Password Magazine - Issue 31
|
February 2008
|
|||||||
|
With climate change moving from back-page news to frontpage headline, the compact fluorescent bulb has a new lease on life – 25 years after it first hit the market.
Once an oddity in the world of lighting, energy-efficient compact fluorescent lamps (or CFLs) are making a comeback now that climate change is firmly on the agenda of politicians, CEOs and even celebrities.  Changing the world one bulb at a time Why all the new attention? On average, CFLs use 70-80% less energy than the typical incandescent bulb to generate the same amount of light – making them an increasingly popular way to do something good for the environment and your wallet. Less energy means less carbon dioxide emitted into the environment from the burning of fossil fuels – the most common way to generate energy. Most experts believe carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are a major contributor to global warming (aka climate change). Although estimates vary, swapping just one incandescent bulb for a CFL could save up to 500 pounds of CO2 emissions – equivalent to driving a few thousand miles in a car. Research also shows that CFLs last anywhere from four to eight times longer than the typical incandescent meaning fewer bulbs and far less packaging ends up in landfills. More efficient So how do CFLs manage to be so much more efficient than old-style bulbs? The simple answer is incandescent bulbs – with their 125-year-old technology – convert 95% of the energy used into heat while only 5% is released as visible light. In CFLs, the amount of light produced versus energy used is much higher. “Since first introduced over 100 years ago, the incandescent bulb has barely changed,” says Dr Matt Prescott, Director of www.banthebulb.org, an online campaign encouraging greater energy efficiency. “The bulb wastes so much energy that if it were invented today odds are that it wouldn’t even be allowed on the market.” According to Cees Ronda, from Philips Research, the efficiency is in the details. “Incandescents produce a wide spectrum of radiation at numerous wavelengths but most of it is not visible because the temperature is too low. This non-visible light is then released in the form of heat,” he explains. “With CFLs, radiation is generated at specific wavelengths that are visible so less energy is lost as heat. Therefore, CFLs produce a much smaller range of wavelengths but more visible light.” Saving energy, saves money Along with fears of a soon-exhausted oil supply, energy demand is at an all-time high driving up energy costs. With this, CFLs make even more sense. In the USA alone, consumers could save around $6 billion a year in energy costs by installing more energy-efficient lighting, according to the US-based Alliance to Save Energy. But as Prescott points out: “Consumers tend to be short-sighted and focus on the higher upfront cost of an energy-saving bulb, which is disappointing because, in the long term, the running costs of a CFL are much lower.”  In the beginning Much has changed since Philips brought the first CFLs to market in 1980, but the need for energy-efficient lighting is now more important than ever. The story of the CFL begins in the early 1970s when the 1973 oil crisis raised awareness of potential issues with energy consumption and inspired companies, like Philips, to take a more serious interest in energy-efficient lighting. Developments made in Philips Research in the late 1960s with rare earth metals and luminescent materials made the CFL technology possible. Harry Verhaar, dubbed ‘Mr Green Switch’ by his colleagues in Philips Lighting, explains: “During the oil crisis, we became aware of the need for more efficient lighting options. As consumers we were asked to save energy when OPEC cut off oil deliveries to Western Europe and the USA. The recent technological advancements allowed us to develop a new lighting technique that was more stable and more efficient.” But when the oil crisis died down so did consumers’ dedication to energy efficiency. So in 1980, when Philips introduced the first CFLs, people didn’t quite embrace them as hoped. The bulb price was high and consumers lacked understanding of the long-term energy and cost savings. Light quality was another issue as consumers thought the color was too harsh and had no patience for the time it took for CFLs to fully light. Times are changing Fortunately, in the 25 years since first hitting the market, CFLs have come a long way. They no longer flicker or buzz and the light quality has improved dramatically. Newer CFLs offer a warmer soft-white light, take less time to light up and have become significantly smaller. They’re also more versatile with different sockets and dimming capabilities. But research suggests that although the bulb has evolved, consumers are stuck in the past. “From market research we learned that still few people know about all the improvements made in CFLs over the last decade or so,” notes Verhaar. No longer a choice If recent legislation is anything to go by, consumers may soon have no choice but to switch to CFLs. In 1997, most developed countries signed the Kyoto Protocol – a groundbreaking agreement that attempts to mitigate climate change through mandatory reductions in greenhouse gases, particularly CO2 emissions. As the 2012 target nears, governments are scrambling to make a real impact on their CO2 emissions, which for some includes the phasing out or eventual banning of incandescent bulbs. In early 2007, Australia announced a ban on incandescent bulbs in favor of CFLs by 2010, after a government-initiated study found CFLs to be five times more energy efficient than incandescents. Canada announced in April 2007 that it will ban the sale of incandescent bulbs by 2012 in a bid to curb greenhouse gas emissions. In October of the same year, the state of California (USA) announced that it will phase out the use of incandescent bulbs by 2018 as part of a bill aptly titled: ‘How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Light Bulb’. Other US states have similar legislation pending. |
|