 20th 2007 2:06PM]

I think Australia is off the mark. The world should keep following the Kyoto protocol by sending billions of dollars to China each month for a piece of paper that says "Carbon Credit - The Right to Pollute" and helping China fund its oppression of Tibet, ICBM program and nuclear weapons program.

[Liqwid @ Feb 20th 2007 2:24PM]

I wonder what Thomas A. Edison would think of this?

[James @ Feb 20th 2007 8:02PM]

Lol yeah Australasia is made up of Australia, New Zeland, New Guniea and a few neighbouring islands. Co-incidently, it is a part of Oceania however, which adds to the list Melanesia, Polynesia, Micronesia. These small island groups are technically a mix of French, British, USA, New Zeland and Australian 'owned' (for lack of a better word) territories. Anyway, most NZ people hate it when they are accidently called Aussies, because they are sheep rooters hehe

[laughing boy @ Feb 20th 2007 2:53PM]

Saving engergy is great and all but man-made global warming is the biggest scam since the population bomb, global cooling and peak oil.

[cheeze @ Feb 20th 2007 3:13PM]

doesn't austria have loads of baron sun drenched land? couldn't they just set up a giant solar power farm? this would be taking the problem to it's roots instead of just one of the contributing factors.

[Tim @ Feb 21st 2007 9:03PM]

Please don't call my country "Austria".

[rry6961 @ Feb 20th 2007 3:20PM]

koyoto protocol is a horrible solution. check this video out for more information

http://www.ted.com/tedtalks/tedtalksplayer.cfm?key=b_lomborg

im not sure of why the USA didnt sign the kyoto protocol but you might consider the possibility that the reason isnt for purely selfish reasons.

[sfddfgdfdfg @ Mar 24th 2007 7:46AM]

does this idiot really impress you?

[Hank Cazorp @ Feb 20th 2007 3:26PM]

Perfect symbolism. The environmentalist movement-- anti-progress, anti-technology, and anti-human--outlaws one of the most historically significant inventions: the light bulb.

What's next, the wheel?

[Marian @ Feb 20th 2007 4:09PM]

Aaa... what?
Are you stupid or what?

[JB @ Feb 20th 2007 3:38PM]

Cheese

I think getting the solar power from Europe to AustrALIA may be a little cost prohibitive ;-)

[J @ Feb 20th 2007 3:58PM]

chasing, I disagree. If australia (and america) can't even commit to signing the protocol, why should they be allowed to make suggestions to the rest of the world?

...and my god, people. continent or country. it's because of people like you that teachers like mine still don't like it when I research off the internet.

[Bill @ Feb 20th 2007 4:00PM]

We've been replacing our incandescents with fluorescents but noticed the fluorescents don't work in every situation. For instance, outside flood lights/security light on a motion sensor and those on a light sensor (that turn a light on when it's dark) reduce the life of fluorescents dramatically. In most cases we got a matter of a few days use out of them before they stopped working. The manufacturer says they won't work with motion and light sensors.

And what about freezer lights? My CF's don't work well in the cold.

[Frank @ Feb 20th 2007 4:28PM]

Ugh, I wish you would have just left that last comment out. I prefer my gadget news sans political commentary if you please. I won't bother to point out the problems with Kyoto, as others already have.

[Jeff @ Feb 20th 2007 4:33PM]

"1) I use flourescents whenever possible, but many brands and types have that bothersome flicker. This can cause headaches that can easily be avoided using incandescents."

This is true; there is a *big* variation in the quality of CFL's from manufacturer to manufacturer. Worse still, some of the worst CFL's are made by some of the biggest manufacturers (or are at least sold by them). In my house, I have some decent CFL's and some awful CFL's - I keep the awful ones in places like the basement and attic.

"2) Many flourescents contain toxic substances like mercury gas that are bad for the environment when disposed of, and can be harmful to people if the bulbs are broken."

The idea is you don't dispose of them very often. Most CFL's will last ten years, and the harm to the environment is much less than powering an incandescent bulb with a coal or oil power plant.

"3) Flourescents also typically use a lot more glass than incadescents. I don't know what environmental impact that has, but insiting on their use without considering it (which appears to be the case here) seems short sighted."

The difference in the amount of glass is pretty negligible. And glass is made of sand, and there are environmentally-friendly ways of making it anyway.

It's kind of like saying a double-paned window is less environmentally friendly than a single-paned window just because it uses twice as much glass, even though the double-paned window saves a lot more energy. It's a more than worthwhile tradeoff. The extra glass doesn't really matter at all, because the point is to *reduce* your overall environmental footprint, not *eliminate* it. CFL's aren't going to turn us all into treehuggers. They're just better for the environment than incandescents, because they're more efficient. That doesn't mean they have no impact at all, just less of one.

"4) Incandescents give off heat, whereas most flourescents don't. Sometimes that heat is desireable."

It's about the least efficient way of generating heat you could think up. It would be far more efficient to just turn up your thermostat one or two degrees than to run a bunch of incandescents solely or even partially for the purposes of heat. It's always better to use any item for the purpose for which it was designed, because it's going to be the most efficient when used in that way. You wouldn't use an electric heater for light, would you? Then why use a light bulb for heat?

"6) What of long life incandescents? I have used some bulbs that have lasted for 3 or 4 years. That's a pretty long time."

You're still not saving any energy. You're still running 100 watts and getting about 15 watts worth of light out of it.

"7) Finally, and this effects me the most, flourescents give off typically a different color and quality of light. I record video, and while there are flourescent bulbs out there that have the correct color temps, those systems typically are a lot more expensive because the flicker has to be compensted for. So what would I do?"

I don't think anybody is suggesting replacing professional lighting systems with fluorescent bulbs. Tungsten lighting systems will always exist, but these are specialized bulbs for specialized uses.

All that said, I'm still not ready to replace every single incandescent bulb in my house with a CFL. I have a few, and that's probably all I'm going to ever have until forced. I still find the light harsh (even "soft white" CFL's of good quality), and honestly my electric bill has gone *up* since installing them. (Not the CFL's fault, obviously, but the point is they don't magically reduce your overall electric usage. For a lot of people, lighting is only a small part of their overall bill.)

I don't think CFL's are the answer to efficient lighting, honestly. As you can tell by my answers above, I understand the reasoning behind using them, but I think the real solution is going to have to involve more pleasing light that people are actually going to want to use. Maybe that will eventually be LED. LED is not there yet, but maybe someday it will be - and it's already even more efficient than CFL (it's just not bright enough when diffused, or available in enough color variations). But if not LED, it'll be something else. But I don't see CFL's ever really going mainstream in this country because they're just ugly light compared to incandescents (or halogen, which is even more pleasing light but no better environmentally).

Fluorescent lights already are mainstream in Japan, FWIW, and it drives me crazy whenever I'm there. Their houses could be so beautiful, but they always look so drab and ugly inside because of the lighting.

[ryan @ Feb 20th 2007 6:25PM]

"4) Incandescents give off heat, whereas most flourescents don't. Sometimes that heat is desireable."

"It's about the least efficient way of generating heat you could think up. It would be far more efficient to just turn up your thermostat one or two degrees than to run a bunch of incandescents solely or even partially for the purposes of heat. It's always better to use any item for the purpose for which it was designed, because it's going to be the most efficient when used in that way. You wouldn't use an electric heater for light, would you? Then why use a light bulb for heat?




I don't think the original poster was referring to actually heating a house with a lightbulb... but situations like, outdoor lamp posts in the winter. the heat of the bulb will melt the snow off. I think I read a post about this in cars - some manufacturer had developed LED headlights that were almost as effective as halogens, but because they hardly produced any heat, ice and snow accumulated quickly so a heater needed to be added. Besides the issues with differences in color temperature, There are many products out there that don't operate properly on anything but incandescents. Good luck getting your lava lamp working... and a 100 watt fluorescent wont work very well in your kid's easy bake oven.

[Mike Campbell @ Feb 20th 2007 6:14PM]

Jeff, I lived in Japan for 3 years and was very frustrated that I couldn't find an incandescent bulb or a light fixture to take it anywhere. I'm sure the net savings in electricity is huge but, as you said, the quality of light in people's homes is very poor. Does anyone know why the Japanese uniformly use fluorescents everywhere? Did the government play some role in getting their population to switch over?

[granny down east @ Feb 20th 2007 11:39PM]

"Then why use a light bulb for heat?"
You've never allowed your bread dough to rise in an oven with the light on, then.
Or used an incandescent light bulb to create an environment for germinating seedlings.
I could go on, but the point is, incandescence is low tech but useful. Don't support government making your decisions for you.

[BowserUSC @ Feb 20th 2007 5:12PM]

The Kyoto Protocol has been proven that it will not reduce emmisions enought to have a significant impact on helping our environment. It's a simple question then, why sign something that isnt gonna do us any good. Now I do believe in global warming and all of that, not a denyer, but the countries who didnt sign it, did so because it didnt make a difference if they did or not.

[antman @ Feb 20th 2007 5:59PM]

I'm from Oz and despite it's stated reasons our government didn't support Kyoto because it didn't believe global warming was caused by human activity.

[Matt @ Feb 20th 2007 5:38PM]

After trying every fluroescent bulb out there, at every price, I've come to a simple conclusion: no matyter how it's packaged, fluorescent light sucks the life out of me, and everything it touches.

I decided to stick with incandescent bulbs, but also that I would get as much light per watt as possible, with as little waste as possible. I now use use nothing but GE Edison long-life halogen bulbs. They put a small halogen element into standard form factors.

It's the purest light I've ever seen from a bulb; amazingly bright and damn close to sunlight. It actually contributes to my state of mind, rather than depressing me. I also can't remember the last time I replaced one.

They're a little pricey, but the difference is staggering.

[Matt Hadder @ Feb 23rd 2007 3:00AM]

Matt,

Halogens are nice, but if you want light that has been purposely designed for the human eye, try an Ott-Lite.

They're high efficiency, reduce eye strain, full spectrum, improve mood and vitality, plants like them too.

Try an Ott-Lite for a week, for reading or etc, and you'll likely never go back to anything else.

[tekdroid @ Feb 20th 2007 5:47PM]

so what does this proposed policy mean for stage lights, halogen light fittings, flood lights, etc...?

If fluorescents were a replacement for everything, I could understand it. But they're not.

Hope a nice recycling scheme is implemented for all the wasted fluorescents polluting the environment far more than incandescents could ever hope to.

(better yet, I hope for better lighting to replace compact fluorescents)

[bgdc @ Feb 20th 2007 7:09PM]

Uber-pricey? WTF? Go to costco/sams club and you can buy a pack of 8 for $10. That's a measely 1.25 per lightbulb. I've replaced most of the lights in my home with them as they simply last so much longer that I'm not stuck climbing up a ladder to swap lightbulbs once a year.

[nikster @ Feb 20th 2007 7:24PM]

here in Asia everyone's using fluorescents - horrible white light, not nearly as warm as incandescent. Nevertheless people use them because every peasant in Asia knows that the total cost over the lifetime of the lamp is far below incandescent lighting. Calling these expensive is silly.

That said, there are fluorescents that have warm light. But the real solution will be LED lighting especially the sort where you can set the color temperature.

I am hoping Australia is going to implement this because it will lower the costs and spur research for alternatives. In any case, they should have made a law that defines lumen/watt not a technology like "incandescent". The goal is to save electricity, isn't it?

[DAZA @ Feb 20th 2007 7:57PM]

Where I live (a large regional city in Australia - Wollongong), all traffic lights are starting to have their lights replaced by LEDs. The result is amazing, the red, amber and green is far brighter and much easier to see (not that it wasn't already easy, but it's far more noticeable now). This means we're saving on energy and the lights don't have to be replaced anywhere near as often. To my surprise, this has all happened without much fanfare, I've hardly heard anything about it till now - I was just driving one day and thought to myself, "hey, those lights are a lot brighter than before..!" :-)

[James @ Feb 21st 2007 9:43PM]

Yeah I first noticed the change in those portable traffic lights they use for road works! Then our own town got them it was like wow. Our town is bumpkin as we live like 5 hours south from you, Merimbula.

[Tom @ Feb 20th 2007 9:55PM]

Great point about Kyoto. If only stephen harper could get his act together about it.

Also very valid points regarding mercury and more glass. Glass does not have a very clean manufacturing process at all, and that should never be forgotten. What the government of Australia should be doing is promoting less usage of lights in general, ie. an office building after hours: why have it lit up like a roman candle?

And to the idiot a couple posts above: Australia is both a country and a continent, make sure you know what the fuck you're talking about before correcting somebody.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent

[Bloobie @ Feb 20th 2007 10:38PM]

Kudos to the country (and continent.. https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/as.html) of Australia for taking the initiative to reducing energy consumption rather than just sitting there "talking" about the energy crisis. So many environmental problems could be solved if we simply reduced energy consumption. A perfect example of this is the new Adobe building (http://news.com.com/2300-11746_3-6157708-1.html?tag=ne.gall.pg) Funny how no one is complaining about frequent headaches and other problems with fluorescent lighting considering that about 85% of all lighting in US commercial buildings is fluorescent, not incandescent. Unfortunately, bulb manufacturers do not want you to buy fluorescent bulbs, as Wal-Mart knows all too well. Wal-Mart wants to aggressively promote fluorescent bulbs in its stores, much to the objection of bulb manufacturers who argue that a push to fluorescent will greatly decrease their profits. Sell longer-lasting bulbs and people will buy less often, plain and simple.

[Jon Thompson @ Feb 20th 2007 11:00PM]

I have florescent lights throughout my home and work for energy savings.

With that said, I have spoken with autistic individuals such as Temple Grandin, and non-autistic individuals such as my own brother who can see the flicker. In my brother it is only a severe distraction. In an autistic individual, it can destroy their ability to function. I wonder what it subliminally does to the rest of us.

My point is that while florescent lights are the future, they are not the end-all that others seem to believe. There is a lot of work to be done on these technologies before they should be accepted as the standard for a country.

[SuddenDisruption @ Feb 20th 2007 11:03PM]

The Energy Star Efficiency Myth

For years the Federal Energy Star program has perpetuated the myth that if you buy appliances (or any electrical device) for the home that uses less energy, you'll see proportional savings in your monthly power bill. This is rarely the case.

Other eco-writers do similar simplistic math to calculate savings in money, energy and carbon. A recent example is Charles Fishman's September 2006 article in Fast Company magazine about WalMart's CFL project, "How Many Lightbulbs Does it Take to Change the World?".

The claim is made that if a single light bulb using 45 watts less is placed in 100 million homes, 6.57 billion Kilo-Watt-Hours will be saved. The fact is, unless you are cooling your house, there is ZERO savings. Charles focused on the bulb, but forgot about the home. His entire premise is based on a false assumption. The savings are grossly exaggerated for most homes.

"Wasted" energy takes the form of heat. And this heat helps keep you warm, if only just a small amount. For most of America, for much of the year, that 45 watts will be automatically added back in by the home heating system to maintain the same level of comfort. If the home is heated with electricity, the savings in dollars, energy and carbon production is literally ZERO.

The only time energy is actually saved is when the air conditioning is running or you have the windows open to cool the house. With the air conditioning on, the savings can even be a little greater than 45 watts, but for most of America that's a small part of the year. What are the savings for the rest of the year?

ZERO!

If you are not cooling your home, EVERY light bulb and appliance is 100% efficient.

Here's why...

The second law of thermodynamics demonstrates that "wasted" energy tends to disperse evenly. And if this "wasted" energy is in your house, it simply keeps you warm. More importantly, it keeps your normal heat source from turning on. Let's see how it plays out in a real home and why saving energy by turning off the lights is mostly an illusion (pardon the pun).

If you have a home in the northern latitudes which is electrically heated much of the year, you are a net consumer of heat. And the nice thing about heat is that It doesn't matter where it comes from. And that's the key.

Take a light bulb that's only 10% efficient. That means 90% of it's energy is converted directly to heat. So what happens to that heat? It spreads out through your house and slightly delays your normal heating system from clicking on.

And what about the 10% of the energy in the form of visible light? Virtually all of it strikes objects in the house. It too is converted to heat. The ONLY ineffectiveness of a light bulb in a northern home in the winter is the light that escapes through the windows, which is a VERY small amount. Even THAT can be stopped with curtains making ANY light bulb 100% effective at producing heat. Here's how Wiki explains it... Efficiency versus Effectiveness.

Why do I qualify this with northern homes and winter? Because if you have to open the windows to be comfortable, you lose the advantage. And if you have to turn on the air conditioning, this "effectiveness" actually becomes a small liability. So those of you in Florida and south Texas... nevermind.

It's all about heat, where it moves and how we store it. But for most of America, much of the year, energy efficiency is very much an illusion. Effectiveness rules the day because we actually USE that "inefficient" heat.

And if your windows are closed but your heat is NOT turned on? Or not turned on until later at night? Those appliances are still 100% effective. That's because they are helping keep the house warm. They are one reasons your electric heat hasn't come on yet. If that heat doesn't come from one source, it has to come from another.

But what if you're a bit on the warm side in late afternoon but you haven't opened the windows? Again, it doesn't matter. This thermal intertia will delay heating later on. As long as you don't have to cool your house, everything is 100% effective. Let's take a couple more examples.

Electric blanket - 100% effective. If you turn it off, the electric wallboard heating will kick up 100 watts to compensate: net cost of blanket electricty for the same comfort level - zero.

TV, DVD & computer - Left on all the time? No problem, as long as the air conditioning doesn't kick on.

Hair dryer - 100% effective (and only used for short periods anyway), so get every hair in place.

Electric touthbrush - Yep. Even the charger is a perfect machine.

Refrigiator - 100% effective. This is one of my favorites. What does a refrigiator do? That's right. It compresses gas to pump heat from the inside to the outside of the ice box. Where does that heat go? It heats the kitchen! Even the compressor is 100% effective! Once again, it saves energy that might come from electric heat.

Why do I keep referring to electric heat instead of oil or gas? That's because in the past gas has been far cheaper than electricity per BTU. This made electrical devices a little less "effective" (and a little more expensive) in producing that "wasted" heat. Unfortunately, cheap gas is history. The price of oil and gas now approachs that of electricity (at least during the price spikes which are likely to be more common in the future). So for many, there's no big difference. Leaving your TV on is almost as cost effective as buying natural gas.

This "effectiveness" creates the strange situation where you could turn EVERYTHING in the house off (except for the electric heat) and set in the dark for a winter month with no entertainment or hot food - and your power bill would be EXACTLY same. Try it sometime. You'll see.

This also means you could go out and buy the most efficient light bulbs you could find and all new Energy Star appliances; STILL the power bill would be EXACTLY same. So enjoy your gadgets and think twice before spending extra for "efficiency". Spend your money were it counts.

And where might that be? If there's little advantage to "efficient" appliances, how can we save energy and money? That's another blog post, but start by taking a look at the heat leaving your home through the walls or down the drain as hot water. Those two are your biggest loses.

Heat and air conditioning use 50% of home energy. Better insulation and sealing can save up to 25% of your energy cost for the typical home. But make sure the house still has reasonable ventilation - especially in radon areas. And hot water is about 13% of your energy use, so again, use it carefully. It's not effective to heat up the sewer drains.

Which brings up one important exception to this "effectiveness" rule - the clothes dryer. It blows it's heat outside and also brings in cold air - you lose. It's a good reason to get a clothes line. Or use the dryer sparingly.

And if you still want to buy some of those CFL blubs, put them outside. That's one place where ALL the savings count.

There you have it. Now you can sleep better (and warmer) knowing your heat isn't as "wasted" as you thought.

OK. If you still want to know how much of that 65.7 KWH you would save by buying that bulb, multiply it by the ratio of cooling days over days in a year (365.25). The extra air conditioning load will be offset by less probable need for light in the summer. For me in Reno, Nevada that extra efficiency can be used about a quarter of the time (in the summer) which is probably about average for America. This makes WalMart's claim overstated by four times - you decide if that bulb still makes sense.

But why would Fast Company, WalMart and Energy Star not point this out? Simple. It would make the story less exciting, WalMart would sell fewer light bulbs and... and... and I don't know WHAT'S wrong with the Federal government.

So from now on, don't let some slick magazine make you think a new light bulb will solve all your problems; don't expect WalMart to always save you money. And finally, don't expect the government to set them both straight. When you hear about efficiency, think also about effectiveness.

And quit worrying about your household appliances.

They are almost perfect machines much of the year..

No matter what their efficiency rating.

Sudden Disruption
--
Sudden View...
the radical option for editing text
http://www.sudden.net/
http://suddendisruption.blogspot.com

[bgdc @ Feb 21st 2007 12:27AM]

Yeah, don't let the government decide for you, make a logical choice. Is it worth 50 cents to climb a ladder and change a light in your home office every year? Not to me. At a $1 a piece a CF will easily do the job for 5-6-7-8 years.

[Ben Hobbs @ Feb 21st 2007 7:21AM]

Suddendisruption

For every watt that is used to re-heat a house, wouldn't there be an additional watt of electricity that would need to be used to cool a house using incandescent lighting, somewhere else in the country where it's hotter.

Your hypothesis is only correct if everyone is constantly trying to warm our homes, approx 50% of the time people throughout the world are trying to cool down their homes, live in hotter climates or its summer. So the net effect of the "warmth" given off by incandescents is nil, add in teh fact that heat rises and bulbs are on/in the ceiling and your stupidly long post makes even less sense.